Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

S.B.G said:
I just came across this link on Reddit r/headphones of an NPR quick audio test. The story was posted a few years ago but its still worth a look and a fun 6 sample test.

Essentially you listen to 6 different song clips, 3 samples each.
  • 128kbps mp3
  • 320kbps mp3
  • Uncompressed WAV
Listen to them all and select which one you think is the best. Hopefully you can distinguish the uncompressed WAV sample.

I did rather well and scored a 5/6 missing only the last one when I erroneously selected the 320kbps mp3.

For my listening I used the Schiit Magni 3 amp, Schiit Modi Multibit DAC and the Sennheiser HD 650 headphones.

Follow this link to NPR and see what you get and post your scores and the equipment you used to test it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Click to expand...

AES had already conducted studies some years ago finding that in double-blind tests people cannot distinguish between 256 Kbps AAC, 320 Kbps Mp3, and 16-bit Stereo LPCM. I'm not sure why Mp3, the latest release of which is now 26 years old, is part of this test versus AAC or ALAC.

It is a misunderstanding of compression and perceptual coding algorithms that leads people to believe that there is some kind of discernible difference.

I highly recommend reading Principles of Digital Audio by Ken Pohlmann. It is the most valuable reference material on this subject matter. Among other things it dispels various audiophile myths including the notion that you need the most expensive DAC on the planet to correct jitter and other artifacts when longer sample & hold times and internal reclocking of the signal had already resolved these issues in most consumer DACs by 1985.

So unless you're listening to your music through a Sony PCM-F1 (you aren't) most of these perceived problems have been nonexistent for four decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seggy
olavsu1 said:
It is important that the AKM chips are inside.
Click to expand...
It's personal preference for sure. I understand that there are subtle differences in DAC chips and sometimes we prefer one over another.

I have several DACs with AKM, ESS, and Wolfson chips inside. The companies products they are in range from Geshelli Labs, Schiit Audio and Cambridge Audio. Briefly had one from JDS Labs as well.

Day to day listening and I cannot tell a difference between them. Occasionally I'll do some critical listening and once in a while I can discern small differences, but never anything significant. Even then I question my own experiences and hearing taking into consideration the placebo effect.

I find this hobby very subjective with far too many variables to ever make solid, blanket statements of fact about it all. At the same time I find the hobby very fun and always interesting.

Regardless, what it all comes down to with me that I enjoy what I am listening to. If I'm happy with my rig and the sound it delivers, then that is all that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cave Man
I have also collected comparisons between AKM, Wolfson, Cirrus Logic, ESS and Sigmatel AC97. AKM has been the best.
 
S.B.G said:
It's personal preference for sure. I understand that there are subtle differences in DAC chips and sometimes we prefer one over another.

I have several DACs with AKM, ESS, and Wolfson chips inside. The companies products they are in range from Geshelli Labs, Schiit Audio and Cambridge Audio. Briefly had one from JDS Labs as well.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know what chip(s) Cambridge Audio uses? I have one of their streamer/DACs arriving Friday!
 
BotchQue said:
Do you happen to know what chip(s) Cambridge Audio uses? I have one of their streamer/DACs arriving Friday!
Click to expand...
It depends. Which one did you buy? I have a CXN V2 streamer/DAC which has the Wolfson chip. I also have a DACMagic 200M and it has the ESS Sabre chip.

You can look up your device on their website for the specs.

www.cambridgeaudio.com

Cambridge Audio US

Original British designed, high quality Hi-Fi and Home Cinema, Wireless Speakers and Network Players, for people who really listen to music.
www.cambridgeaudio.com www.cambridgeaudio.com
 
S.B.G said:
It depends. Which one did you buy? I have a CXN V2 streamer/DAC which has the Wolfson chip. I also have a DACMagic 200M and it has the ESS Sabre chip.

You can look up your device on their website for the specs.

www.cambridgeaudio.com

Cambridge Audio US

Original British designed, high quality Hi-Fi and Home Cinema, Wireless Speakers and Network Players, for people who really listen to music.
www.cambridgeaudio.com www.cambridgeaudio.com
Click to expand...
Thanks. I bought the AX-N, which is identical but in a smaller size (not sure why they did that), so probably has the Wolfson chip.
 
S.B.G said:
I have several DACs with AKM, ESS, and Wolfson chips inside. The companies products they are in range from Geshelli Labs, Schiit Audio and Cambridge Audio. Briefly had one from JDS Labs as well.

Day to day listening and I cannot tell a difference between them. Occasionally I'll do some critical listening and once in a while I can discern small differences, but never anything significant. Even then I question my own experiences and hearing taking into consideration the placebo effect.
Click to expand...
This doesn't surprise me at all. I find the biggest difference even then is, as you would absolutely expect, not with the actual DAC chip itself but with the 'analog' circuitry directly after the DAC chip.

This was often the case with CD players. One of the most famous DAC chips for CD players was the Philips TD1541A. It was used in loads of players, obviously including Philips, but also such as Naim, Marantz, Mcintosh, and Rotel. (There's a full list if you scroll to the bottom of <this page>). All these players had a different sonic signature despite using fundamentally the same DAC chip, because of the different ways manufacturers built the audio circuity after the DAC itself.
 
It is easy to hear the difference between mp3 128kbps and FLAC. The difference between mp3 191kbps and FLAC is often easy to hear, but sometimes not, depending on the song. How easily you can hear it also depends on the hardware you are using. Different speakers have different qualities in reproduction and detail of reproduction.

For example, I think most people can hear that the recordings below are not YouTube quality.

[mid-range setup] Infinity Alpha 5 + Sony STR-DB790

OpenBSD demo with Infinity Alpha 5 + Sony STR-DB790.wav

drive.google.com drive.google.com

OpenBSD demo #2 with Infinity Alpha 5 + Sony STR-DB790.wav

drive.google.com drive.google.com

[70 EUR newprice all-in-one budget setup] F&D F550X

OpenBSD demo with F&D F550X.wav

drive.google.com drive.google.com

OpenBSD demo #2 with F&D F550X.wav

drive.google.com drive.google.com

YouTube quality usually fluctuates between 130kbps and 175kbps. When I play YouTube videos I see that the bitrate usually fluctuates within these values in the same song. It is not a bitrate that people hear the same as lossless quality.
 
I don't know why MP3 is still a thing in 2025.

It's a 25 y/o lossy algorithym from 'back in the day' when we accessed the internet from 56kbit dialup modems, torrenting illegal CD rips from Limewire or Napster and storing them on an MPMan MP3 player with a 'whopping' 64MB of solid-state storage. It doesn't matter who can or who cannot hear the difference: the fact we're even debating it in 2025 is absurd. In modern times of 5G cellular and gigabit Wifi we just need to collectively say enough is enough to greedy streaming services like Sh!tify, that only stream their content in lossy formats from last century so that they can save 2 cents in bandwidth-costs. But they won't change...because not enough people are bothered enough to complain or leave.

It's wild to me how from an audio perspective most people are satisfied with unnecessary compromise but woe betide if Netflix only offered videos in 480p.
 
Last edited:
Yael-S. said:
YouTube quality usually fluctuates between 130kbps and 175kbps.
Click to expand...
What a waste! YouTube downloader, when it still worked, showed all sorts of audio formats (and video tracks of all levels of quality as well), starting from the worst, ending with hi-end lossless formats.
What you get from them depends on how good your internet connection is.
 
MajorFubar said:
I don't know why MP3 is still a thing in 2025.

It's a 25 y/o lossy algorithym from 'back in the day' when we accessed the internet from 56kbit dialup modems, torrenting illegal CD rips from Limewire or Napster and storing them on an MPMan MP3 player with a 'whopping' 64MB of solid-state storage. It doesn't matter who can or who cannot hear the difference: the fact we're even debating it in 2025 is absurd. In modern times of 5G cellular and gigabit Wifi we just need to collectively say enough is enough to greedy streaming services like Sh!tify, that only stream their content in lossy formats from last century so that they can save 2 cents in bandwidth-costs. But they won't change...because not enough people are bothered enough to complain or leave.

It's wild to me how from an audio perspective most people are satisfied with unnecessary compromise but woe betide if Netflix only offered videos in 480p.
Click to expand...
...because it's good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back