I (almost) can't hear differences in sound quality - am I alone?

Gear & Tools Talk
1

Hi, I have been bothered (or confused) for quite a long on this. So, I saw countless videos of comparing guitar strings and acoustic guitars, and even more talk about music production, bit depth, frequency, audio interfaces, equalization etc. I don’t know if I should consider myself lucky or unlucky, but I have extremely hart time telling differences in sound “quality”. ONE NOTE: I am still young, in 30es and have very attentive hearing, I can hear some quiet sounds and I haven’t been gigging at all so my hearing is mostly intact (only headphone use might harmed it a bit). I even did hearing test and I can hear up to 18 KHZ, whilst my wife can only hear up to 15 KHZ.

Anyway, I really feel out of place when ppl on video talk (even Justin) about “ohhh this guitar sound so good, this is warmer, these strings are better, blah blah”. I wanna hear difference but I really struggle. When I finally realize what is different, it’s such small difference that I honestly don’t even care. Much bigger difference I feel when guitar is played cleanly or sloppily (so technique not the material). I do own solid top acoustic and I had laminated cheapo one, but still can’t feel difference. I don’t even wanna go into audio interfaces where I can’t tell difference from using my Windows 10 budget laptop w/o any audio interface, aside some mildly higher latency. For me 41 KHZ, 48 KHZ, 16 bit, 24 bit sound exactly the same. I’m sorry if I insult audiophiles here, but I (nor anyone I know) can even tell difference between 128 kbps vs 320 kbps sound file, let alone lossless. Only reason I record/export in some format is because tutorial said so. When I watched some tutorials on using EQ to “fix the guitar” or “fix the room” I can’t tell difference even if my life depends on it. Yes, if it’s pushed to more extreme levels I sure can, but mild editing is brutally hard for me to hear. Not to go much into digression, similar thing is with video. 60 or 30 FPS is same to me. Period. Although my eyes are crappier than my ears.

So, this seems more of the rant so far. But I wanted to ask is anyone else experiencing similar thing? Yes, I heard that you can “learn” to hear the difference, but in a way, I like this ignorance. Secondly, talking about music production, I do get people who gig or have a studio that for PROFESSIONAL uses where you earn a living it’s kinda important to have great tools and equipment, but as a hobbyist who would “one day” maybe post some songs on Youtube and who plays mainly to himself and family/friends is it worth even bothering about this things? I have a hard time hearing a difference, but my wife struggles even more. Once I was asking her for opinion on song I was editing. Played her 2 versions, and she got angry on me as I pushed her to tell the difference (which I did hear, and I wanted confirmation that what I think is better is really better) and she got mad on me. So I wonder should I bother or just be happy using my “crappy” equipment and enjoy?

2 Likes
2

In a nutshell… YES!

(I assume you mean 44.1kHz)

You’re not alone; there’s nearly 8 billion people on this planet who can’t tell the difference.

Why is that? Because 44.1kHz was designed to capture every single frequency that humans can hear. Every. Single. Frequency.

There have been people who have made wild claims that they can hear the difference, but these “night and day” differences disappear when subjected to Scientific testing. So far, there is zero credible evidence that a higher sample rate than 44.1kHz can make an audible difference as a playback medium.

Having said that, there’s often good reasons why, in the recording and production process, higher sample rates can be better, and why using 44.1 or 48kHz at this point may cause audible differences. But once the track is mixed and mastered, there’s zero audible difference between equivalent tracks.

Personally, I’m in favour of 48kHz. Why? because that’s the format used by film and TV, and normalising it to a single baseline standard makes sense. It would also (eventually) get rid of the annoying situation where consumer audio interfaces support different standards which causes some incompatibilities.

Note that 44.1kHz was chosen for CD simply as it was the bare minimum to capture full frequency audio whilst still managing to get a reasonable amount of music onto a CD. With 48kHz, CD albums would be a fair bit shorter. And CDs have largely gone away as a modern distribution medium, although I hear they are making a comeback (which, at least, is more rational than vinyl or compact cassettes).

By the way, cheap consumer recording equipment (sub $200 audio interfaces and DAWs) exceed the quality achievable in the best recording studios in the 1960s and most of the 1970s, and no-one would argue that some of the classics recorded back then were poor quality.

Cheers,

Keith

5 Likes
3

as long as you’re happy and the guitar is in tune them all is good.

6 Likes
4

imho, be happy. Enjoy the gear you have. You’ll have more bread in your pocket for not having to get high end gear… :slight_smile:
Example. I had (gave it away I disliked it so much) a peavey auditon 20 amp and I got a '65 princeton reverb amp. Unfortunetley for my pocket book, I can hear the difference. My pocket book feels the difference too of about $1300. While my ears are happy, my wallet isn’t happy. Worse yet. I do have hearing damage from past experience. I could still tell I didn’t like the audition 20.

5

This ^^^^ simples. I first started recording @ 44.1k as it was audio only but moved to 48k when I started doing videos. Could I tell the difference ? Nope not at all. :sunglasses:

2 Likes
6

To make things worse, there is a financial incentive for many content creators (especially “review” videos on youtube) to exaggerate, or even just make up, such differences.

Things are even crazier in “audiophile” hi-fi where people claim to be able to hear the difference between 2 brands of power cord, amongst a long list of things. Yes, I mean the electric cable that you plug into the mains.

4 Likes
7

The reason for higher sample rates is for the digital processing. Having headroom for the processing math is the reason for this. Once the final product is ready to be turned into a file, down to 48kHz is quite reasonable.

The reason for 24-bit sample depth is to keep the noise from creeping up without need. Properly scaled final output will not add appreciable noise, but if you sample with 15 or 16 bit, then you likely add noise and you can never get that back out.

All this means is that you need to consider the reason for the fancy specs. if it is in a final output file, then you don’t need it. If it is an interim file that will undergo processing, then you benefit as described. Be sure to consider the use of the waveform rather than be concerned about not hearing differences.

With respect to strings or pickups or other things like that, it took me a couple years of playing to be aware of string timbre differences in most cases. Different winding styles can sound a little different on electric, especially flat-wound. I can kind of hear differences in metal alloy as well. I can certainly hear differences in body/bridge type with my guitars unplugged and that makes it into the plugged-in sound. My hearing has a very large drop-out about 8kHz and comes back a little. I have fairly loud tinnitus as well and I can still hear some of these differences - it just takes some exposure.

If you are happy with your equipment, no need to follow the fancy-fancy folks. Save your cash for something important.

2 Likes
8

What @stitch says!

I think it is highly personal and, within reason, differences in sound are just that. What then matters is preference. If you are the type to commit to saying one sound is better, then, to you, it is.

I tend to seek a sound. Of course, that is complicated, because whatever it is I seek is inconsistent (one of my finer traits) and not well defined. But I do tend to decide that I like or don’t like something rather than just being ok with it.

If you are blessed to be ok with whatever (up to an obvious point perhaps?) enjoy it all. If you eventually learn to discern nuances, you can then. Appreciate them for what they are. Very zen.

PS: I did the audiophile thing for a while. I like what I think is good. But all that nonsense about cables, power cords, special lifts for speaker cable and gear, on and on? I think they are just trying to find something to do with a hobby that is mostly passive listening. I decided to play an instrument (guitar, duh) to be closer to the music than any stereo can get me. Not that listening isn’t great, music is awesome consumed as well, but playing is better for me.

3 Likes
9

I think it can be more than that: I think in some cases people spend more time passively listening to, and analysing, the gear, instead of the music.

Cheers,

Keith

1 Like
10

What I would add to this debate is the audio difference across different speakers when mixing.

I think then you can the hear a difference. And it is one of the greatest challenges for the amateur home studio mixer / producer,

My output options are many when mixing a track. I have 2 AIs which I can monitor direct from headphones. I have a low level sound bar (15W) I use a general PC audio output. Each AI is connected to a 50w Technic (Tescos) sound bar that sits above my PC monitor. Both AI are also connected to my 150W Behringer Studio Monitors. So if I record in my DAW and start mixing its always and compromise on output as each set of “speakers” produces a noticeably different sound. Then I upload the mix to my mobile/portable/cell phone and its different again. So you then get into nightmare world of which medium to mix for.

If am practicing for a JGC Open Mic, I’ll mix/produce with Studio Monitors and then send the track to my daughter who extensibly uses her phone for audio. If she’s cool I’ll leave things as they are, as most folk are likely to be dialed in by tablet or phone these days.

If I am doing a bigger multi track “non live” set up, I’ll go with the studio monitors when mixing. I’ll likely still run it by my daughter for some QA and its generally OK.

Now when I have a JGC OM Track nicely cooked and simmering for show time and I switch to IEMs it sounds :poop: but I suck it up, as I know the end result should be ok. If its not I blame my daughter and move on to the next project ! :rofl:

So it’s always some form of compromise.

2 Likes
11

Mate, I’d say you are in the perfectly normal range and ability with the other 99% of us. None of what you’ve said would indicate to me that you are aurally challenged, or have a " bad’ ear.

And about those you say who confidently comment on the difference between two very similar sounds - guitars, sound files, songs etc - in alot of cases, that’s all fluff and bs.
Enjoy man; all is good.

Cheers, Shane

3 Likes
12

I noticed you mentioned YouTube and certainly when you go down that route then any difference that might exist doesn’t matter at all given that YouTube will encode your video and then someone will likely listen to it via the speakers on their phone! It’s always so funny when you get people in YouTube comments talking about sound in great detail as if they are professionals and yet they’re arguing about a YouTube stream! :man_facepalming:
My ears are nothing special either and it’s a good way to be. Find a sound you are happy with and go with it. We can always spend a small fortune and maybe there’ll be a difference but is it actually better and does it matter?

3 Likes
13

I would make a distinction between industry standards for vinyl, CD and other formats on the creation-end of sound recordings and the “perfect” reproduction of recorded sound contained in a certain medium that audiophiles claim to be striving for. IMO, audiophilia is part egoism and part snake-oil salesmanship adapted to the 20th & 21st centuries. You don’t need to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on cables and the like to be able to enjoy the music you listen to.

On the other hand, the tonal differences between certain types of guitars, e.g. single-coil vs humbucker, solid-body vs hollow-body, 6-string vs 12-string, will become easier to recognize if you focus on them and research them, although it might take some time.

2 Likes
14

To a large extent the audience won’t notice of course. However you as a player will and if the sound inspires you it can make you play better - and the audience might well notice that.
I mean Hendrix sounded great, but if he had had a pre-CBS strat it would have been so much better … said no one ever :slight_smile:

1 Like
15

The audience wont notice if its a specific guitar or cab or recorded and mixed x way instead of Y.

Its your job as a musician (*along with anyone else involved) to make sure it sounds how you want it to sound.

One reason why people recording in studios use a much wider range of gear and techniques than they would at any other time. Once its down, mixed and released your stuck with it forever (kinda).

I’m certainly not up to telling individual amps or string choices or what varnish was used like Chappers is but you can hear a difference in sound between bands (or songs) and that doesnt happen by accident

16

I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment on poor/sloppy playing being MUCH more important to fix than everything else. A good player can make most equipment sound good, and the opposite is equally true for a player that has not put enough time into practicing.

That being said, I do believe that some of those small “inaudible” things can indeed make a big difference on the end result - but only in the hands of true professional experts! For example, despite being very interested in tone, recording and mixing myself… being a hobbyist, I honestly also struggle a lot with hearing some of the finer details in some YouTube posts on advanced compression techniques, slight use of saturation etc etc. But I accept that, all combined, those are the things that makes the CDs we know and love sound as great as they do - building on top of those top-tier performances of the professional artists.

It’s a learning process. I would suggest, as a beginner taking it in steps… starting with focusing entirely on playing, then perhaps after a while you’ll have an opinion on which types of tones you like best - at a high level (warm, sharp, crunchy, clean etc etc). Only WAY down the line do you have to worry about recording techniques, string brands and probably never about recording sampling frequency :slight_smile:

4 Likes
17

I can’t believe this guy- he just shouted:
“The Emperor has NO CLOTHES!” :open_mouth:

I have no doubt if you really wanted to, and invested the time, you would be able to improve your ability to pick up subtle differences.
Waste of time :roll_eyes:
Play your instrument.
This was my audio-visual setup for years :wink:

image
image1920×2223 299 KB

3 Likes
18

Hi SkyBlue, I can tell you about my experience with strings. When I bought my Acoustic Guitar I loved the sound of those strings, but the guitar wasn’t easily playable for me, I struggled both with barre chords and fingerpicking. So the Luthier did a setup, put up a gauge of Daddario coated strings: the guitar was now easy to play but I could say I didn’t like the sound of it as much as with the original strings.

Then I found out through one of Justin video that the strings “die”. I didn’t know that but while playing along with original recording, even if I was doing well with the Rhythm I felt frustrated because I could hear there was something wrong with the sound even if I had tuned the guitar.

When I changed the strings for the first time I tried a gauge of Daddario uncoated strings and…wow…I loved the sound! For a test after sometime I restrung with the coated ones and I thought I much preferred the sound of the uncoated strings.

Then I bought a 3gauges pack of Elixir as it was cheap, I thought it would be good for me to change strings oftener and build my confidence in restringing the guitar…but thanks god I now put the last gauge because I don’t like the sound of Elixirs that much!
So my next choice will be the uncoated Daddario and I can’t wait to see if they meet my expectation!

Shortly, it was difficult for me to appreciate the differences in the video where Justin’ s trying out different strings…but I could tell the difference with the direct experience on my guitar.

Hope this can be of some help.

1 Like
19

As many have said, youtube sound’s quality is not great for those type of comparisons, in person you may hear the difference.
Also, with time you may hear differences for some of these.
As an example, it took me years before I could hear the difference between similar humbuckers (in person).
Now when I watch reviews on youtube, while I can’t really hear the difference but I can understand it because of the explanation and references to some sounds that I know.

20

Thanks a lot to all of you, I fell less weird now! Great comments! Makes me glad I chose JustinGuitar.com as my guitar teaching source.

@brianlarsen That one made me smile! I also used “questionable” setup for many years… And still remember old mono radio from childhood where we listened as family news and music. No one complained about sound :smiley:

@Majik Great answer. Tnx! Especially your comparison about current recording equipment exceeding ones from 60s and 70s which produces some of the best classics ever.

@Silvia80 I also play acoustic guitar and tried couple of different strings. Whilst I do hear some slight difference, it’s small enough for me that I do not care. After 1 month, everything sounds same to me, and I don’t change strings as often as I did when I started learning guitar (part is laziness, part is stinginess :smiley: ). I actually ended with Elixirs coated (which was gift from my brother who doesn’t even play instrument) as I like their feel. Since they are coated it’s easier on my fingers and more important, less string noise. So I made choice based on feel not on sound.

2 Likes