Audiophile or Audio-Fooled? How Good Are Your Ears?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 жов 2017
- In this video, we explore the differences between MP3s, WAV, FLAC (lossless), AAC and whether you can tell the difference? or if it even matters? Discussion on mixing, listening, monitors and audion file formats.
Listening test:
www.npr.org/sections/therecord...
THE BEATO EAR TRAINING PROGRAM: beatoeartraining.com/
BUY THE BEATO BOOK HERE → bit.ly/2uTQFlo
Mastering Modes of the Major Scale Video Course:
bit.ly/2yhlfD2
The new all-PDF Mega Bundle! Get it here: bit.ly/2jfkyaB
SUBSCRIBE HERE → bit.ly/2eEs9gX
--------------------------------------
My Links to Follow:
UA-cam - / rickbeato
Artist Facebook - / rickbeatoproduction
Personal Facebook - / rick.beato.1
Instagram - / rickbeato1
Follow On Twitter - @rickbeato
www.nuryl.com
For those non-musicians that have written to me you can donate to my channel through this link on my website rickbeato.com/pages/donate
Or you can become a member of the Beato Club. My Beato Club is exactly like Patreon.
The reason why audiophiles prefer high-resolution audio up to 24bit, 192kHz, is because of the *loudness war.*
@The Turd Reich of Mar-A-Lago Exactly 24bit will give you more headroom, and it seems like it's necessary now, because the loudness war or volume radio standards will NOT go back to 80s volume standards anymore, and the loudness war will always be a never ending quest, this is life, i'm sorry...
I'm so sick of people saying that 24bit is placebo when in the first place they're listening with a INCORRECT headphones and equipment, or unfortunately people may be unhealthy and/or uneducated, or unable to hear/see *real* world subtle details.
But high resolution audio definitely benefits on loud recordings, not to loudness war but loud enough like Daft Punk's last album.
But this is WHY Hi-Res audio exist, because musicians refuse to lower the volume or stop overcompressing it's music, in favor of quality. Humans cannot hear over 48khz, but it will remove the harshness and the distortion of the recordings.
@The Turd Reich of Mar-A-Lago And finally, the MASTER matters at 95%
@MF Nickster So Hi-fi is dead in that case... Since 1995
@MF Nickster 24bit straight from studio or bought from Qobuz it does... If it was all like you said in the first place Hi-Res and DRM won't be a business in the first place.
As a speaker builder I can say that the audible difference between various SPEAKERS is MUCH greater than the audible difference between lossy and lossless audio files.
firecloud77 true. Speakers, the room you're in, the positioning of the speakers in the room, your positioning regarding to the speakers in the room, even the lighting or your general mood... all much more important than the actual audio format.
in my experience, most people can't hear the audible difference between lossy and lossless audio files either, many don't care or don't have high-quality music systems ... they just want to hear their music and that's fine
@janminor1172 so is level of sobriety
Yes, that is probably the reason why they used puny headphones, to make their test irrelevant.
I got 6 out of 6 cus I figured that if you cycle very fast between the songs, the one that takes the longest to load is the uncompressed song :D.
dosduros work smarter not harder
LOL well played :D
lol
I came to that same conclusion (longest DL= the uncompressed WAV), but Rick is right. Is there any sonic difference between the samples? I didn't hear any.
@@hellbent1567 I heard differences in 4 out of the 6 tracks, but even then I had to not only use the best gear I had but also focus so hard on the individual sounds there was no way i was enjoying the music at the same time.
I loved Steve Guttenerg’s definition of an audiophile...”An audiophile is someone who listens to music without multitasking”. Just listen!
and then there are electrical engineers who actually understand the theories and applications of a component. "Audio-fool" actually was invented by engineers.
Oh and also there are scientists who agree with engineers.
@@ragilmalik By the way they are the same people who make 10k+ power cables lubed with snake oil.
I think a better one was, "Normal people use equipment to listen to artist's music. Audiophiles use artist's music to listen to their equipment."
@@a_lonely_moderate8449 Probably the best comment i've seen on this subject yet..... 👍👍
Some people listen to SOUND, others listen to MUSIC!! 😉
@@conan5885 some listen to both...
I'm an about to retire audio/video engineer who worked worked for Philips mastering the first CDs in the early 80s, and took great pride in making the best possible sound we could produce. I recently met a wealthy gentleman in California that bought amplifiers for his home theater for $900,000 (I'm not joking) to listen to MP3 quality music. I could almost cry when I think about the care we used to take to make such high quality recordings when I see what has become "good enough" today. In my opinion audio quality improved from Emil Berliner in the late1800s until the 1990s when it peaked, and has gone downhill since then.
Would love to hear some stories from that era, mastering the first CDs in the eighties 👍
A bit like listening to some classic rock recordings from the 1970-1980’s on Spotify - what on earth have they done with it? I have vinyl records and know them well.
$900,000 to listen to MP3 quality music...what a travesty! I'm trying to conceive what those cardboard-crap files must've sounded like. Horrendous I'm sure! .
The guy bought one Ferrari to use as a sofa!!!
@@Marcus_C51 900,000 to listen to anything!!!
It's very selfish of him.............I could have used that money to spend on nonsense and gobldygook
I like vinyl because the art is bigger.
That's very true. If you're lucky the inner sleeve has photos or lyrics.
love vinyl too
Yeah, good for 50+ eyes 👀 😉
i like download music file for free
@@sandechoir and look at the pictures on a 1440p screen
I like vinyl because of the expense and the inconvenience.
Good video Rick. Very interesting. When I was a teenager (45 years ago😢) I found the same thing you described was true with speakers. You even touched on that. My advice to people - Buy speakers that sound good to you! Knowing the specs are nice and use them as a guide but ultimately buy speakers that YOU like!
Vinyl compresses the audio dramatically as the needle radius becomes less. The best way for a consumer to listen to recorded must is open reel tape.
My vote goes to the inconvenience. That little ritual does something, builds expectations, commitment, it's like signing a contract. The two of us for the next 20-25 minutes, then I'll flip you over for another round. Makes me a better listener. :D
I love vinyl because of the snaps, crackles and pops -- takes me back to my favorite childhood breakfast cereal.
@Abe Froman Hopefully you'll get over the naive nostalgia for a pain in the ass.
Just to let you know: the "warmth" of vinlk is DISTORTION. What we DON'T want in fidelity is DISTORTION.
Watching this was a great relief for me. I have been working with audio my entire life. I'm now 74. When I was young I could hear somewhere in the range of 16 KHz and above. Many years of loud music with headphones, and speakers loud enough to walk the crockery off the shelves, my hearing has deteriorated to where 8 KHz is now my highest limit.
In the last decade or so I have been working a lot with filmmaking, which involves not only editing images, but sound as well. I was beginning to get a little worried that my hearing deficiencies could seriously affect my ability to work with sound effectively.
Your final remarks here have shown that maybe it really doesn't matter.
Thank you so much for your experienced and invaluable opinions.
I remember making that same "mistake" with the Coldplay song / files first when I took this test. The lossy files (or was it only the 128 kbps one...) had actually removed some burned in (clipping) distortion (mostly in the high frequencies) that were present in the WAV file. So judging it better was kind of obvious the first time around.
I dont know what those things are, but I guessed 128 on coldplay, and got 4/6 on the rest. Your innocuous comment here might be the reason I upgrade from my m40x, I am curious how much better headphones get
@@Ckwon117 Honestly, not all that much... Really, the main two factors that make a headphone good are sound signature and the actual comfort. There's going to be some qualities that aren't picked up by the sound signature, since they're not perfectly linear systems, as well as because of the quirks measuring rigs still have, however, they do get it mostly right.
@@Ckwon117 If you want different, get a Hifiman, I recommend the hifiman he400se, in my opinion it's more friendly than the Sundara, definitely has better bass.
I got 5/6 right, the coldplay song was the one I got wrong, chose it too quickly. Also I only had 356 kbps max, cuz I was using my iPad.
As a 52 year old drummer/live sound tech I know my hearing has been compromised. As much as I love hi rez audio I'd happily trade all the hi rez in the world for music that has dynamics again.
Yes, dynamics is what is missing. Not frequencies we cant hear (higher than 44.1 sampling frequencies), or dynamics that will cause permanent hearing damage (bitrate of 24... although in a soundproofed room, 16db of dynamics, will only make the strongest sounds strong, but in a normal listening situation, with background noise, using the full dynamics of CD and adjusting the volume to hear the weakest sounds will cause pain...).
Some hi rez files are based on better mixed sources, and some vinyls are as well compared to the CD version, and therefor might sound better.
But CD has all the technical capabilities we need.
+Jon Holstein Quit spamming the comments Jon
hell yes, dynamic FTW i'm sick with these new mastering. why on earth todays vinyl has more dynamic than CD in fact technology wise it should be the other way around
Absolutely. Perhaps that is my main reason not to listen to the crap played on most radios these days.
Yes! Everything after 96' is compressed to shreds. And even today's indy bands, first record always has great dynamics, but as soon as they get a little popular, second record is compressed much more.
I got all of them,
My secret: very bad internet speed
@DADOU OMÉGA you guys are liars nobody other than musicians and people in the recording studio's music business can tell by listening?
@DADOU OMÉGA nope I didn't know it was a joke.
@@marksantucci4230 Stop drooling on yourself.
@Mark Santucci r/woosh
The secret is how long the files take to start playing, assuming your internet speed is slow or you click them really fast, there's way of cheating without listening. I think that's what Jose meant.
It’s the combination of experience, training, hearing and God given music discernment ability that makes a great producer/mixer
I don't think if there is any single channel that has taught me as much about music than this amazing channel. Thanks RB
I'm almost 67 years old. I'm old enough to recall hearing CD's for the first time in 1984. I especially recall the superbly mastered Beatles White Album which I picked up in Tokyo, since there weren't any CDs available in the US yet. I was amazed by the lack of vinyl noise, like dust pops and other artifacts. But the best sound I ever heard was top-quality analog well before then; it was 2 inch analog first generation tape, through Stax headphones while sitting on a Paradigm subwoofer. I could even hear every bass drum pedal squeak and the click of the keys of the sax. It was like I was right in the recording studio with my ears simultaneously placed where where all the mics were. It's an amazing memory. Sure I more recently listened to a lot of MP3 compressed stuff, even worked with Karlheinz and Juergen at Fraunhofer IIS for a while. But by then my hearing was not so good, due to congenital loss and dead hair cells from too many loud concerts when I was young.
I don't agree with is the emphasis on bandwidth. Sure high frequencies help the sound a bit. But duplicating natural transients and having lots of dynamic range also matter, maybe even more than the presence of steady-state high frequencies, which is what the specifications measure. Nevertheless, nice video, Rick. Your explanations were impressively clear and more accurate than most.
Well said. I think audiophile "critical listening" isn't strictly a function of frequency response. To me, after years of listening to audio both analog and digital, I can spot lossy formats and tell readily what's missing. To the average listener it could be analogous to listening to mono car speakers then getting a 5.1 mix on SACD. I have access to an Anthem unit out to Paradigms and it's quite clear, but even with beyerdynamic headphones and an xduoo amp, I can hear it. Rick is correct about frequency response, mostly, (some do hear outside 20-20k) but what intake issue with is that lossy formats do compress in very dicernible ways, even at higher bitrates.
Transients *are* in the high frequencies....
Well actually, the sharper the transient, the wider the spread ... but definitely extending into the high end.
@@RogerBarraud In order to avoid confusing the issues, I specifically had said: "...the presence of steady-state high frequencies, which is what the specifications measure." Namely, I meant the notion of bandwidth which comes from usual long-term estimates of frequency response. Sure, broad frequency bandwidth is necessary for good transient response. An AM radio does not preserve sharp transients since it has less bandwidth that high fidelity systems. But since usual long term bandwidth estimates do not directly measure transient response, broad frequency bandwidth is not sufficient for good transient response.
Which means: 1) Frequency bandwidth is not the only thing which is important for fidelity and quality of sound preservation. This has been known for decades. It's why, for example, some people are careful about phase alignment, where usual phase misalignment does not reduce a systems frequency bandwidth, but it does distort transients. 2) Transient response is hard to capture as a single specification. There is no agreed upon measure of transient response, which is why it is not seen much. Yet there are systems, including human ears, which can recognize quality differences between different systems with the same frequency bandwidth. Sometimes big differences.
Remember when sampling audio it has to be apple to apples. That said, the tape was obviously at a higher quality that exceeded the CD capability. Nevertheless, its biggest negative is that like vinyl, it will deteriorate in quality with every pass.
You had bad ears also back in the 80s. The first cd players sounded horrible since the manufacturers didn’t know about jitter and the importance of an accurate clock.
I'm not an audio file.
But your voice could be...
Ha funny.
ArgoBeats I have never been impressed by any headphones or speakers but today my sound system impressed me
audiophile
you call me an audiophile I think I am different all the speakers I use is cheap car speakers if my cheap car speakers is better then the most high end speakers then that means all you guys are not smart
An audio engineer once gave me the best advice you can get about enjoying music: The technical specifications of your setup don't matter. What matters is how close they are to the gear the audio producer was using when he decided that the song was ready.
And not always so either. You may find you prefer how it sounds on system X rather than what the audio engineers ears were listening to
That's why when I used to make my own instrumental hip hop beats I would tour my friends houses to listen to whatever I made on their set ups before releasing lol from those having top tier audiophile equipment to those having regular speakers.
But the key part is " when he decided that the song was ready" Another engineer would have a different standard. Which means the hardware and format don't matter. Its just what that 1 fool things is ready
@@RennieAsh True. A good portion of what separates a good mix from a bad mix is just personal tastes.
Not necessarily, an audio engineer’s job is to mix a song to sound well on the lowest common denominator (Bluetooth speakers, phone speakers, gas station earbuds, etc.). They likely use headphones/speakers that prioritize neutrality as a reference so that they can accurately tweak the EQ of the song to sound good on the majority of playback devices. The problem with these headphones is they often times sound “boring” and “analytical”, because they have to be, and they aren’t enjoyable to listen to music on for most people. That’s why the majority of playback devices emphasize the lows and highs to make whatever audio is playing through them more exciting. So you probably won’t enjoy music on a pair of Phillips SHP-9500s as much as a pair of Beats by Dre
I love the conclusion. Ultimately music pleasure comes fro feeling it rather than being a purely physical matter. Let’s not forget that Beethoven composed most of his best music when virtually deaf. I bet he enjoyed listening to it
I have tinnitus. Everything sounds like crap
Bless your tinnitus, made me chuckle hard
@Dio Dio you don't?
I have tinnitus as well, but maybe not as bad as yours. The differences were subtle to my ears. I had the hardest time with the voice (I think I got it right just from guessing . 😂).
I also have tinnitus, with some WEEKS of spikes. :( Very bad situation.
Still, in a good day, I can spot the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. Very rare, only in a very good days.
Anyway, if I not pay attention, I cannot say which is which. (as the guy say)
@@cristic767 hey dont feel so bad. Half of Daft Punk had tinnitus too, and that...makes it...uhh
Yea i hope y'all recover soon
You're right Rick. Dude I am one of those snotty dudes who wants everything to sound as good as possible, born in 1971 and went to music school in the 80s. My entire music collection is in FLAC, but all the mobile stuff is 320 because I'm not crazy, I am just like your assistant, I can only tell the difference about half the time. And that's normally when I'm remembering exactly how something specific went in a track. Anything lower drives me nuts with artifacts but at 320 were pretty golden.
I have the odd FLAC on my mobile, but most of my audio is 500kbps OGGs - a bit over the top, but my main music source gives me OPUS files, which I love and would use save for the fact that support for metadata is abysmal - it can do it, but few music tagging softwares will recognise it. As I don't want to end up double-compressing I crank up the quality on the OGGs. Still get a decent filesize nonetheless
Same for me. I can only tell If I really know the song and then its a very small difference between the two. The WAV just sounds a bit more full and slightly clear. I have a tidal subscription and I download what I can find in Masters and the rest is 320. I have a really quality sound system and I just want to get the best out of it and I want to hear it how the artist intended.
The artifact that drives me most crazy is the "shimmer" in mids and highs with poor-quality encoding.
Sound quality isn't only about frequencies. To me, the easiest way to distinguish uncompressed audio is to listen to clarity in stereo image, and listen to dynamics. This made the NPR test somewhat easy to me. Only challenge was Suzanne Vega's acapella singing, because that clip didn't really have much stereo image nor dynamics.
And 256 kbps can sound better than 320 kbps if the encoding was better, so that stereo image and instrument positioning has been maintained better.
you fool
I really like this video because I was searching for some true answers about audio quality and I love how good you say it, thank you so much, greetings from Perù!
Late to the party here. Hard to tell the 320 from the uncompressed but there's a big difference between those and the 128s. It's not just the sonic range, it's more the way they communicate the ambience of rooms, the timbre of voices and instruments...all these make the experience more immersive, whether people are aware of them or not. When I'm listening to a song I love and I get distracted, it's usually because the playback quality is in some way degraded or subtly dissonant.
Good point. The best way I could describe the difference between 128 and 320 is to make a comparison using color. It's like having the same picture with the same colors but in the 128 version the colors are muted or faded compared to the 320.
A small point worth adding, especially for anyone claiming audible difference or lack of it, is that mp3 encoders are not created equal (the same applies for newer popular compression formats).
Mp3 specifies how to format the data, but not how to encode it. Encoders have to make "choices" about what to filter out or even transform, and some are better than others. Unless you have a good mathematical background (in which case you might as well understand formulas by yourself), here's a fairly simple analogy: there is a yellow post-it on a table (the music to encode) that a few people (encoders) are asked to describe in as much details as possible (encode), using either 128 or 320 "english words" (format, mp3). You then read them. 320 words descriptions will probably give you a better (and near-perfect) idea of the object than 128-word versions, yet some will be better than others even among the 320-word versions, simply because some people are better at writing descriptive sentences using fewer but better words (which obviously I am not).
same holds true for decoders
@@jimkerrigan1888 The same is not true for decoders. All mp3 decoders will produce the same output with the slight caveat that there may be rounding differences which are negligible.
Mp3,flac,lossy/lossless are the same at any bitrate, they arint the original. bitrate isnt the same a bits . uncompressed wav playback is 1440MBps( 1400 MBps = 1400 Megabytes =11200000 Kbps flac/mp3 you need this bitrate to match the original) quality is pointless a 900kps lossless compressed flac has 1% of the songs data, they the bit upscale(litteraly fake bits) at decoding attempting to predict what the original sounds like, this is impossible since 99% is gone. Audio quality is unmeasurable since it is software decoding.
@@Thanatos4655 Well even wav file can vary in quality depending on the sample rate and bit depth. But a lossless compression algorithm can be set to reproduce the original signal.
@ThanatosXRS You made a little mistake man. The standard audio CD format is 16-bit, 44.1KHz
44.1 kHz = 44100 Hz (44100 16-bit samples for second)
44100 * 16 = 705 600 bps (bits per second)
For 2 channels (stereo): 2 * 705 600 = 1 411 200 bps
1 411 200 bps / 1000 = 1 411.2 kbps = 1.4112 mbps (mbits per second, not MBytes per second!)
1.4112 mbps / 8 = 0.1764 MBytes per second, but not 1400 MBytes per second.
You are wrong with about 7 936 times ;)
Audio CD contains about 74 min audio:
74 min * 60 sec = 4 440 sec
4 440 sec * 0.1764 MBps = 783.216 MB on a CD
If you were right, one CD would fit:
783 MB / 1400 MBps ~ 0.56 seconds of music :) :)
320 Kbps bitrate is exactly 4.41 times less than uncompressed CD audio,
or in fact there are 22.68% of original data.
Respectively, 900 Kbps are 63.78% of original data.
Please, be more careful with bits(b) and Bytes(B) - mathematics can be a two-blade knife if misused.
I could tell the difference.The closest explanation I could come up with is that it's not the sounds that are improved, but the gaps in between them. Nothing becomes more detailed or anything, just a tiny bit clearer, and a lot of the time, it's worth it.
I also got 4/6 listening for subtle differences. The differences really are microscopic but it's also mindblowing to really listen for those sharp, subtle tonal qualities that are more developed and pronounced than in their compressed counterparts. Not something anyone would notice consistently but it's cool that it's there.
I took the test, got it all right.
The slowest loading one always had the best quality. heh
Isn't this the same technique as the comment above?
I have 1 gbps fiber connection :( they already loaded before fully pressing the play button.
lol so true
I can spot differences between 128kbps and 320kbps most of time. But 320kbps and .wav sounds the same for me..
Trash uncompressed is still trash! Seriously though it depends on a few things, many artists make the songs for lossy formats ahead of time since 99% will be listening in a lossy format, top 40 and popular music are simple and made for sales have no artistic value, older songs arnt made on computers so a wav would make no difference, type of music: rock tends to the same on everything because sounds is heavy blended on the other hand electronic type music is really noticable, lastly Balanced armature iem's is were you really notice quality . Ironically most audiophiles are hipsters with overpriced equipment that is lower quality then some $50 iems.
Perhaps you can side by side, but can you walk into a high end audio store and be able to tell what bit rate a random song is just by listening to it all by itself, with nothing to compare it to? Or even if it's digital at all?
@FireLion you should be able to hear it any sound device provide it isnt a mp3 or flac in a . Wav container. Wav PCM16, 24,32 have their full dynamic range, encoded music(mp3 or lossless) do not. Just turn the song up
@@Thanatos4655 and dynamic range is better on old recordings
I got 5/6 correct. Got all correct except Neil Young's ‘There’s A World’ in which I could hear imperfections in the sample which were jarring. Not a good studio. I chose the 320k sample.
I've always had annoyingly good hearing (not so god at listening). I hate CRT monitors and glad they're gone; they produced an ultrasonic whine that nobody else could hear.
I also have $200 BGVP DM6 headphones and an MPOW filter, but didn't use an amp.
The 128k samples were all awful to my ears.
Thank You Rick! So well sorted this out. Never thought about the mixing engineers you listed in this video. Thank You. :-)
I was listening through my studio monitors through my computer. You got 1 out of 6 correct! But I am almost 70 and spent a lot of years in front of huge amplifier stacks in the 60's & 70's. I do have a documented >25% hearing loss of high frequency and wife talking!
I would blame at least 25% of those 30% due to this "wife talking". :) But seriously, i am not surprised, that you got 70% correct with actual decent speakers instead of their headphones.
Several years ago, I was riding an escalator up a floor in a hotel, enjoying a funky background music system's instrumental rendition of 'The Windmills Of Your Mind'. The higher I got, the better the music sounded, and by the top I was thinking, 'Damn, this system is amazing! How did they do it?' I was blown away by the exquisite fidelity! Then I arrived at the top, looked down the corridor and there, at the far end, was a live combo, all acoustic: drums, accordion and double bass. Since then, I have come to realize that no matter how good our technology, from mic'd performance, through the recording (analog or digital,) encoding and distribution, to the end user and their equipment, we'll almost never fool anyone into thinking they're hearing a live performance. I, at 75, can still tell that I'm hearing someone play a live acoustic piano, through an open window two stories up, while walking on a noisy street! We still have a long way to go, and I's suggest that all this discussion about encoding protocol comparisons does little or nothing to address the problems we have in recreating an original binaural experience, with young or old ears!
But please keep trying!
I don't think that one can re- produce faithfully music through a hifi system having heard live music is not the same experience.
Spot on @Geoff Sale.
There's a lot of psychoacoustics going on when listening to a recording, the brain filling in the gaps.I've never heard a recording that sounds like an acoustic guitar, for instance; though a couple have seemed to come close if I had the real guitar to compare them with I'm sure the shortfall would become clear.
But while I agree with what you say, some of the reason we can tell live from recorded performances is partly a mismatch between ambient acoustics and a recording: we can tell when something doesn't sound right for the space we're in and where there's a mismatch in resonances and early reflections.
Or you've just never heard a decent high end sound system, so there is that...
@@1wibble230 A live recording can never match a live event.The physics of the event are radically different.The best systems do a great job of fooling you but if you were present at the actual recording session you would always be disappointed with the outcome.Reality trumps recording technology.Thats why the argument that it's better to spend thousands of dollars over many years on attending live concerts rather than spending tens of thousands on audio gear makes sense.
@@brucegelman5582 As someone who has attented many live shows from orchestras to rock and dance bands, and also has very high end system, I can tell you technology gets amazing close! And indeed when it comes to rock/dance stuff I'd argue studio recording listening at home is by far the more pleasurable experience. Very rarely do such venues have a good well balanced sound that isn't ripping your ears off. For classical/jazz/small indie band stuff sure, live sounds beautiful, but with really high end speakers it is very close to actually being there :)
At 71, after 50 plus years of playing and recording, my left and right ears have totally different response curves, in some cases there are frequencies missing from one or the other. My audiologist told me that the brain would compensate but I haven’t found that to be the case. Add to that my tinnitus is so loud that I have to crank the volume up to get over the noise that it becomes a vicious circle, adding to the damage. I’ve just recently accepted that I can no longer do a good mix. While I can still track well everything else is off the table. I guess it’s time to find a good mixing house.
Back in the day, I could hear up to 23KHz, but more importantly, I could hear detail. I was literally a "golden ears" consultant to high end audio stores. It was less about frequency range and more about a natural, three dimensional soundstage. If the trumpet player takes a step forward (and the recording and playback are good enough) you can hear it. OTOH, if blindfolded, I shouldn’t be able to tell where the speakers are. Obviously, rating sound quality in that regard through headphones is pretty much impossible. But I bet I could still tell the difference between uncompressed CD sound and its MP3 counterpart with audio levels matched to
@@EdHorch what amp/speaker do you use?
@@sionevans8370 AR turntable with a Linn Basik arm and a Signet something-or-other cartridge, feeding the preamp section of an NAD 730 receiver, into an Adcom 555 amp. That all goes into a pair of Theil 02 bookshelf speakers and whatever I feel like hooking up as a sub. It's above mid-fi, and anything better would be beyond what I can hear any more.
I’m in the same boat
I’m good with soundstage, separation and definition to a degree. But the wife has to tell me the coffee pot beeped.
And I’ve had Hyperacusis hit about the same time as the pandemic.
With my tinnitus I find protecting my ears from wind helps as well as less caffeine and try to envision faders to try to bring it down in my heads mix.
Some days are good, some nights can be hell.
I agree with all you've said that it's on on your ability to hear. What's amazing is I'm 57 years old and I "hear" mp3s as lass bass rather than less highs (I'm an electric bass player of 43 years). Time to subscribe to the Beato Ear Training course 🙂
Dude, I love the way you think, and I believe this is the best place to go to for musical advice and inspiration.
I still play CDs. When CDs are outlawed, only outlaws will have CDs!
When CD Rom Will be dead they will sell cd at higher prices telling us that is vintage technology 👺🥴🤏
@@napomania i seriously wouldn’t doubt it. Look how damn obsessed people are with vinyls.
I've spent a lotta $ on CDs. Still have all my vinyl, too. That stuff BETTER work.
You'll take my cds from my cold, dead hands!!!
I still have my CD's too vinyl is the new holy grail and that's why they're not cheap anymore it's almost like jazz music for the nerds when i bought lps in the 80s they all were at a reasonable price so i sometimes went home with 3 lps being a happy man what really killed music old and modern was the death of the record store so you could no longer have a chat with people you didn't even know but the passion for music made it easy to communicate with a lot of people and maybe they would recommend you a band you've never heard of to expand your knowledge it was just more simple times back then and the artist got percent of the
record sale and that was more fair cause artists use their time and energy to create something we all can enjoy it's better to get out and meet people cause it's very isolating to sit behind the computer and just streaming
One of the comments you made really struck home with me was about how these engineers might not be able to hear above 14,000 KHz but can listen deep into a mix and hear things the average listener probably wouldn't. It reminded me of another video you posted some time ago where you were pulling out some of the different sections of Yes' "Roundabout" and it made me realize what a lazy listener I can be a lot of the time to music. For me it was a real revelation to actively engage with a recording and listen to it in different ways, sometimes maybe concentrating on the bass, sometimes percussion, etc. I've always been a huge and eclectic lover of music and I feel like that and other things I'm learning on your videos has really deepened my appreciation of what I listen to. I just want to thank you so much for these videos and giving me and all of us this gift! I wish I'd learned some of this in my younger years instead of at 52 :)
Education is as important as natural talent. We may both see the same painting but the educated artist will be able to point out what make it so special or so mediocre.
Excellent post. I have a trained ear but not great hearing...I listen deeply and carefully to instrumentation and then lock on to a particular instrument and "mimic" it in my head ("pa-tingggg!") As if I'm going to imitate it vocally--i know it doesn't make sense but I really focus on isolating and memorizing a specific part of the mix, then A/B against that, then another part, etc.
Recently I compared two universal disc players with a SACD. I heard a percussion instrument using the newer player that was simply absent in the older (but more expensive) player. Then I compared a DVD-A of a different album and could not discern any difference.
My conclusion was that the newer player probably had a better implementation of the SACD decoding chip, which wasn't applicable to the DVD-A. Is that correct? I don't know, but the SACD difference was very clear to me while the DVD-A was identical to me.
Just sharing some personal, non scientific experience about some of the factors that can affect my listening experience. Great discussion.
Well said.
Tim Hall SACD and DVD-Audio are criminally under appreciated formats, what a lost opportunity for the music business, I was set to repurchase hundreds of albums, if not a thousand in high-resolution before the future turned cloudy and they lost support.
Educated listeners here presumably have had the phenomenal engagement with 3 particular high-res must-hear discs: Fleetwood Mac Rumors (DVD-A), Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (both) and Pink Floyd DSOM (SACD) in 2-ch and surround mixes. Unbelievably emotional experience.
Acoustic Sounds is a great place to buy now that big box guys no longer carry for $12-$15. Does anyone else know of high-res disc sites?
That is precisely what makes Yes, Yes... Same thing with Rush. People often do not appreciate complex music because it is overwhelming
I guess I can hear 20k (I can say that 18k I hear 100%), but in music, I can’t hear difference between 320 and flac. 128 and 320 - yes, sometimes music lost “air” and “freshness” in high and punch on bass and kicks. Main question is - it’s worth it? If you really hear difference in blind test and you ready to spend money for this - it’s for you. Once my friend can’t hear difference between Gibson Custom Shop and Chinese copy, but still want to have original. When I asked him:”maybe, you just want to know, that you guitar is expensive and see the Gibson logo on a headstock?” He said:”yes, it’s just warm my soul”. Be honest for yourself.
Agreed but 128 I can hear distorted Cybols and the Sax sound suffers. but yeah 320k and Wav, I cannot tell, even with a superior system and specialized listening room. it is still about 4 to 1 compression. best compromise
I can hear from 14Hz to about 15.5kHz, my ears are freaking old, like Beato old and I've sat behind a drum kit for 40+ years. I'm totally with you regarding 128k and 320k, the difference is noticeable with all genres but electronica. But I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between 320 and FLAC.
@@Darrylizer1 wow 14hz is low!
You need a big sub tuned low to hear that! Could it be you're hearing/feeling resonances?
@@sionevans8370 No I could hear the tone, anything under that though I really couldn't hear. I did the test with Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro headphones which have a frequency response from 5 Hz - 35000 Hz.
I took the listening test and got 5 of the 6 questions right. But I confess that I had to repeat the auditions several times, until I noticed tiny differences, almost imperceptible, in the very high and very low frequencies (most evidently in the high frequencies). And I used a decent headphone, Sennheiser HD 380 Pro connected to a Focusrite Scarlett interface. The differences really are very subtle. I was happy because I'm 52 years old, and I'm a musician, and I was very exposed to loud sound for a long time. Great question!
On a low quality MP3 you can usually hear the difference in white noise like cymbal crashes or applause. This is because the bitrate quickly becomes saturated because there is no place to duplicate the multiple different frequencies. It’s like a low quality JPEG. Blue sky or white walls looks fine but fine details like trees and hair etc often get chunky.
But a good codec and higher bit rate makes them all but disappear.
To Rick's point, you still have good hearing. Congratulations.
Poorly made point, you have the visual analogy backward, the white noise is analogous to white walls. In jpg compression it is the smooth areas of constant tone where you see problems first because the jpg noise is discernable against that continuous tone, the high detail areas in fact hide the artifacts, they are lost in it. When you what to check picture quality you examine a smooth area like the sky.
Bartonovich52 - EXACTLY!!
@@johnsmith1474 This guy knows whats up.
@@wpgspecb - Yes I do, thanks.
We spend so much effort to make a song sound good and then people listen to it on their phone.
There are good phones though. Like the LG V60. F***ing 130dB SNR!! better than most PC sound cards!!!
Well, good produced record still sounds better in mp3 320 then bad produced record in wav 24 bit
I listen to them on my phone with my nice headphones, basically using my phone as my portable music player, and I can definitely tell the difference between 320MP3 and M4A vs FLAC/WAV, not just on my phone but my PC. I apparently have pretty good hearing, and as much as it can annoy me, I'm thankful I get to enjoy music in high quality while live concerts aren't a thing.
Yeah, but before that, it was AM radio, cheap BSR record decks and super bad quality pre-recorded cassette tapes! And don't get me started on the compression with FM radio!
@@sassuki True. I own a LGV20 as my DAP and It rivals my friend's $1000+ desktop dac amp setup lol
Great video! Appreciate your excellent explanation of MP3’s.
I think you can tell the difference most when the track is really loud such as through a massive sound system.
Like when you're at a party and one DJ plays mp3's and then the one after plays wav and you go oooo yeah thats really gooooood
Totally! I remember my first experience DJing with Mp3's and uncompressed files. After that night I deleted all the Mp3's in my stack. Uncompressed good quality audio just feels more relaxed. It's effortless, the same way a master musician makes his playing seem effortless.
That Coldplay album is compressed to hell (brick wall amplitude compressed) and sounds dreadful on a good system. I'm not surprised she couldn't tell which version was MP3 compressed on top of that. You need to use good dynamic recordings to notice the differences. It's a pity that it's getting harder and harder to find good recordings among main stream artists.
Damn you Wall of Sound!
Wanted to write the same with coldplay....from the 6 I had only 1 correct LOL
She probably recognized the poor quality version as best since that sounded the most familiar. Radios and streaming services hardly try with quality
@@MiDnYTe25 Bingo! ...and just to add another point that brings in the OP's mentionings, because of the loudness war at play, the higher frequencies would sound less harsh due to the filtering out @ 128kb mp3. Thus, consequently pushing forward the midtones around 1kHz-3kHz tones where our ears are most sensitive and usually, the louder these sound, the clearer due to just how our ears work.
Yup. In *many* instances it doesn't matter; garbage in, garbage out. But in the instances that it *does* matter, it matter a *lot*.
"I can't tell the difference between an 320MP3 and a FLAC file, yet I paid $10,000 for a 10ft speaker cable." -Audiophiles
So true. That's awesome!
Because it can sound more pleasant and can color the sound to your liking.
@@Mr.Manson No, it doesn't, that's complete and utter nonsense. The ONLY thing about a speaker cable that CAN have an effect on how the Audio sounds is if the cable is insanely poorly shielded against interference from other speaker- or power cables you might have running alongside them. And it is very hard to even find such poor cables.
I bet you that in a blind test you couldn't tell the difference between a stupidly expensive cable, the cheap stuff you can get at Home Depot or even a metal coat hanger used instead of a cable.
Next thing you are probably trying to tell me that Gold plated contacts on a HDMI or Optical cable will make any difference beyond how they look.
@@Soonjai If the speaker cable is long it will affect the quality of the sound, and if it is thin (unless of course it is very short). Speaker cables aren't typically shielded.
@@corybarnes2341 What the hell are you blabbering about? If you get Speaker cable on a roll to cut it yourself to length you need it will be shielded the same regardless of length. And I hope you know you are fooling yourself with your statement about the cable length thing.
A couple of years ago I work at a company that installed car Hi-Fi Systems, and the Speaker cables, regardless of length where NEVER the reason why the systems picked up unwanted noise. Most of the time it came from the Power cables for the Amps because the Generators of some, especially older, cars didn't have filters build in to cut out RPM depended noise. Simple In-Line Filters where able to remove those noises in above 98% of the cases. In some rarer cases we got unwanted noise from the Antennas when the Radio was used, but that was usually eliminated by simply using a different Antenna.
TL;DR: The Speaker cable is, from own experience, never the issue, power- and / or Antenna can be.
Thank you for this. It is at 9:00 that you get down to the most important part of people who are the mixers of music. And as one who is now older, I appreciate it very much.
Awesome! Appreciate your channel!
Listen with your ears and do not pay attention to the vast marketing techniques that exist...adhere to the science of listening!
This transcends into other debatable topics (e.g. home systems with/without equalizers, bi-amping speakers, high end component accessories, etc.). Outside influences wreak havoc on subtle audio nuances.
The other side of the coin involves people who have to buy the highest end audio format, but their equipment and/or settings preclude the ability to reproduce it at that level. Almost, like buying a high end performance automobile, but only allowed to drive it at 25 mph in your neighborhood. This constitutes failure to use it at the manufacturer's intended level of performance or capability. Your experience cannot reflect the full spectrum analysis of the high end equipment.
Your video proves the expertise involved with listening.
Again, appreciate your channel!
I took the test and got the same result as Michelle. I took the test again using better headphones and a high quality DAC on my computer and got a perfect score. And I'm 59. Hearing matters, but so does quality equipment.
Now repeat the experiment with a few other audiophiles, and we'll see. Science is all about repeatable experiments
invalid conclusion. Anyone repeating the test will finally get 100% correct since you need only concentrate on the samples you failed in the previous trial and you have a 33% chance of simply guessing with each listening.
I believe you but hey...you are probably talking to people listening to music from downloaded files through their computer speakers... And they will tell you you're wrong. Ignorance is a bliss.
@@WeWereYoungandCrazy No. Rushed dismissal on your part though. The test reorders the samples so if you repet it you always start from scratch.
I can confidently say I won't hear much different on rap or pop song,but when it come to ochestra or jazz it's easy to spot on the compressed or uncompressed.
I just found this today, but I took that same audio test a few months ago. I got 3 or 4 right, one of the wrongs was a 128k... And it was the classical piece. All three of the classical pieces sounded virtually the same to me. I also have super sharp hearing, as the tester here does. It has to come down to some experience with the material. I don't listen to much classical, and I don't remember the last time I would have heard it live. I notice none of the examples where any kind of hard rock or metal though. I would imagine the differences there are even more difficult to pick up due to the inherent distortion in the styles. I'm guessing cleaner audio makes more of a difference in the perception. The dirtier the sound, the more difficult.
@@NeoRichardBlake the reason why you couldn't hear the difference in the classical piece is you don't listen to classical music and you don't love it so you it won't even occur to you what the clarinet is subtly but magically doing in the background when it plays, you probably will barely even notice it.
Sorry but that super sharp ear is wasted on you if you're not even listening to classical music.
@@motherofallemails That's a pretty pretentious opinion that my sharp hearing is wasted if I'm not listening to classical. I enjoy classical. I just don't listen to it much. And when I do listen to it, I enjoy the complex pieces more. I pick up more nuances when I listen to it more. And that's what I meant when I said it has to do with experience with the material. Study and familiarity makes nuance easier to find. I also listen to a lot of metal and hard rock, and I can hear more nuance there than people who don't normally listen to it. My poorly worded point was that the video is right. Sharp hearing doesn't necessarily make you an expert listener. Getting depth from music is more about familiarity and study than with specific hearing. I constantly notice things others don't in sight as well. Most of it has to do with one's attention to detail, and sadly many people don't pay very much attention to things. Music is background for a lot of people. That's why simple sounds with a catchy beat become the most popular. Pieces that require study to fully appreciate fall by the wayside of society.
@@motherofallemails Yea... that was pretty pretentious. You are not better by listening to classical music and it's definitely not a "waste" of any sort by not listening to classical music. This is coming from a big fan of classical music... Let's not form any hierarchy of taste
I strongly disagree. It absolutely depends on the production and quality of the music, regardless of the genre. From that audio test, the only song that I got consistently right was the Jay Z track because it utilized a lot of different frequencies, and I never listen to hip-hop. I listen to a lot of jazz and classical and I can tell you, for older recordings and poorly engineered recordings that dont have a wide range of frequencies anyway, it is extremely difficult to tell the compression. But that's just my opinion, I could be completely wrong. I dont wanna come across as thinking I'm definitely right :)
Great video! I have impaired hearing and was able to tell the difference without flaws on my home audio system.
I think the headphones used are not good enough to find the difference.
I worked in high level hearing research for many years, totally like and agree with your points, despite being a vinyl only guy. Sharp and accurate
This test has been done in Germany already back in 2000 with only 256kbif and very skilled people in a very good environment. ( m.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html ). It turned out that it was more guessing than knowing. Musicians who claim to be cool, skilled and professional always say they can hear the difference, but none of them managed to get through my short tests. Then they usually say it was due to not ideal listening conditions. This discussion is as crucial as "but I CAN distinguish between a Kemper amp and the corresponding real amp", which always turns out not to be true - especially in a band context. Mythos - never dies! Funk on
Danke, super aufschlussreich, und schmerzlich zu sehen, dass selbst die 128 kb mitunter besser als die CD eingeschätzt wurde!
TAILORmoves gerne. Ich vermeide mittlerweile Diskussionen zum Thema. Ist halt zu viel 'Glauben' und 'Coolness' dabei.
+Doggy I'd be able to tell the difference between a Kemper and my Engl SE in a second: the Kemper wouldn't shriek past 3 gain because of (probably) old tubes going microphonic ^^
lol .. okay, that way ... ;)
But one of my guitarrists has a Kemper with the very same Profile of the amp he has ( I think it is MesaBoogie Mark V). And it is hard to tell the difference ;)
It depends.
Look for archimogos blog.
He conducted a similar test, which was more lossless vs lossy, including different formats of each using quite a few test subjects with varying backgrounds.
It turned out the "audiophiles" who claimed to hear a difference had the greatest number of people who could tell between lossless and lossy.
It's understandable, given that a lot of them have trained themselves to discern between subtle differences as a hobby would be the group which has more people which figured out what differences there are.
From what I have heard, it's not a tone or timbre difference (meaning pitch perfect doesn't matter).
They have said that it's the decays which differ. It's more obvious with tube amps where decay is typically longer due to the harmonic characteristics and it's a bit easier with headphones.
I can't comment because I haven't actively tried to do this myself.
My guess is that the algorithms which do lossy compression pick up some of the aspects of sound related to decay as noise, but again that's just an assumption as I don't have the Knowledge to tell
None of this matters when everything is compressed to hell with no dynamic range
if you are listening to terrible music it is your own fault.
less complain and more make please
it really does matter, some mastering engineers use compression that sounds beautiful which can be totally ruined by a lossy format :( maybe that because of the less dynamic range the frequencies are much more prominent - making the loss of frequencies sound worse in the lossy format ?
Well, not all music needs wide DR, but when it`s lower than 10, just about anything sounds worse. My best are movies soundtracks, they usualy have 14-15. That`s enough.
Well this did occur to me with the choice of test tracks, in my experience, Coldplay recordings are a harsh, garbled mess, and as for Katy Perry.🤣😂
She got the other ones right.
Thanks for this! It's given me hope. My ears are officially Phuqued! (like my spelling - thank you Patti Labelle...) I'm just getting back into recording some music - after a LONG time away and you've inspired me to both not let my partial deafness stop me (but learn to adjust) and also to concentrate on both being better at my instrument(s) and also being better at what I am good at. Thanks again for your insights and work! You are very much appreciated. Cheers!
To defend a bit the audiophiles, some streaming services that call themselfs Hifi, actually don't only offer high frequency files but often different masterings of the same record. And then you DO hear a difference. Is not about the frequencies though, it's about the mastering.
Also, some fancy high end speakers not only go very high on frequency, but also very low. You will certainly hear a difference between a speaker with a lower frequency of say 55Hz (bookshelf)and another with 25Hz (columns). Maybe even feel the difference depending on the volume you're playing.
Frequency range says zero about the quality of the system. My best system (Altec 515C, AER BD2, dht amps) would only hit 40Hz-18kHz, yet my pc speakers say they can do 25Hz-25kHz and sound like total crap.
My favorite video of yours. My dream in college was to mix/edit sound. My favorite class was 'The Physics of Music'. I ended up in TV operations, which is great. But I lost normal auditory perception from a stroke in July, '18 and it's nearly ruining my career because I can't always perceive sounds accurately. It's frightening and fascinating at the same time.
Hearing loss above 10kHz is not a loss of 50%. There’s only one octave from 10kHz to 20kHz. You’re only losing some of the sizzle in the cymbals and upper harmonics of a few instruments. The other (approximately) NINE octaves humans can hear lie between 20Hz and 10kHz, so I’m not too bothered not being able to hear above about 12kHz. The tinnitus can be annoying at times though.
Timothy Reeves - All very good points.
Appie Demir by hearing people asking him about tinnitus he developed it through his subconscious .🤣
goofyfoot2001 wrong thread
goofyfoot2001 it’s tinnitus not tittitus. ;-)
Timothy Reeves Humans can certainly hear well below ONE Hertz. Otherwise tuning musical instruments would be impossible. So you need to add four or five octaves to your nine. And the claim in this video that MP3 encoding is inaudible rests entirely on the original research, which was done on the usual pool of 20-yo psychology students being paid five bucks a time to participate in random experiments, which incidentally invalidates most of the psych experiments of the 20th century,. Not on musicians, recording engineers, audio guys of any kind. While at university I had dozens of opportunities to participate in psych experiments, and I turned them all down, as did nearly all of my friends. So hardly random samples, let alone expert samples. Few things in hifi have less basis than MP3.
Thank you for sharing, very informative.
That explanation makes a lot of sense. I read the Great Courses Book on psychology and talked about some studies that involved the human ability to compare things and we are very subjective with thresholds that are more like percentages than actual amounts. The psychologist was Wilhem Wundt he was studying sensory perception and it was like this for sound, light intensity and even weight.
Interesting test! I found that I can usually find the 128kbps, but couldn't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and 44.1kHz wav. And great point re: the difference between physical hearing and ability to mix.
I didn't even find any difference between 128kbps and the wav 44.1kHz. I guess all those teenage years listening to loud music on my cellphone's screwed my ears.
@@j.lucasdecastroaraujo761 I found that the high frequencies were what gave it away. Have you tested to see what the highest frequencies are that you can hear? I can hear 15kHz but nothing beyond that.
@@NickChase Yes, good points. I was using a Universal Audio Apollo X6 and Beyerdynamic DT880 Pros.
@@j.lucasdecastroaraujo761 I'm a senior citizen with hearing loss in both ears , and I can tell the difference between those two...on a good system.
You can subtract the wav file from mp3 to get the error signal. Ideally this error signal should be a stochastic noise with no deterministic information.
Exactly: it's what a listener has trained their ears to hear. Listening is a brain function, not an ear function.
The thing is, it's so much more than just the frequency domain.
Listen to depth & detail. In most cases any lossy format will randomly affect transient detail. The other unmentioned aspect is that all degradation from lossy encoding is so easily CUMULATIVE. Rip a track to MP3, process it more, play it on the radio and in terms of audio quality all bets are off!
The fact remains: music artists do NOT release their music to be heard lossy only. And no UA-cam viewers seem to complain about having CHOICE of video quality. See (hear) the problem?
The problem is the majority of listeners targets is some headphones with extreme bass plus compressed streaming audio, not someone who spend some money and effort to get the best sound quality, personally I love to hear that crisp and mid well balanced. Am I an audiophile? IDK ✌️😁
Excellent video, Rick!
I will share it to some of my "audiophile" friends!
Thank you
The thing is the songs she got right are all the ones not affected by the loudness wars
4/6, but I'm 53 and commuted on a motorcycle for 6 years. My strategy was listening for the quieter elements, like the reverb in Suzanne Vega, the snare in Coldplay, the BG moan vocal in Katy Perry or the glockenspiel in Neil Young. I know I can't really hear the high freqs anymore, but I can still hear the improvement that comes with increased bit depth. Sorta!
Hey, thanks for this - going to find the recording of Piano Concerto No 17 now :-)
6 out of 6 using Sennheiser HD560s, directly from on-board Realtek HD sound card.
6/6 on a 70$ usb gaming headset.
3/6 using a sennheiser HD25 out of a focusrite audio interface.
6 out of 6 using the laptop speakers.
6/6 using cellphone speaker while driving my hot rod!
6/6 pressing f12 and reading the correct answer
The test will be much more accurate if the result was shown to her after all tracks were completed. Because the immediate feedback will actually either reinforce positively or negatively on the next answer
@@pablopacca9458 Absolutely. A prior negative response will have her second guessing an initial response on a new track.
One thing you’ll learn in those tests refers to your own definition of a good sounding record. I made wrong guesses because the real sound belonged to a style that I didn’t like. After I realized how this music was meant to sound I spotted the better sound quality. Sonic tastes play a huge part in this and not just frequencies.
Also she may have been influenced by previous listens of "Speed of Sound".
@user name What do you think recorded those songs?
Yes, just been doing interval / note etc testing and I would prefer to find out how badly or how well (unlikely) I have done and not during the test itself. Like doing an exam and getting it marked as you go along .. would totally sway the result. Still, listening to the tests on UA-cam, they sounded exactly the same (strange that)
If I'm paying for an album, I want the lossless file so I'm free to re-encode it to any format I want with minimum loss. And not have layers of re-encoding that I don't need. If I'm converting to AAC, Vorbis or Opus, I don't want a previous MP3 encoding on top of that. I think a CD Quality FLAC is good enough. At least I won't feel like we got all this technology but today we are getting less quality than what we got from a CD in the 90s. (MP3's vs CDs). If you are giving away a free album, and you want to offer it at 128kbps, than I can't really complain because it's free.
FLAC is not "good enough", it is a lossless format. Lossless means that every single bit of data in the wav file is preserved and if you convert it back into a wav you'll get a file that is binary identical to the wav. It is like compressing files in a zip file, they come out identical to the way they come in.
The other formats you mention are not compression, they use reduction -> some data is lost.
There are arguments whether 44.1 KHZ / 16 bit is good enough, but that has nothing to do with FLAC, as you can encode higher sample rates and bit resolutions in FLAC just fine too.
And back in the day you had to make sure your mono mix was spot on becauses many songs were on AM radio and FM. There are hit records that sound great in stereo and lifeless in mono and vice versa. I do my mixes for my Iphone these days, I want to hear how the sound punches through on speaker and adjust from there as I hear many kids listening to them just like a transistor radio back when I was a kid. ( What goes around comes around)
Awesome vid and explanation Rick!
I don't obviously hear a frequency difference. But there's an undeniable dynamic/spacial difference with hi-res audio at an uncompressed 4+ Mbps vs. 320 Kbps even at 44.1. What people don't get is that you also need a DAC that supports 24-bit or higher to properly decode bit-for-bit digital files (unless it was recorded in 44.1 anyway). The original file must be recorded, mixed, and mastered in hi-res all through, otherwise there will be no difference. Playing hi-res audio on a normal 16-bit DAC will negate anything better than that even with speakers/headphones that can. It's like trying to see high definition video through an S-video cable. Another culprit is the shitty compression of today. Listen to an early Fleetwood Mac Rumours CD or record for example compared to the "remastered" version MP3. I agree 100% that higher frequencies don't make a difference. It's the bitrate, mastering, and data in the file that makes for a better sounding recording. Also that site doesn't state only certain browsers can playback uncompressed audio properly however, it does in the source code for the NPR page. Odd.
Stage B Very well explained. Thank you.
From my experience, it doesn't matter about the files the music is put to (FLAC, WAV, or MP3), it's all about the mastering and how the music was mixed in the studio. If you want your music to sound clear and open, it needs to be mastered as such. My favorite example to name is Electric Light Orchestra's Time. I've listened to the album on both Tidal and Qobuz, and it sounds so compressed regardless if it's at 16 bit/144hz or 24 bit/96hz. HOWEVER, my 1990 CD copy sounds clear and crisp, and I was shocked to find that it had such a noticable difference.
Tidal butchers audio files. A UA-camr called Golden Sound made an excellent video exposing the massive scam that is MQA. He also shows that Tidal doesn’t even offer the CD quality that they are advertising.
Probably a vote for Qobuz…
I can’t remember who said "Musicians use their stereo to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their stereo."
On all 6 I could consistently hear a difference, however identifying which one of the different sounds was "better" was very inconsistent on the first go around. After taking notes on the differences and repeating the test (they re-randomize the order when you refresh the page) I could use the previously identified differences to consistently identify the correct answer
I got 2/6.
Since the test changes the answers, you should run the test 10 times to see if she can get 66% again
yes, he should have run the test more than once. 2/6 is what you'd expect on average by mere guessing, so it's likely you can't hear the difference (with your setup).
also we should take intro consideration the guessing.
She said "yes!" for couple of time, so she was guessing, she wasn't sure. ;)
@@-morrow one file was of a much lower quality so she could discount that straight away, so it was a 50/50 choice and you would expect 50% by guessing, as other commenters have said there is no reason not to run the test 10 times and if you wanted more statistical accuracy you would also use multiple subjects.
plus-he said TOO MUCH about the qualities of sounds she would be hearing!
Personally I don't believe you can hear any difference in audio quality to a degree, but you can feel it. The pressure differences, how it changes to rooms to the overall sound environment of the studio or place it was recorded in and the pressure of that place translated into your space. The physical make-up of the individual instruments, imaging and staging and separation. I can definitely tell the difference. And I believe if your set-up is in focus you can too.
I got 6 out of 6 on the test and I am not sure if it was luck or what, I just went with a feeling of smoothness. Very intresting video! I'll repeat the test tomorrow and see the difference on my results!
U have chosen perfect grup and song to the test ,plus youtube sound compresion quality as well...
Well, good luck mate
The fact that your assistant got 4/6 right for questions that individually only have a 1/3 chance each to be right, is actually staggering proof that there is a real and significant difference between WAV and MP3, and indeed there’s merit to what audiophiles do!
Or rather she was lucky with her guesses? She didn't look confident with each answer.
Bear in mind this was lowly mp3 vs cd quality. The biggest thing now is ‘high res’ audio, or master files like tidal says that are 5-7 times higher ‘quality’ than uncompressed wav file... which is utter nonsense.
Exactly, than trying it by myself i found out that the cold play wav file has some strange background noise, probably an error of the uploader. So without considering that we get to 80 percent, that in my opinion cant be considered pure luck.
I was thinking the same.
Wrong, this is not staggering proof that there is a real significant difference.
Almost *Anyone* could easily distinguish between 128 and 320, even my 90 year old grandmother. 128 obviously sounds terrible.
So, the true test here is between 320 and flac. now we are at a 50/50% chance of anyone getting 50% even if they randomly did the test without listening to the songs.
The girl in the video got 66%. Randomly choosing between 50/50 can easily give you a 66% on a short test. Not significant at all.
I agree with everything said in this video (especially regarding the quality of 320kb/s MP3), however MP3/AAC is not an archival format. When I purchase music, I want it in a future-proof format that can be transcoded without causing further harm to the audio. For that reason, please consider offering your music in lossless formats such as FLAC or WAV.
Archive purposes is really the only reason to download in lossless 👍
Exactly, I primarily download FLAC/WAV if it is available, or buy the CD to rip to FLAC in case it isn't for precisely this reason. Not offering it in 2018 because "you can't hear the difference anyways" is silly, when bandwidth and storage space is ever so expanding.
Fantastic video, good sir. Very well explained.
Thank you for explaining why I should use 320 kb/s when converting CDs to MP3s. I took the 2015 NPR test and picked three uncompressed WAV songs and three 320 kb/s songs-50/50. I went back and redid the three incorrect songs and I think that the compressed versions actually sounded better. Maybe, it is because of the compression, the music seemed cleaner, sharper, with less background noise. Now that I know what to listen for-yes, the slightly fuller sound is the uncompressed file. For the record, these ears are about to turn 72. I may not be an Audiophile, but I do have a pile of audio.
Back in the 80s there were people claiming they could hear the difference between a black painted or silver painted receiver.
lol I remember if it's not black it's wacked! but back in the day JVC was killing it in silver lol
Um, the phrase was "crack is whacked".
Good ole Whitney Houston. Always going with the good white stuff.
Silver looks better.
That's ridiculous. The only important difference is the cost.
80s stereos were trash,especially late 80s. Top end audio from the 70s...best ever made!!
Rick, I am a fan, but with respect, when I get my students to put a 3 way PA together and we run a 20 metre multi-core up the centre of the hall, and we plug a CD player into the desk and we play for instance Yes 90125 and the Who Live At Leeds at CD quality and then we plug the student's Mp3's of the same tunes in , and crank-up the quality system a little, everybody in the room can tell which is better quality. I agree it is harder to tell the difference at low volumes. Kind regards Peter Bennett, Melbourne, Australia
With respect, you didn't mention what bitrate of mp3s you and your students were listening. That's quite important.
@@FinSynthMusic
Hi, for clarification of my comment, the details of the practical exercise my students and I used to do each year is as follows;
• 4 units of passive Electro Voice X5 at 4 ohms generating a potential 1100w each side.
• And 2 units of 15inch Wharfedale passive subs powered by a similar amp.
• Then we faced the 4 stage monitors which were the Powered JBL 15’’ Eons directly at the mixing desk as well, as there was no band playing it was specifically a listening exercise during a double class-time in the hall.
• The Desk was Allen and Heath MixWizard 16:2 with a multicore rolled out to about 20 metres.
• Some MXR EQ units were plugged in but were bypassed for the exercise.
• No mics were open.
• No effects were engaged.
• Essentially, we made a big-boy’s or girls’ hi fi system.
• The speakers were set up on the floor in front of the stage.
• There was no audience just about 12 or 15 students. I did the same exercise every year for 6 years.
• We used my Rotel RCD 1072 Cd player that I had bought from home, the school’s Tascam Cd player that was rack mountable with a speed variation knob that we didn’t use, sorry I can’t remember the model number and my little Sony Cd layer (kind of Walkman type) that I used to take to gigs to play music in the breaks.
• I had my copy of Yes 90125 and the remastered version of the Who Live at Leeds
Cd (Because I’m old and it’s the best) then I had 300k bps and 128kbps versions of the test tracks as mp3’s that I’d made in Steinberg Wave Lab that were played from my iPod player.
• Then I asked the students to down load or use their cell phones or iPod’s (which were still popular at the time), to call up the same example tracks.
• The point was agreed upon unequivocally. We cranked the system up like at a gig.
• I had given fair warning the days prior any student could then produce a comparison examples of their own CD music and Mp3’s for comparison.
• Their examples crossed a wide range of bit rates; however, I don’t believe any students had 300kbps mp3’s
• The whole point, which is only a simple one, was to prove that there is a difference between Cd quality and Mp’3s and that if you ‘’crank it up’’ you can tell.
Kind regards Peter Bennett (Melbourne Australia)
@@peterbennett4783 An iPod and most phones dont have digital outputs. So you were probably comparing the analog signal output of an IPOD/phone DAC+headphone amplifier to the signal output from your 1000+$ CD player (however that one was connected).
If you noticed any difference between 300k mps and CD with that setup, I would fist look at the obvious difference in hardware used to play the music as a cause.
For a fair comparisson, you would have to put a CD quality music-file onto the iPod/phone and play it from there.
Amazing explanation! Bravo!
i really needed this video in my life
At the end of the day listening to Coldplay uncompressed is equally as unpleasant an experience as listening to it at 128kbps
who, or what is Coldplay?
Early Coldplay is good
@@atticustay1 no it isn't
@@greatfelixo X&Y is meh in my opinion, but Parachutes and A Rush Of Blood To The Head are fantastic. Hating on Coldplay is pretty low hanging fruit
Pretty sure it's always compressed
When I was a songwriter at Muscle Shoals Sound Studios, they guys had in the control room some Voice of The Theater Speakers (Early 70's please note...) Pretty state-of-the art stuff, along with some 4311's... But Jimmy ALSO had a couple of small speakers boxed-up in small cabinets on the board that were intended for car radios. They would do the mixes with the Altecs and the JBL's, but would also listen to the sound from the "car speakers" to get a fuller understanding of what the average listener was going to hear. Now, I'm not actually sure just how much that helped them, but this bears down on the point that for a track to be a decent mix, they figured it had to sound good inside a car, and thus make that a part of their mixing protocol.
Those little near-field speakers?
Probably "Auratones"; known in the trade as "Horrortones".
For reasons that were obvious to those whose hearing had not already been smashed, by long, loud playback sessions rtc..
Switching to them from something like the B&W 801 is a bit of a jolt.
@@bruceinoz8002 Actually, bruce I think one of the engineers there just rigged up a couple of auto speakers in little boxes. Pretty primitive, but they were sort of like what somebody would be listening to in the Ford or Chevy...
Rick, hoping you will do a video on the mixing process. For me when recording improvisations live, it’s the quality of the sound, the soundscape and vibe that moves me and the music, so would think quality monitoring is all important. My final mix is done on the same gear. Then when I listen on someone else’s gear or even worse a mobile phone, it’s all wrong. Perhaps I need a “crap” speaker for final mixing.
I noticed that cymbals and other high pitch percussion get a bit sizzly on lower rates. Once I got a 160 iPod, I didn’t try to keep file sizes down, and these days it doesn’t mean much anyway, as storage is no longer a limitation.
Yep, cymbals stand out on lower bitrates. Storage has become an issue again for me 😆 since expanding my palate, but Spotify covers most albums. I hate that I rely on streaming more now, but I just don't have the time and money to handle a greatly-increasing collection.
This is a pretty good video, but there are a couple bits of misinformation. A minor thing is the comment that CDs play 16-bit/44.1kHz WAV files. WAV is a file format developed in 1991 by IBM and Microsoft specifically for computer storage. CD debuted as early as 1981 and uses what's called the "Red Book" specification, developed by Sony and Philips, that not only stipulates the bit depth (16 bits) and sampling frequency (44.1kHz), but also everything right down to the structure of how the physical disc is made. So while WAV and the bits stored on a CD following the same 16/44.1 bit depth and sampling frequency, they're not the same thing. Insofar as the tweeters that extend past 40kHz (many claim it, but few meet that, BTW) -- 100% true that no one is going to hear that high. What *can* be beneficial about these tweeters, however, is not that they extend that high in frequency; rather, it's how they perform WITHIN the audioband, which extends up to only 20kHz. Not that long ago, most metal-dome tweeters would resonate well within the audioband -- sometimes as low as 13kHz. If you measured them, you'd see a HUGE spike of energy that was typically very audible, because it's right in the range you can hear. When you create a tweeter that behaves well very high in frequency, you can usually be assured that within the range you can hear (up to 20kHz, max) is exceptionally well behaved and without "ringing."
So a higher overall range will be better behaved within the audible range?
@@krane15 yes, but only for speakers and headphones. A source with 44.1 kHz is fine.
@@Chopper153 So what do i do with all of my 24/96 tracks? lol
Nothing new here. A music CD ripped into a PC becomes an uncompressed WAV file. Both are 44.1/16 bit.
@@Ale-kc9pq you can keep them and enjoy them. Unless you can’t afford the spce to store them
Eminently sensible advice as always. The so many 'audiophiles' spend all their time listening to equipment, and forget they are meant to be listening to MUSIC!
@Miles Prower Honestly I think of the people I have met who are audiophiles (including some people I know personally), I don't know anyone who loves music more than audiophiles. This video is actually a pretty bad test - the setup I listen to music on and mix with (I study audio engineering) is around 700 dollars or so inclusive (that means literally everything down to the dac and cables). And trust me, when you listen to music on systems like that it's really really hard to go back. This video has a sample size of 6 tracks..... and the actual bottleneck in the system is the codec on the PC and the headphones (not to bash audiotechnica, i love those headphones but I also know exactly what they sound like compared to good studio monitors). I 1000% agree no one can tell the difference between hi-fi mp3 and 16bit 44khz lossless on lower end setups. BUT, I would 100% say that almost all music people (including myslef) can tell the difference as soon as you pass the 400 dollar mark pretty much w/ good studio monitors. I can even tell the difference between 16 bit 44 and 24 / 96 which actually becomes painfully obvious once you are used to what 24 96 sounds like. Trust me when I tell you, I really really love music. I am an artist myself, I record, play, write, produce.... once you listen to hi-fi music on studio monitors ..... you never ever want to go back. It feels like the band is right in front of you in the same room.
Of course, they are all stupid, and you are a genius. That goes without saying.
You have a good point but back when I was in the music business 80's there was a pretty standard formula, a recording engineer, once it was solid it went to a mixing engineer and finally to mastering engineer (BTW) they were all superb at at their different jobs. With all this new technology I'm sure things are different now.
I go 4 out of 6 right, too, and I'm old. The differences are very tiny. But the thing is, several of those recordings are so poorly mixed that they are just a blur in all three formats. I listened to see how many different things I could identify, because MP3 drops all the low-priority sounds.
"So much of listening is based on what you train your ears to hear" pretty much sums up the whole video.
In hard rock/metal, you can sometimes hear the difference in the cymbals. MP3 can have a fluttering sound. But you also need very transparent monitor to hear it.
Yeah, especially between 128kbit/s and lossless. I can hear subtle differences in the highs, as well with my AKG Q-701 headphones. In pop/rock records. The precision of the cymbal attack suffers from low bit rates. More so at ~99kbit/s WMA.
@@Oesterreicher94 Yeah, and you can tell how WMA and MP3 sounds in different ways. One flutters more, and the other sounds more "ditigal", as I remember it. (Haven't used WMA for a long time.)
Yeah you need to distinguish the overall tone from individual instruments. Some suffer much more than others.
Acoustic guitars also sound really nice when played in higher quality.
@@Oesterreicher94 Opus is damn good for encoding at low bit rates. I've gotten away with good audio quality even down to ~70kbps trying to fit albums on obsolete media like the Floptical (20.88MB). Its 128kbps is pretty much equivalent to 192kbps MP3.
The first time I listened to classical music( Intro to Sheherazade) on my B&O Advanced, my first thought was: how glorious must the choirs of heaven sound! Changes the way you listen to music.
The best explanation ever! Thanks!!!
I am 57 years old, and have recorded and mixed full-time for 30 years. I can usually tell the difference between a 320kbs mp3 and its loss-less original. I can always (100%) tell the difference between the 320 and the 128 mp3. But I can never tell the difference between 16-bit / 44.1 against its mix at a higher format (even when the multi-track is recorded super high), and I am tired of anyone who says they can... because they can NEVER prove it. Oh yes... I'm right.
Don't even get me started about Monster-Cable!
"... because they can NEVER prove it [to you]." There are many reasons why live music sounds different from recorded music but one of those reasons is that the overtones are cut off. And even when they are not, in say properly recorded 96khz, people still can not hear it because 99% of tweeters are poor and / or do not go past about 20khz. If you compare a very high note on a violin on CD and the same note they will sound different. In part because of the extra information. The limit of hearing may be 14khz to 20khz but the frequencies above the limit of hearing go towards shaping the sound below. I believe this is true because it is the overtones that actually give the timbre to the instrument.
For what it's worth I'm forty nine. For me there is an audible difference in sample rates. It seems to be a phase difference that affects the stereo field. I've noticed that the difference is emphasised if the speakers are wired out of phase. Try it and see, maybe you'll hear it.
Nobody has to 'prove' anything to you. Either you hear it or you don't. I've auditioned high end DAC's playing 44.1k files vs 192k files and yes there is a sonic difference. Unfortunately you need very expensive gear to make that difference audible. For 99% of folks out there, they aren't going to detect the difference. Most folks are listening to Katy Perry on their laptops or iPhones - so none of this is relevant. Their gear is garbage so 128 or 320 will make not a lot of difference. I just replaced a low end Cambridge DACMagic with a damn expensive Bryston DAC. even my wife, who has shitty hearing, can detect the difference. One costs 10 times more than the other - is it 10 times 'better' ? No. Of course not. And the Cambridge will destroy any of the cheap 1$ DAC's in anyone's laptop or iPhone. So it's a case of diminishing returns for the amount of $$$ spent.
Great advertising. So-so product.
Rick should do another video this time on "Vinyl records versus MP3 or Wav files". Or between digital music files versus High end tape gear, Reel to Reel or high end tape decks with noise reduction capabilities. Can one tell the difference?
Personally I can.. I actually can even tell it's vinyl when it was recorded on digital, and it's not because of cracks and noise. :)
vinyl is also lossy!
Many would be surprised (or shocked) to learn how many vinyl releases came from digital sources, and/or via a digital delay during cutting.
Excellent points. Rick nailed it.