How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality?

[Olivier]

I surfed into this:

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2 ... io-quality

I managed to weed out the 128kbps MP3's easy.. Distinguishing between 320kbps MP3 and Uncompressed WAV was a bit harder but i got that right 5 out of 6 times; Usually by focusing on one little detail buried in the mix.

[Julibee]

In most of the comments on that article (as of yesterday, when I read it), people were reporting 3:6 or 4:6 right... I'd be interested to see how it shakes out among producers. TBH, I don't think I'd do very well.  

[Olivier]

In most of the comments on that article (as of yesterday, when I read it), people were reporting 3:6 or 4:6 right... I'd be interested to see how it shakes out among producers. TBH, I don't think I'd do very well.  

On doing it again i scored 3 out of 6. I wonder what i'll score tomorrow

[selig]

Well, I didn't exactly spend much time with this, but I totally sucked - never picked the 128 versions but DID pick the 320 version 4 out to 6 times. Only listened for a few seconds before making my choice, fwiw.

My problem is that I keep listening to the music, like 99% of folks out there, something I've been training my ears to hear for longer than I've been training to hear fidelity issues (so no surprise there, right?). 

[normen]

To identify lossy compression, listen to "glass noise" in high frequency content and listen to reverb tails on instruments that are far in the background, they tend to get "sucked away" and the mix subtly starts to lose "depth".

[adfielding]

5 out of 6, but that was mostly luck.

I can pick out the 128kbps MP3, but differentiating between the 320kbps MP3 & WAV versions was mostly guesswork. They've been quite crafty in their song selection, generally speaking I tend to find that MP3 compression is most noticeable in the high end, particularly with stuff like hats & cymbals. A lot of these tracks aren't heavy on the hats, so I couldn't really fall back on that.

I still think 320kbps MP3s offer a solid compromise with regards to file size/quality. I use 320kbps MP3s for listening when I'm out and about (i.e. not in an ideal listening environment), and FLACs at home (i.e. in a totally ideal listening environment). It's all about context, really.

In this day and age nobody should be using 128kbps MP3s, though. *cough* SOUNDCLOUD

[Olivier]

To identify lossy compression, listen to "glass noise" in high frequency content and listen to reverb tails on instruments that are far in the background, they tend to get "sucked away" and the mix subtly starts to lose "depth".

Thats a very good description of what i was doing the first time around. Somehow small details that aren't that upfront in the mix start to loose their defenition. But i only hear that if i start focusing in on that one detail..

[Gaja]

I have two issues with this Test. It offers no immediate A/B comparison (which would be difficult to pull off online) and the uncompressed wav files always take longest to load, so therefore I'm biased. I was always able to tell which one it was, because it took about three times as long to load.

[JNeffLind]

Well, I didn't exactly spend much time with this, but I totally sucked - never picked the 128 versions but DID pick the 320 version 4 out to 6 times. Only listened for a few seconds before making my choice, fwiw.

My problem is that I keep listening to the music, like 99% of folks out there, something I've been training my ears to hear for longer than I've been training to hear fidelity issues (so no surprise there, right?). 

I'm not even going to bother trying this (since I'd be terrible) but I have to agree with this point. It's great that so many producers are so devoted to sound quality and perfect mixes, but for the average listener a great song with a bit of mud or lossy compression is preferable to an average song with a pristine mix.

Could it be that mix quality is obsessed upon because it's more easily quantifiable than melodic/harmonic/lyric excellence? Or maybe I'm just trying to explain away my own failings and justify my own agendas.

[normen]

Could it be that mix quality is obsessed upon because it's more easily quantifiable than melodic/harmonic/lyric excellence? Or maybe I'm just trying to explain away my own failings and justify my own agendas.

Why would you compromise on quality at the very beginning of the recording chain? It can only get worse in the end so you simply don't compromise from the start

[selig]

Could it be that mix quality is obsessed upon because it's more easily quantifiable than melodic/harmonic/lyric excellence? Or maybe I'm just trying to explain away my own failings and justify my own agendas.

Why would you compromise on quality at the very beginning of the recording chain? It can only get worse in the end so you simply don't compromise from the start

I didn't see that as JNeffLind's point, but I'll bite…

I can't see a single reason to do this intentionally, but I can list countless examples of how it happens in the real world by accident. Thing is, in cases where this has happened to me, not one single person has identified the issue in the final releases! This includes albums where one song was recorded at a lower quality setting than the rest, songs where crossfades didn't render and we moved on without them (on the vocal/guitar tracks, no less), songs where noise levels were what I would normally call "unacceptable" but the takes were fantastic, albums where some vocals came off of Roland 1680s and the rest from Sony 48 track machines, etc.

[chimp_spanner]

I got 1/6, and the other 5 times I picked 320kbps every time. So I was able to discern between low and high quality MP3, but somehow preferred high rate MP3 to uncompressed WAV. Weird. 

[normen]

I didn't see that as JNeffLind's point, but I'll bite…

I can't see a single reason to do this intentionally, but I can list countless examples of how it happens in the real world by accident. Thing is, in cases where this has happened to me, not one single person has identified the issue in the final releases! This includes albums where one song was recorded at a lower quality setting than the rest, songs where crossfades didn't render and we moved on without them (on the vocal/guitar tracks, no less), songs where noise levels were what I would normally call "unacceptable" but the takes were fantastic, albums where some vocals came off of Roland 1680s and the rest from Sony 48 track machines, etc.

Well sure but IMO thats exactly why you would care to get the best result wherever you *can*, no? It can only get worse I thought that was basically his point, asking "why people get obsessive about mix quality". But I might be wrong there re-reading his post. I was basically saying why in the studio you DO care to have a balanced connection to get those 6dB worth of S/N ratio etc etc.

Generally though I'd totally agree that the performance quality is the very most important thing, all the things us engineers and producers care so much about don't even make 20% of the final impression.

And you're right about "who even cares anyway" as well. Just today I had a quite famous ex-politician on stage giving a reading and his headset mic slid off his one ear and would make some scratching noises when he moved his head too far and the mic touched his face. I thought "Shit, why today with important people, can't go up there and interrupt his speech".. So I was basically dying each time I heard the noises. After the reading was done I went up to him and his wife who was in the audience and said something along the lines of "Sorry for the noises but it seems the headsets slipped off" They were both like "Huh? What do you mean? I didn't notice anything. Must be your fine engineer hearing." Well duh

[JNeffLind]

Why would you compromise on quality at the very beginning of the recording chain? It can only get worse in the end so you simply don't compromise from the start

Selig has already basically responded to this but I'll add my two cents. For me it's not about intentionally compromising, it's about having limited resources (hours, gear, money, etc.) and it takes a lot of time to learn this stuff. Is my time better spent mastering a new tuning on the guitar (DADGAD ftw) or learning to fine tune stereo-imaging? Is it better spent giving my lyrics another pass or making sure the automations on my levels are spot on throughout a song. In a sense there is no ticking clock, so why not just do it all perfect, but my energy and willpower are limited. Plus I'm not super patient.

I always do the best I can when it comes to the technical aspects, but my point is that for me to achieve the level of yourself or Selig or Benedict or countless others on this forum when it comes to mixing/mastering would take 1000s of hours, if I could do it all. I'd argue that those 1000s of hours could be better spent elsewhere for me, at least as far as "bang for the buck" ("power for the hour"? lol).

So why not pay someone else to do it? Again, it's a matter of there not being inexhaustible resources (money instead of time). If I pay to have someone else mix my stuff, I need to work longer hours which gives me less time with my piano, guitar, and fountain pens.

In a perfect world (one I hope to achieve someday) I will be able to pay others to care as much about mixing and mastering as I do about writing, but for the time being it's about doing the best I can with what I have.

[JNeffLind]

Well sure but IMO thats exactly why you would care to get the best result wherever you *can*, no? It can only get worse I thought that was basically his point, asking "why people get obsessive about mix quality". But I might be wrong there re-reading his post. I was basically saying why in the studio you DO care to have a balanced connection to get those 6dB worth of S/N ratio etc etc.

Generally though I'd totally agree that the performance quality is the very most important thing, all the things us engineers and producers care so much about don't even make 20% of the final impression.

And you're right about "who even cares anyway" as well. Just today I had a quite famous ex-politician on stage giving a reading and his headset mic slid off his one ear and would make some scratching noises when he moved his head too far and the mic touched his face. I thought "Shit, why today with important people, can't go up there and interrupt his speech".. So I was basically dying each time I heard the noises. After the reading was done I went up to him and his wife who was in the audience and said something along the lines of "Sorry for the noises but it seems the headsets slipped off" They were both like "Huh? What do you mean? I didn't notice anything. Must be your fine engineer hearing." Well duh

Yeah, I think I wasn't exactly clear. As I explained in my post just above this, I didn't mean to argue that we should strive for worse mixes because people don't care, or ignore mixing because people don't care, but rather that with the limited resources (time, energy, money, etc.) that maybe mixing isn't as important as some believe and that the limited resources should be less focused there. With that said, I do wish my mixes were perfect, but I'd rather write a perfect song than have a perfect mix. Someday perhaps I'll accomplish both.

[normen]

Selig has already basically responded to this but I'll add my two cents. For me it's not about intentionally compromising, it's about having limited resources (hours, gear, money, etc.) and it takes a lot of time to learn this stuff. Is my time better spent mastering a new tuning on the guitar (DADGAD ftw) or learning to fine tune stereo-imaging? Is it better spent giving my lyrics another pass or making sure the automations on my levels are spot on throughout a song. In a sense there is no ticking clock, so why not just do it all perfect, but my energy and willpower are limited. Plus I'm not super patient.
I always do the best I can when it comes to the technical aspects, but my point is that for me to achieve the level of yourself or Selig or Benedict or countless others on this forum when it comes to mixing/mastering would take 1000s of hours, if I could do it all. I'd argue that those 1000s of hours could be better spent elsewhere for me, at least as far as "bang for the buck" ("power for the hour"? lol).

So why not pay someone else to do it? Again, it's a matter of there not being in exhaustible resources (money instead of time). If I pay to have someone else mix my stuff, I need to work longer hours which gives me less time with my piano, guitar, and fountain pens.

In a perfect world (one I hope to achieve someday) I will be able to pay others to care as much about mixing and mastering as I do about writing, but for the time being it's about doing the best I can with what I have.

I see. Sure, you always get what you pay for. Me personally I don't like to get involved in projects where I don't think the "proper" (whatever that is) level can't be reached. For example I don't play songs in my cover band that we clearly don't have the skill for or when somebody asks me to do orchestral music for a movie or game I rather point to composers I know that are able to properly pull that off (which in turn also rather ask me to mix their music than do it themselves).

[Benedict]

Well, well I got 1/6 and most picked the 320k files. Also some mixes/music were just so horrid that I didn't care anyway.

Like Selig I am listening to the music and not the quality of the files. That is my job as a Producer/Mixer and a fan.

I think obsessing over a tiny, irrelevant, detail is best left for people who who don't want to complete their projects and need to find a way to avoid. Rock should Rock, no more or less. I want to hear the musician's idea not every possible freq of a hi hat buried in the mix. I just watched a video where a plug was used to completely re-work the feel of a take. While the plug sounds interesting I would hate to have that guy as my Producer as he is revising the performance to suit his views. That isn't music to me.

And thanks Mr Lind for the compliment.

[PSoames]

5 out of 6, so much back patting and self-congratulations ensued.

Then I noticed the text, "Lossless audio is not supported in your browser. To hear the uncompressed WAV sample, visit this page Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or Apple Safari."

So whatever difference I thought I heard, it seems I imagined them. :s0959:

[jappe]

Three out of six...times I managed to pick the worst quality, thinking it was the best.

But I did notice that all Vega samples had clicks in it; for example "I am sitting in the morning". 

[jappe]

5 out of 6, so much back patting and self-congratulations ensued.

Then I noticed the text, "Lossless audio is not supported in your browser. To hear the uncompressed WAV sample, visit this page Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or Apple Safari."

So whatever difference I thought I heard, it seems I imagined them. :s0959:

Hmm...according to my, possibly flawed, math, there is only 0.41% chance that you would get 5 out of 6 by random selection.
That's worth a "Used the force" award
EDIT: eh...should be six times that probability, so 2.46%...right!? Someone correct me here please or I will need to go down and clean the dust from my aging math books in some long forgotten box in the basement

[Marco Raaphorst]

got 3/6. including one 128 kbps mistake.

I thought that the 128 kbps sounded ok to me. normally I dislike the Soundcloud compression but I think the 128 kbps conversion here was done very well. at least for me

[FATCheese]

I scored 3 out of 6.

The only 128 kbps track I selected was the one from Coldplay.

As for Jay Z I picked out the 320. But if an artist is using crunchy sample why bother to produce high quality?

[decibel]

4/6 - listened with Headphones plugged into laptop

i found the the stuff that featured real instruments / voices etc was easier to pick, the two i got wrong were electronic sample based (jayz and kate perry)

[forensickbeats]

I`ve got two 128kbps, everything else I did 320kbps.

[Data_Shrine]

If you're on Mac, you could also try to use the MTFi plug-in (AU).

You can test out in real-time the difference in sound from AAC 128k, iTunes+, and the unaltered/uncompressed sound.

For me the difference is obvious, especially with headphones & studio monitors.