Assessing Gemini 2.5 Pro’s Precision in Music Audio Analysis Techniques

Evaluating the Trustworthiness of Audio Analysis in Gemini 2.5 Pro

As someone who has struggled with auditory sensitivities, I recently began using Gemini 2.5 Pro to identify certain sounds—particularly those related to crowd noise—that I find uncomfortable in music albums I want to explore. This tool appears to be a transformative resource for me, especially considering that for nearly a decade, I have avoided listening to music due to these sensitivities. In my teenage years, I often relied on friends or family to pre-screen songs before I would consider giving them a try.

So far, I’ve analyzed three tracks from Weezer. One of these tracks was flagged as potentially triggering, while the other two were deemed acceptable. However, I’m experiencing some apprehension about listening to the latter two tracks, worried that Gemini might have generated false positives or “hallucinated” results. My initial research on this product was based mostly on reviews and articles, rather than direct audio analysis, until I decided to send it the YouTube links for each individual song.

After doing so, Gemini 2.5 Pro informed me that it had analyzed the audio. This raises a critical question: How reliable is this analysis? Are false negatives common with Gemini 2.5 Pro, or can users generally trust its results? Can this tool genuinely deliver on its promises?

As I continue to navigate this new auditory landscape, I’m eager to dive deeper into the capabilities of Gemini 2.5 Pro. If you’ve had similar experiences or insights into the reliability of such audio analysis software, I would love to hear your thoughts and advice. Your feedback could help others like me who are trying to re-engage with music in a way that feels safe and pleasurable.