The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Sometimes—but not always, and not in every test. A 2016 meta-analysis found a small but statistically significant ability to distinguish high-resolution audio from standard audio, with better results after extensive listener training. A separate 2007 double-blind test series found that a CD-standard conversion loop could not be detected at normal-to-loud listening levels on the systems tested. These studies answer different questions; neither proves that every audiophile can hear a difference—or that nobody can.
What does “hearing a difference” mean?
The phrase can describe several different claims, and evidence for one does not establish the others:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
- Discrimination: noticing that two samples are not the same.
- Identification: correctly saying which sample is high-resolution, CD-standard, or encoded in another format.
- Preference: liking one sample more.
- Attribution: correctly identifying the format, device, or technical change that caused a perceived difference.
A listener might distinguish two samples without identifying which is high-resolution, and might identify a version without preferring it. A successful discrimination test alone does not show that one version sounds better or that buying it is worthwhile.
What controlled studies have found
High-resolution audio: a small average effect, stronger after training
In a 2016 meta-analysis, Joshua D. Reiss combined 18 published experiments involving over 400 participants and more than 12,500 trials. The analysis found a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate high-resolution audio from standard audio (16-bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz). The effect increased substantially when listeners received extensive training. Those totals describe the studies in the analysis, not a claim that every participant—or every audiophile—heard a difference. Audio Engineering Society, Reiss, “A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation” (2016).
#1 Best Overall
- Critically acclaimed sonic performance praised by top audio engineers and pro audio reviewers
- Proprietary 45 millimeter large aperture drivers with rare earth magnets and copper clad aluminum wire voice coils
- Exceptional clarity throughout an extended frequency range, with deep, accurate bass response
- Circumaural design contours around the ears for excellent sound isolation in loud environments
- 90 degree swiveling earcups for easy, one ear monitoring, and professional grade earpad and headband material delivers more durability and comfort
A CD-standard conversion loop: not detected in the reported conditions
A 2007 AES report described more than a year of double-blind tests comparing high-resolution playback with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz conversion loop. The report said the loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels by all subjects on all tested playback systems. Participants included professional recording engineers, recording students, and dedicated audiophiles; systems included professional monitors and a high-end electrostatic-speaker system. The report noted that the loop’s noise was audible only at very elevated levels. This finding applies to that loop and those test conditions, not every high-resolution recording or playback chain. Audio Engineering Society, Meyer and Moran, “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback” (2007).
MP3 comparisons are a separate question
A 2016 AES convention pilot compared 44.1-kHz/16-bit WAV with 256-kbps MP3 encodings of the same musical material using a mix-matching task aimed at audio engineers. Its abstract says participant data trends generally coincided with the hypotheses and notes that age, production and musical experience, listening-test experience, and preferred genre could influence accuracy and speed. It does not establish that all listeners can—or cannot—distinguish those formats. It also should not be treated as a result about high-resolution versus CD-standard audio, which is a different comparison. Audio Engineering Society, Martin et al., “Can We Hear The Difference? Testing the Audibility of Artifacts in High Bit Rate MP3 Audio” (2016).
Why other AES material does not settle the question
David L. Clark’s 1991 paper summarized years of double-blind A/B/X equipment tests, reporting that listeners often did not demonstrate a difference after uncontrolled listening had suggested one. It is historical evidence about testing and expectation, not a modern verdict on every format or device. Audio Engineering Society, Clark, “Ten years of A/B/X Testing” (1991).
Rank #2
- Neodymium magnets and 40 millimeter drivers for powerful, detailed sound.Specific uses for product : Professional audio system,Home audio system
- Closed ear design provides comfort and outstanding reduction of external noises
- 9.8 foot cord ends in gold plated plug and it is not detachable; 1/4 inch adapter included
- Folds up for storage or travel in provided soft case
- Frequency Response: 10 Hertz to 20 kilohertz
A separate AES survey page describes a comparison of 20 native high-resolution PCM recordings with 44.1-kHz/16-bit conversions from the same masters. It reports over 400 responses from professional engineers, experienced audiophiles, enthusiasts, and novices listening on varied personal systems. The accessible page excerpt does not provide the survey’s full outcome or confirmed publication date, so the response count cannot be read as a success rate or a decisive finding. Audio Engineering Society, “Native High-Resolution versus Red Book Standard Audio: A Perceptual Discrimination Survey”.
Why test design changes the answer
ABX is a common way to test discrimination. The listener hears known samples A and B, then an unknown sample X, and must decide whether X matches A or B. Double-blinding helps prevent the listener and test administrator from knowing sample identities in ways that could influence responses. A useful comparison also needs to control the listening conditions rather than rely on an impression formed across different sessions or settings.
- Use the same source or master. Otherwise, mastering or recording differences may be mistaken for a format difference.
- Match playback levels. Even a small level difference can affect judgments.
- Switch quickly between short, comparable excerpts. Slow switching puts more pressure on short-term auditory memory.
- Keep sessions manageable. Attention and fatigue can affect performance.
- Report training and trial details. The result is easier to interpret when the listener’s preparation and the number of trials are known.
The AES survey forum excerpt discusses the importance of quick comparisons, short phrases, controlled playback level, attention, fatigue, and training. It also notes that listeners may distinguish samples yet mislabel which one is high-resolution. Audio Engineering Society survey forum excerpt.
Rank #3
- Premium, around-ear, open back headphones: Audiophile sound combined with premium design and materials
- Padded headband and luxurious velour covered ear pads perfect for long listening sessions with no pressure on the ears
- Multiple connectivity options: Robust 3 meter detachable cable and 6.3 millimeter jack and additional 1.2 meter detachable cable with 3.5 millimeter Jack
- Timeless design cues: Ivory color, matte finish together with the brown headband stitching and matte metallic detail convey quality at first glance
- Premium Components: Sennheiser engineered transducers use aluminum voice coils delivering high efficiency, excellent dynamics and extremely low distortion
A failed test means the listener did not demonstrate discrimination under those particular conditions; it does not prove that no listener, signal, or context can produce an audible difference. A successful test demonstrates discrimination in that task, not preference, superior sound quality, or reliable identification of the cause.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How to interpret a listening impression
Uncontrolled listening can be useful for deciding what you enjoy, but it is not a reliable way to establish why two versions seem different. Expectations, changes in playback level, different masters, and the time between comparisons can all complicate the judgment. Clark’s historical account of A/B/X tests describes cases where impressions formed during uncontrolled listening were not confirmed under testing. Audio Engineering Society, Clark (1991).
If your question is simply “Which version do I enjoy more?”, choose the one you prefer in ordinary use. If your claim is “I can reliably hear that this format or device changed the signal,” use a blinded, level-matched comparison and keep the samples and switching conditions comparable. The test question should be clear: are you detecting a difference, identifying a format, or stating a preference?
Rank #4
- Open-back design with an extremely wide, dimensional sound stage and ultra-precise localization
- Uncolored frequency response (5 - 36,000 Hz) for honest, dynamic sound reproduction across the full spectrum. Innovative low-frequency cylinder system for full, accurate, and clearly defined low end./
- Sustainability-inspired with washable, replaceable pads and FSC-certified, forest-friendly packaging
- Sennheiser Open-frame Architecture reduces total harmonic distortion (THD) and minimizes resonance, improving audio accuracy
- Two unique sets of ear pads for producing or mixing help eliminate ear fatigue and pinpoint frequencies
What the evidence does—and does not—establish
The strongest evidence here supports a conditional answer: some controlled tests show measurable discrimination, while others find a particular conversion undetectable under specified conditions. The 2016 meta-analysis reports a small average effect that increased with extensive training; the 2007 conversion-loop tests report no detection at normal-to-loud levels among their subjects on their tested systems.
The reviewed studies do not establish what percentage of audiophiles can hear a difference. Nor do they provide a comprehensive answer for every current streaming codec, platform, genre, listener’s hearing profile, headphone, room, or high-fidelity component. Their results concern distinct signals and methods, so no single one should be generalized to all listening situations. They also do not establish a universal reason to buy high-resolution files or more expensive equipment.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
