Skip to main content

Can You Hear the Difference?

Member for

3 years 9 months
I'm curious to know if listeners can hear the difference in two versions of the same song (one is processed and the other is not).

Link:

Which version sounds better to you and why?

Comments

Member for

9 years

DonnyThompson Thu, 02/15/2018 - 02:53
Well, you're presenting these two versions to a forum of pro audio cats, who's hearing and critical listening skills have been honed over time to pick up differences far more subtle than those in the vid you posted.
I don't "prefer" either version. Neither has the fidelity and sonic integrity of the original.
Version A has far too much low end, and I can hear aliasing and other lossy artifacts happening. It also sounds like it has been limited to the point of distortion.
Version B has very little low end, is extremely mid forward, as if a band pass filter was engaged.
So my answer is, both sound terrible.
Does this mean I didn't win anything?

Member for

3 years 9 months

nmccamy Thu, 02/15/2018 - 03:01
No prizes here!

I'm checking my own hearing and see if it coincides with the pros. I'm also curious to know what people like.
Version B is straight from the CD, no added processing.
Version A is overly processed, but may be preferred by bass lovers.

Obviously the user's listening device will play a huge role.

Member for

9 years

DonnyThompson Thu, 02/15/2018 - 03:13
Version A is NOT the CD audio. Its not a hi-res wav file, it has been lowered in resolution in order to meet the audio file size citeria of YouTube. Conversion, ( downsampling in both SR and Bit Rate) has absolutely occured here.
There is evident/audible aliasing and other lossy artifacts present, caused by a particular data compression codec used in order to bring down the size of the audio file for streaming management.
In short, there has absolutely been processing done...on both versions.

Member for

3 years 9 months

nmccamy Thu, 02/15/2018 - 03:20
Well, you could be right. I was given the file and told it was a direct rip.
But, I think you are saying that, rightfully, YouTube has processed the wav file.

For critical listening, YouTube has severe limitations.
Casual listeners probably won't hear much difference, and YouTube is counting on it.
x