*Deleted*
Last edited:
How can YOU have an opinion on audio -- when you're just plain tone DEAF ??
- Thread starter FOXHUNTER NJ
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Well, one issue is just because you can hear it, doesn't mean you can hear it well. That is, you may have a response, but it may not be linear, proportional, or reflecting what is known to be common among human ears.
Also, just because you can hear it, doesn't mean the interface between the ear and brain is well set up or well trained to hear well.
Audio and music are two different things. Test tones over headphones in a soundproof booth as opposed to music, speech and, yes tones, over speakers in a listening environment are way different things. The things we listen to and for are so many times dependent on our previous exposure, experience, memory (audible and emotional).
Generally speaking, hearing acuity is best when young (and relatively unexposed to very or extremely loud sound levels of anything) and tends to degrade over time and with significant sound level exposure. For many adults, losses will occur at the extremes (lows and highs) with occasional midrange loss due to injury or disease.
Due to the variables in people's hearing, which you point out, it is very difficult to establish a consensus baseline of what is "normal" hearing at a particular age or experience level. Couple that with so many variables in the listening environment and reproduction chain, and I think its a losing proposition to somehow "standardize" or establish WHO could be qualified to discuss what he/she "hears" since you can't "hear" what they hear and vice versa.
The issue of needing one to post "their credentials" in terms of a competent hearing test sort of opens the pandora's box of what then is most important. It is very similar to the argument that if one can't hear a difference, the system obviously does not have the resolving power to adequately show the difference (somehow all other things being equal) - and most can't then agree on what a system has to have to resolve and reproduce that difference. Given the fact or experience that many who hear very high resolving "studio" systems and claim they sometimes sound clinical or sterile (running horns, big woofers, and mostly high power solid state) and then need changes to amplification (tubes/mosfet) or designs (hi-efficiency, different loading), room modification, tweaks etc. to sound better, to me its clear that preferences based on intellect or experience or both may tend to dominate perception rather than just hearing acuity. Also, if a system has to be adjusted to compensate for the owners hearing shortcomings or slow degradation, so what? That's what the system is supposed to do, be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range environments and ears to reproduce to. (perhaps it would be instructive to set up an arbitrary test "reference" system, and then have each individual listener adjust it so it sounds best to them. I'll bet that there will be many, many changes to the controls with maybe a bell curve distribution of change choices.
I'm just not confident that in the realm of psychoacoustics and sound/music reproduction that there is any one measure of merit that trumps all others, and that anyone who doesn't measure up to predetermined test results are somehow incapable of having an honest opinion. To me, that smacks of some type of elitism. All of us will grow old and the vast majority will lose hearing acuity but gain some experience and occasionally, some wisdom as well. And when we were young and could hear well, most of us weren't well trained to hear the things we may be seeking now.
And what about the issue that most musicians care more about the music than the system or the way its reproduced, while some audiophiles care more about the gear than the music, or more about the music than the gear? IMO, what pleases each person is their own preference and discussion of same can and should remain friendly.
No doubt, an interesting question, just my 0.02.
Also, just because you can hear it, doesn't mean the interface between the ear and brain is well set up or well trained to hear well.
Audio and music are two different things. Test tones over headphones in a soundproof booth as opposed to music, speech and, yes tones, over speakers in a listening environment are way different things. The things we listen to and for are so many times dependent on our previous exposure, experience, memory (audible and emotional).
Generally speaking, hearing acuity is best when young (and relatively unexposed to very or extremely loud sound levels of anything) and tends to degrade over time and with significant sound level exposure. For many adults, losses will occur at the extremes (lows and highs) with occasional midrange loss due to injury or disease.
Due to the variables in people's hearing, which you point out, it is very difficult to establish a consensus baseline of what is "normal" hearing at a particular age or experience level. Couple that with so many variables in the listening environment and reproduction chain, and I think its a losing proposition to somehow "standardize" or establish WHO could be qualified to discuss what he/she "hears" since you can't "hear" what they hear and vice versa.
The issue of needing one to post "their credentials" in terms of a competent hearing test sort of opens the pandora's box of what then is most important. It is very similar to the argument that if one can't hear a difference, the system obviously does not have the resolving power to adequately show the difference (somehow all other things being equal) - and most can't then agree on what a system has to have to resolve and reproduce that difference. Given the fact or experience that many who hear very high resolving "studio" systems and claim they sometimes sound clinical or sterile (running horns, big woofers, and mostly high power solid state) and then need changes to amplification (tubes/mosfet) or designs (hi-efficiency, different loading), room modification, tweaks etc. to sound better, to me its clear that preferences based on intellect or experience or both may tend to dominate perception rather than just hearing acuity. Also, if a system has to be adjusted to compensate for the owners hearing shortcomings or slow degradation, so what? That's what the system is supposed to do, be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range environments and ears to reproduce to. (perhaps it would be instructive to set up an arbitrary test "reference" system, and then have each individual listener adjust it so it sounds best to them. I'll bet that there will be many, many changes to the controls with maybe a bell curve distribution of change choices.
I'm just not confident that in the realm of psychoacoustics and sound/music reproduction that there is any one measure of merit that trumps all others, and that anyone who doesn't measure up to predetermined test results are somehow incapable of having an honest opinion. To me, that smacks of some type of elitism. All of us will grow old and the vast majority will lose hearing acuity but gain some experience and occasionally, some wisdom as well. And when we were young and could hear well, most of us weren't well trained to hear the things we may be seeking now.
And what about the issue that most musicians care more about the music than the system or the way its reproduced, while some audiophiles care more about the gear than the music, or more about the music than the gear? IMO, what pleases each person is their own preference and discussion of same can and should remain friendly.
No doubt, an interesting question, just my 0.02.
Can you cite evidence for this assertion?
In any event I'm not tone deaf, I play the piano and certainly know a sour note.
aidynphoenix
Super Member
The ability to Judge and interpret what was heard can very drastically from person to person. even if one person has better hearing than another.
I believe we have far better hearing than we give ourselves credit for, however we don't use it correctly.. i believe it can be challenging to let our thoughts go, and just listen.. there is too much activity going on in our minds to allow us to clearly hear whats going on.. you have to train yourself and learn to relax.
one time i was at a friends apartment complex, we were having a 3 day lan party.. on the last day i was tripping so my mind was in a different state than it normally is. and i heard a sneeze that sounded like it was right next to me. after glancing at my friends i realized it was the neighbor in the next apartment over. i was shocked that i heard it. because nobody else did. so than i tried to listen to what was in the silence and i heard their voices. i heard their television set. for the entire time up to then, i had not heard a single peep out of any of the neighbors, up untill then, I thought that the silence was silent. 3 days and heard nothing. even while trying to sleep in the silence.. but when i was relaxed, and my mind was at ease, and i wasn't thinking about things, i was able to really pay attention to what my ears were able to hear.
it almost seems like, at times your hearing can become amplified.. such as when your laying in bed trying to go to sleep, assuming you sleep in silence. as you lay in the silence. you hear everything going on throughout the house, converstations, television commercials, footsteps, the cat's gentle footsteps as it walks across the hardwood flooring outside your door.
I think you just have to train yourself to relax and "Listen"
I believe we have far better hearing than we give ourselves credit for, however we don't use it correctly.. i believe it can be challenging to let our thoughts go, and just listen.. there is too much activity going on in our minds to allow us to clearly hear whats going on.. you have to train yourself and learn to relax.
one time i was at a friends apartment complex, we were having a 3 day lan party.. on the last day i was tripping so my mind was in a different state than it normally is. and i heard a sneeze that sounded like it was right next to me. after glancing at my friends i realized it was the neighbor in the next apartment over. i was shocked that i heard it. because nobody else did. so than i tried to listen to what was in the silence and i heard their voices. i heard their television set. for the entire time up to then, i had not heard a single peep out of any of the neighbors, up untill then, I thought that the silence was silent. 3 days and heard nothing. even while trying to sleep in the silence.. but when i was relaxed, and my mind was at ease, and i wasn't thinking about things, i was able to really pay attention to what my ears were able to hear.
it almost seems like, at times your hearing can become amplified.. such as when your laying in bed trying to go to sleep, assuming you sleep in silence. as you lay in the silence. you hear everything going on throughout the house, converstations, television commercials, footsteps, the cat's gentle footsteps as it walks across the hardwood flooring outside your door.
I think you just have to train yourself to relax and "Listen"
Last edited:
maddog37
Super Member
"it almost seems like, at times your hearing can become amplified.. such as when your laying in bed trying to go to sleep, assuming you sleep in silence. as you lay in the silence. you hear everything going on throughout the house, converstations, television commercials, footsteps, the cat's gentle footsteps as it walks across the hardwood flooring outside your door.
I think you just have to train yourself to relax and "Listen"
This is an interesting thread, and I must take exception to the original post, that is a very good question, but may have been parsed differently -- as I can say it has great potential to cause some defensive responses.
The discussion, if continued, may include some interesting neurology, as the receiver (ears) need to pass that information (music) through nerves to the processor (brain) that interprets the information, and any misstep in the system will be less than optimal.
Regarding the amplification of hearing, this is also a topic which has seen recent advances in researches as we learn more about anatomy, specifically how we experience "pain." Many times, our brain experiences the strongest stimulus -- such as if you have a headache and then stub your toe. Headache is still there, but overpowered by a stronger stimulus -- the toe that demands your full attention.
Although my ears may not be as "trained" as some, I still know what I like, and when something sounds contrary to my ears (rap/hip hop, etc.) I don't bother to analyze the nuances of the so called music -- I move on. But though I grew up with and mostly listen to classic rock, I have a wide variety of different music I listen to -- but the constant is that it must be pleasant to listen to, but my definition of pleasant will vary with my mood. It could be Sinatra, jazz, new age, classical, etc. Has anyone ever listened to the entire double album of Lou Reed's Metal machine Music?
Wow, I guess I went on a bit longer than I wanted. How about some love for those of us who may be audiologically challenged in a soundproof booth, but still appreciate the finer points of music, despite a less than full audio spectrum.
I think you just have to train yourself to relax and "Listen"
This is an interesting thread, and I must take exception to the original post, that is a very good question, but may have been parsed differently -- as I can say it has great potential to cause some defensive responses.
The discussion, if continued, may include some interesting neurology, as the receiver (ears) need to pass that information (music) through nerves to the processor (brain) that interprets the information, and any misstep in the system will be less than optimal.
Regarding the amplification of hearing, this is also a topic which has seen recent advances in researches as we learn more about anatomy, specifically how we experience "pain." Many times, our brain experiences the strongest stimulus -- such as if you have a headache and then stub your toe. Headache is still there, but overpowered by a stronger stimulus -- the toe that demands your full attention.
Although my ears may not be as "trained" as some, I still know what I like, and when something sounds contrary to my ears (rap/hip hop, etc.) I don't bother to analyze the nuances of the so called music -- I move on. But though I grew up with and mostly listen to classic rock, I have a wide variety of different music I listen to -- but the constant is that it must be pleasant to listen to, but my definition of pleasant will vary with my mood. It could be Sinatra, jazz, new age, classical, etc. Has anyone ever listened to the entire double album of Lou Reed's Metal machine Music?
Wow, I guess I went on a bit longer than I wanted. How about some love for those of us who may be audiologically challenged in a soundproof booth, but still appreciate the finer points of music, despite a less than full audio spectrum.
Let me see if I can distill this, I like what I like, you like what you like, and neither one of us has any right to say otherwise.
Let me see if I can distill this, I like what I like, you like what you like, and neither one of us has any right to say otherwise.
But is there something that is "not right" by any informed measure? If we are speaking of fidelity of the music, is it OK to take a relativist approach and say that "hey, it's OK for Junior to call his iPod speaker a hifi source?" I do not think so.. so I think that the issue between taste/preference and what is "really" the case nee to be delineated. Until that happens, it becomes the relativist argument about preferences.
In my own words, and forthcoming opinions WILL vary. Y'all are entitled to your wrong opinions.
Tyler
*Deleted*
Last edited:
jsisk
Not 2 Old 2 Rock & Roll
* Jest mode on *
Ears are like finger prints, no two are exactly the same. Therefore (theorectically) no two people would hear the same thing the same exact way. Perhaps we should upload a picture of our ears along with our opinions so others can see what we are using and compare them to their own.
The quantity of hair and earwax in your ears would most likely effect the sound as well. If I keep my ear hairs at just the right length, they vibrate and tickle at the exact volume and bass level that my wife will complain about. This is really handy for keeping me out of the doghouse.
I have also found that a little Q-tip action can really help brighten the high frequency. (note: this is not an endorsement for any particular personal hygeine item and I am not affiliated with any cotton swap manufacturer)
* Jest mode off *
Ears are like finger prints, no two are exactly the same. Therefore (theorectically) no two people would hear the same thing the same exact way. Perhaps we should upload a picture of our ears along with our opinions so others can see what we are using and compare them to their own.
The quantity of hair and earwax in your ears would most likely effect the sound as well. If I keep my ear hairs at just the right length, they vibrate and tickle at the exact volume and bass level that my wife will complain about. This is really handy for keeping me out of the doghouse.
I have also found that a little Q-tip action can really help brighten the high frequency. (note: this is not an endorsement for any particular personal hygeine item and I am not affiliated with any cotton swap manufacturer)
* Jest mode off *
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
I've taken one of those online tests for tone-deafness and if it's accurate, then yeah, I've got some issues. You know, the one where they play two tones and you have to say which one is lower and which one is higher? I often do not know which is which. I also have some minor hearing loss in the upper register of my left ear in the 'gunshot' range, which would be explained by my years in the military.
And yet, I like some things audio-related and do not like others. My standards appear to be much lower than some; I tend to like more things and dislike very little. But I do hear differences. At the recent AKFest, I most definitely heard systems that were amazing and others which just didn't do it for me. Most of my opinions were (as I late found out) not dissimilar to those of other attendees.
As an aside, I am also very heavily color-blind (yes, there are many different 'shades' if you will, of color-blindness) and yet I am a photographer. How can this be? Well, there are many things I cannot do, such as retouching color casts on color photographs; but I'm very comfortable with most aspects of photography. And interestingly, I find that since I cannot trust my eyes to provide me with the truth about color, I take value from other things, such as shape and form and texture, light and shadow.
And this is also true of listening to music as a person who may be somewhat tone-deaf. I do not have to be able to recognize a middle C when struck on a piano to appreciate sound stage, presence, and instrumental qualities such as tone, timbre, attack and decay, and everything from the sibilance of a voice to the sound of fingers on a fretboard. In fact, it may be that like with photography, I appreciate it more.
If I were blind, I would not be a photographer (although there have been blind photographers). If I were deaf, I would not listen to music (although Beethoven was deaf).
I appreciate music, and photography, with what the senses I possess, flaws and all. I have opinions about what I like and what I do not like. My opinions are as valuable to me as yours are to you.
Opinions are subjective; they're meant to me. They are not statements of fact, and they cannot be relied upon as if they were. It sounds to me as though you are aggravated by opinions with which you do not agree, and you'd prefer it if everyone were required to shut up unless they could certify that they can hear properly and have perfect pitch. I think you'd be disappointed even if that happened. Meteorologists have all sorts of certifications. So they're never wrong when they give a weather forecast...right?
And yet, I like some things audio-related and do not like others. My standards appear to be much lower than some; I tend to like more things and dislike very little. But I do hear differences. At the recent AKFest, I most definitely heard systems that were amazing and others which just didn't do it for me. Most of my opinions were (as I late found out) not dissimilar to those of other attendees.
As an aside, I am also very heavily color-blind (yes, there are many different 'shades' if you will, of color-blindness) and yet I am a photographer. How can this be? Well, there are many things I cannot do, such as retouching color casts on color photographs; but I'm very comfortable with most aspects of photography. And interestingly, I find that since I cannot trust my eyes to provide me with the truth about color, I take value from other things, such as shape and form and texture, light and shadow.
And this is also true of listening to music as a person who may be somewhat tone-deaf. I do not have to be able to recognize a middle C when struck on a piano to appreciate sound stage, presence, and instrumental qualities such as tone, timbre, attack and decay, and everything from the sibilance of a voice to the sound of fingers on a fretboard. In fact, it may be that like with photography, I appreciate it more.
If I were blind, I would not be a photographer (although there have been blind photographers). If I were deaf, I would not listen to music (although Beethoven was deaf).
I appreciate music, and photography, with what the senses I possess, flaws and all. I have opinions about what I like and what I do not like. My opinions are as valuable to me as yours are to you.
Opinions are subjective; they're meant to me. They are not statements of fact, and they cannot be relied upon as if they were. It sounds to me as though you are aggravated by opinions with which you do not agree, and you'd prefer it if everyone were required to shut up unless they could certify that they can hear properly and have perfect pitch. I think you'd be disappointed even if that happened. Meteorologists have all sorts of certifications. So they're never wrong when they give a weather forecast...right?
While I understand the OPs idea and largely agree it would be useful, there is simply no way to say "your opinion doesn't mean much because you are deaf!" in a nice way.
If you read posts carefully, you can eventually figure out who has serious hearing issues (off the top of my head, tinninitus, loss of hearing in one ear, playing in a band in front of a PA for 20 years, being an artillery gunner, and tone-deafness are all things I've seen mentioned) and take those poster's impressions with the appropriately-sized grain of salt.
Me? I'm 54 and can't hear a damned thing above 12k. I also DON'T like very loud music.
If you read posts carefully, you can eventually figure out who has serious hearing issues (off the top of my head, tinninitus, loss of hearing in one ear, playing in a band in front of a PA for 20 years, being an artillery gunner, and tone-deafness are all things I've seen mentioned) and take those poster's impressions with the appropriately-sized grain of salt.
Me? I'm 54 and can't hear a damned thing above 12k. I also DON'T like very loud music.
Last edited:
Then you evidently don't get to have an opinion on anything but soft bass. Sorry.
I know. I don't know why I even bother posting. Maybe I should leave AK entirely?
similost
Rockin and Rollin....
Huh.. I just took this tone test here... and got 83.3%, but I know if I heard this on my stereo, I'd probably do better.. .The laptop I'm on has pretty crappy speakers, and I could tell that some things were very minor differences, and I don't think the speakers reproduced it well.
One other thing about this test, it's also a lot about memory not just hearing pitch...
http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
As far as the OP, he talkes abou being tone deaf.. but then talks about getting a hearing test to see how well you hear... TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.. ... You can have perfect hearing, but be tone deaf as hell.. or you can have pitch perfect hearing, but have half you hearing gone.. .
So, I find a lot of flaw in what the OP is going on about.
I've been very good with tone.. .you can play me a note, and I can hum it on pitch, so long as it's within my vocal range...... I can also hear pitch very well when someone is playing something or singing. A tad off tone, and it grates on me... but that does not mean that I can judge how good a stereo sounds... If i can't hear within a certain range, then if there is a lump in that range in the system, then I may feel it sounds good, where someone who can hear correctly in that range will hear a hump..
One other thing about this test, it's also a lot about memory not just hearing pitch...
http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
As far as the OP, he talkes abou being tone deaf.. but then talks about getting a hearing test to see how well you hear... TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.. ... You can have perfect hearing, but be tone deaf as hell.. or you can have pitch perfect hearing, but have half you hearing gone.. .
So, I find a lot of flaw in what the OP is going on about.
I've been very good with tone.. .you can play me a note, and I can hum it on pitch, so long as it's within my vocal range...... I can also hear pitch very well when someone is playing something or singing. A tad off tone, and it grates on me... but that does not mean that I can judge how good a stereo sounds... If i can't hear within a certain range, then if there is a lump in that range in the system, then I may feel it sounds good, where someone who can hear correctly in that range will hear a hump..
Last edited:
If we did, threads like this wouldn't exist. :lmao:
I feel the same way. But I can't prove it or provide any measurements so it doesn't count.
There's a ton of stuff I'd love to ask about, post about or discuss, but it's just not worth the aggravation to even start a thread or make a post.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
As if music were just a collection of notes grouped together in a pleasing way.
Similar threads
