How many people can hear the difference between...

ronhar said:
Not sure what this thread is supposed to be. No question. No answer.
Click to expand...

Me neither, but there have been plenty of both!

Don't matter. I can relate with visual info. I do video and photo work. Try to get colors "best" even if i enhance light and color manually or digitally. My daughter is totally blind. She could care less about how hard i work at perfecting a project. My son-in-law is color blind, everything is hues of brown. Not my go to critic. Everybody else just looks for a pretty picture. No surveys or test needed.
Click to expand...

"Don't matter" seems to be pretty much what it is. I'm really in the "looking for a pretty picture" camp myself. Oddly, that's what makes this all make sense to me.

Visual info? Indeed. Remember the track I mentioned, the one I sent to my friend? I just took the time to compare some files, and what do you know, looking at the spectrum, the compressed file I sent him has MORE high end, more REALLY high end than the original, lossless mixdown. Turns out I had in the process resampled it up to 48 kHz and who knows why the encoder did what it did but there you have it: there's clear signal at and even above 20 kHz, and the peaks at 20k are significantly louder in the compressed file. How about that. That could explain how he might hear it differently. I'm most impressed by how those mic's are actually able to pick up stuff well above 20kHz though. That's something for me to remember: low-pass it next time!
 
rob aylestone said:
Got to disagree with this statement.
[quote[Who can tell the difference between string frequency when tuning a piano? Everyone. No one can, initially. First they have to be taught what to listen for. Then everyone can. Who can tell the difference between .mp3 and FLAC and vinyl? Everyone. After they learn what to listen for.

I've worked with students and my attitude, and that of very able colleagues is that not everyone can do everything, no matter how hard they try.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get this.

By your own admission, you haven't learned to hear these things, so why would it come as a surprise that you cannot teach these things?

Further, why lump in performance? I thought we were solely discussing perception. "hear the difference" is the subject, idnit?

Comparing to colorblindness is erroneous as we're still talking healthy senses vs. compromised. If it helps, think of it more like doing Math.

There are some people that proclaim their inability to (example) "do fractions" -- "no matter how hard they try". In reality, this means "no matter how hard they choose to try at the moment". I've taught many to do impressively complex math after they've made such proclamations. It's a matter of re-framing perspectives.

[Granted, i'm suddenly lumping performance in there, too. But I'm not assessing their penmanship.]

Detection, you're born with. Interpretation, you learn. If you've taught at all, you already know that "I just can't!" almost always means, "I haven't learned to, just yet."
 
Ponder5 said:
...
Further, why lump in performance? I thought we were solely discussing perception. "hear the difference" is the subject, idnit?

Comparing to colorblindness is erroneous as we're still talking healthy senses vs. compromised. If it helps, think of it more like doing Math.

There are some people that proclaim their inability to (example) "do fractions" -- "no matter how hard they try". In reality, this means "no matter how hard they choose to try at the moment". I've taught many to do impressively complex math after they've made such proclamations. It's a matter of re-framing perspectives.
...
Click to expand...
This is a little bit of a stretch. You're implying that hearing is quite different from all the other senses, where we agree that people have different receptors, and see, smell and taste, even feel, things differently, or that mental capacity (and physical?) are essentially equal at birth, so it's simply our own will and determination, with the appropriate training given the best teachers, of course, that prevents us from being chess masters, physicians, NBA centers, whatever?

Yes, of course that's ridiculous. So is the idea that everyone can hear fine differences at all frequencies, if only they cared to, and were properly taught. People hear things differently. You can't bias that out of the test unless you really don't care whether "normal" people can tell the difference, but only those who have passed through the gate of advanced auditory perception. What a useless study that would be. I thought we were talking about "people" in general.
 
I have learned many, many skills that I initially thought I was "just bad at" and couldn't possibly do it. I've been able to surprise myself. I believe many things ARE purely about perseverance and most people can do it if they really try. But some aren't.

Does dyslexia not exist? Can EVERYONE learn to read quickly and fluently if they just really try?

Who here would make such an argument? Further, who would make such an argument without ANY evidence? Does anyone know of any studies saying all people have the same exact skillset, it's just that some skills are hidden in some people?

Whoa.
 
keith.rogers said:
This is a little bit of a stretch. You're implying that hearing is quite different from all the other senses, where we agree that people have different receptors, and see, smell and taste, even feel, things differently, or that mental capacity (and physical?) are essentially equal at birth, so it's simply our own will and determination, with the appropriate training given the best teachers, of course, that prevents us from being chess masters, physicians, NBA centers, whatever?

Yes, of course that's ridiculous. So is the idea that everyone can hear fine differences at all frequencies, if only they cared to, and were properly taught. People hear things differently. You can't bias that out of the test unless you really don't care whether "normal" people can tell the difference, but only those who have passed through the gate of advanced auditory perception. What a useless study that would be. I thought we were talking about "people" in general.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the subtle but important differences in brain "wiring". No two neural networks are exactly the same, especially after gestation. The human brain doubles in size the first year of life and all kinds of micro differences affect the outcome, so even identicals don't have the exact same brain by the end of their first month of life.
 
keith.rogers said:
So is the idea that everyone can hear fine differences at all frequencies, if only they cared to, and were properly taught. People hear things differently. You can't bias that out of the test unless you really don't care whether "normal" people can tell the difference, but only those who have passed through the gate of advanced auditory perception. What a useless study that would be. I thought we were talking about "people" in general.
Click to expand...

Rather than repeat myself, I'll just say that if you're convinced you can't do something, you'll be right every time. If you're convinced no one else can do it, they'll never be able to prove it to you. You'll always have another strawman.

Wait. I will repeat myself. "Who cares? Not me." Or at least not any longer. I'm usually challenged by internet lawyers, but now they've diversified into internet physiologists.

So rather than catcall from the sidelines about the pointlessness of this thread, I will lead by example and bow out, now.
 
I was wondering whether he was trying to make some "elaborate point" with all that nonsense... how did that happen?

So rather than catcall from the sidelines about the pointlessness of this thread, I will lead by example and bow out, now.
Click to expand...

That sounds sensible for a change.
 
I have tried and failed, and how can anyone teach you something so intangible? We cannot agree on the uniformity of hearing and I just have to reject your assertion as I have no evidence these skills can be taught, learned or developed without them being present to a degree in the first place.

However - I am quite willing to believe some people can hear these things, but this does not mean that gift is available to everyone. You can develop a skill, but you cannot (I believe) teach people to have something their brain is unable to process. If you have this ability - it's a gift. I simply don't. Nothing in my experience shakes me from this conviction. I added in the other senses simply because the problem is the same. Not everyone can do everything.
 
rob aylestone said:
I have tried and failed, and how can anyone teach you something so intangible? We cannot agree on the uniformity of hearing and I just have to reject your assertion as I have no evidence these skills can be taught, learned or developed without them being present to a degree in the first place.

However - I am quite willing to believe some people can hear these things, but this does not mean that gift is available to everyone. You can develop a skill, but you cannot (I believe) teach people to have something their brain is unable to process. If you have this ability - it's a gift. I simply don't. Nothing in my experience shakes me from this conviction. I added in the other senses simply because the problem is the same. Not everyone can do everything.
Click to expand...

With respect, I think he was just purely trolling. I got suspicious the second he made that outlandish claim about "everyone being able to do everything" and then further, never once even trying to present any kind of evidence. If ANYTHING he was talking about was common knowledge in any scientific circles, evidence would exist. He seemed to want to draw attention to his nonsense, confuse people to get HIS point about this thread being "pointless" more in the spotlight.

What's pointless is making absurd claims without any proof, not the actually interesting discussion that's been going on here.
 
This turned into Ben Hur, the question was "How many people can hear the difference between..." so its can YOU hear the difference between. Not this other person can or can not LOL

When I first saw the post I just knew it would turn into this :facepalm::facepalm:

Alan.
 
Not sure if it is correct as I have never really bothered to try it and now my hearing is DEFINITELY not as good as it was back 30yrs ago, but it was told to me that it is impossible to carry across dead accurately, sound from one listening to another, especially if the listener did not know what medium was being played, so that no pre-conditioned perspective could come into play.

In other words, if you play (say) a song that has been copied to (say) a CD and then about a minute later play it back on (say) an equally good medium whether it be high quality MP3, MD, DAT, 24bit data CD, etc, your ears can not hear the difference --- naturally all through the same audio system and at the exact same volume.

It would be most interesting if such a test could be carried out and the results noted !!!!!!!

David
 
well, i can say this with certainty. listening to an original wave file vs a soundcloud file of the same song i can hear everything that is missing
 
Just tried it on 3 computers. MacBook - no difference, pretty average but acceptable. My video editor - through my studio monitor system - can't decide. first play I thought I could hear something different, second play not sure - third play - gave up because I can't be objective. Studio computer and interface (presonus) Yes - there is a difference between the file I uploaded and the one that comes back. again, though - I cannot put into words what I'm hearing/not hearing. I like the wav better. Why? I really don't know.
 
Interesting - I got 80% on the James Blake and dixie chicks, quite sobering!
Hrm
You
probably can't
hear the difference between the lossy and lossless samples (p >= 0.10) ?
You got 64% correct
There is a 23% likelihood of getting this or a more extreme score by chance ?
Track Correct p-value ?
The Killers 60% (p >= 0.020)
James Blake 80% (p >= 0.020)
Daft Punk 40% (p >= 0.020)
The Eagles 60% (p >= 0.020)
Dixie Chicks 80% (p >= 0.020)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top