Understanding the Trustworthiness of Audio Analysis in Gemini 2.5 Pro

As someone navigating the world of music with auditory sensitivities, I recently started using Gemini 2.5 Pro to scan various albums for specific sounds—mainly crowd noise—that I find distressing. For nearly a decade, my relationship with music has been tumultuous, often requiring the input of friends and family to verify if a song might be enjoyable to me. Fortunately, technology like Gemini 2.5 Pro offers potential liberation from this reliance, and I aim to explore its accuracy and reliability.

Having tested the software with a few tracks from Weezer, I received mixed results. Of the three songs analyzed, one was flagged as potentially triggering, while the other two appeared to be safe. However, I find myself hesitant about listening to the latter two tracks. My concern stems from the possibility that Gemini might generate false positives or, conversely, miss elements that could be unsettling.

Initially, my research was confined to reading articles and reviews about the tool’s capabilities. I later took the step of providing Gemini with direct YouTube links to the songs, which enabled it to conduct a deeper audio analysis. This experience led me to ponder: How reliable is this analysis? Is Gemini 2.5 Pro subject to inaccuracies, such as false negatives, which could lead to unexpected auditory triggers? And fundamentally, can it deliver on its promises of accurate sound detection?

As I continue to evaluate Gemini 2.5 Pro, I invite others who have used it to share their experiences. How trustworthy do you find its audio analyses? Your insights can help illuminate the path not just for myself, but for others who may also be seeking a bridge back to the joy of music without the anxiety of unwanted sounds.