VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

heyguido · Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:01 pm Post subject: How good are your ears?

Found this little test online today....

The results may surprise you. Or not. Ninja

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
_________________
Don Brookshire
"Wait.... They wanna PAY me for this?"

Bruce · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:16 am Post subject:

I flunked the test. Several years ago I uploaded all of my music CDs onto my computer back when drive space was more costly and started at 128 Kbps mp3 conversion. I went to 160 Kbps after a while thinking there was a difference. Not really.

I listen to most of my old music collection on earbuds while I walk or on trips in the car, and both of those environments provide lots of audio fidelity challenges. So I'm thinking that for most of us, most of the time, it doesn't matter.

B
_________________
VO-BB Member #31 Enlisted June, 2005

I'm not a Zoo, but over the years I've played one on radio/TV. .

todd ellis · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:38 am Post subject:

i failed. listening on my fancy-day reference monitors.

i agree with bruce that MOST of the time - good enough is good enough.
_________________
"i know philip banks": todd ellis
who's/on/1st?

ConnieTerwilliger · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:45 am Post subject:

I got half of them correct listening on my small speakers. And the other half I picked the lowest quality. It had a lot to do with the density of the music in my case. The less dense, the easier it was to tell the difference.
_________________
Playing for a living...
www.voiceover-talent.com
YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/connieterwilliger

Quicksilver · Been Here Awhile Joined: 29 Oct 2012 Posts: 217

Interesting.

I got 3 out of 6.

Kim Fuller · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:47 pm Post subject:

Failed. I got one right, with a couple chose middle quality and the rest lowest.

Rick Riley · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:49 pm Post subject:

I listened and couldn’t tell the difference, HOWEVER, even though my computer is running through very efficient KRK VXT 4’s and a KRK 10 inch sub, it’s still a computer with audio being processed by a CPU, and being sent through an interface. AND, you don’t know the source of the sound, as to how it’s being processed on the ‘other side’.

Not to get all geeky here, but if you’re really into listening to detail, which High Definition audio provides, you’re listening through a lot better processing than your computer can offer. Chances are you have a high end Pre Amp, with a matched Amp, processing the original digital source. And HD Audio offers detail that you are not going to appreciate as much with a singular voice like Suzanne Vega’s as opposed to a full blown recording from the Moody Blues or Pink Floyd or a given Philharmonic performance.

I would consider the source on this test as taking out most of what HD has to offer. You can only replicate the source, and if you don’t know the quality of that, the overall end result of the test would be suspect. Record an AM radio station in MP3 and Uncompressed WAV and it’s still only going to offer the detail of an AM radio station.

If you’d like to stop by, I’ve got an Emotiva Pre and Amp processing a High Def CD player into a pair of Klipschorns that you’ll be able to tell the difference between an MP3 and uncompressed WAV pretty quickly. One cut from Dark Side of the Moon ought to do it.
_________________
Never do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the Paramedics

www.rickrileyvoice.com

Mike Harrison · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:09 pm Post subject:

Quicksilver · Been Here Awhile Joined: 29 Oct 2012 Posts: 217

Good point Rick.

I'll second that any Pink Floyd makes excellent material for such tests. You might hear a lot of "still not sure, play it again" though Wink

The Pink Floyd Laser Spectacular is still one of the coolest shows I've ever been to.

Scott Pollak · Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:48 pm Post subject:

There is probably no bigger fan of Pink Floyd than me.

However, in this case, I say "Shpongle"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP2hWvVyyUM
_________________
Scott R. Pollak
Clients include Pandora, NPR Atlanta, Wells Fargo, Cisco, Humana, Publix, UPS, AT&T, HP, Xerox and more.

www.voicebyscott.com

Rick Riley · Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:20 pm Post subject:

Wow, that was really cool Scott! I didn't know you still smoked.
_________________
Never do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the Paramedics

www.rickrileyvoice.com

Darren Altman · Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:07 am Post subject:

Really interesting. I got 2/6 and as a VO and musician, I consider myself to have very good ears. What a tool!

So this opens up the debate about audio quality. I've been auditioning @ 192kbps and sending out my voiceovers to Radio producers @ 320 - even though the maximum ISDN quality is 128.

Does this mean that my 320 + 192 routine is an utter waste of time then, as the difference will be negligible? Especially if I can't tell the difference between an uncompressed WAV and 128kbps?
_________________
https://www.darrenaltman.com/
http://twitter.com/darrenaltman

Dayo · Cinquecento Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 544 Location: UK

I suspect your higher res file might stand up to aggressive processing better then the 128 Kbps version, Darren. Be interesting to do some tests on that though.
_________________
Colin Day - UK Voiceover
www.thurstonday.co.uk

Lee Gordon · Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:26 am Post subject:

My ears are good for keeping my reading glasses from sliding down my face. Beyond that, not so much. Shocked

_________________
Lee Gordon, O.A.V.
Voice President of the United States
www.leegordonproductions.com
Twitter: @LeeGordonVoice