Assessing the Reliability of Gemini 2.5 Pro’s Audio Analysis for Music

In the realm of music enthusiasts, finding the perfect tool for audio analysis can be a game-changer, especially for individuals with specific listening preferences or sensitivities. I recently began using Gemini 2.5 Pro to identify sounds that I prefer to avoid, particularly crowd noise, in various albums. This innovative software feels transformative for me, as I have struggled to enjoy music for nearly ten years due to intense auditory sensitivities. In my teenage years, I often relied on friends or family to listen to tracks before I would consider giving them a try.

So far, I’ve scanned three songs from a Weezer album. While I received feedback that one track contained triggering elements, the other two were deemed acceptable. However, I find myself hesitating to listen to those latter two songs, concerned about the possibility of misinterpretation by Gemini, leading to what I refer to as a “hallucination” of the audio’s content. My initial exploration of Gemini’s capabilities was mainly rooted in articles and reviews, rather than direct assessment of the audio until I started sending individual YouTube links for analysis.

Upon processing the links, Gemini reported that it successfully analyzed the audio. This led me to ponder the accuracy of its assessments. How reliable is Gemini 2.5 Pro in delivering precise audio analysis? Is it susceptible to false negatives, which could mislead users about the audio content? Can it genuinely fulfill the promises it makes regarding sound detection capabilities?

As I continue my journey with Gemini 2.5 Pro, I’m keen to learn more about its effectiveness. If you’ve experienced this software or have insights into its analytical reliability, your thoughts would be invaluable in guiding me—and potentially many others—toward a more enjoyable listening experience.