I expect there is a distribution curve to hearing ability much as there is to IQ and many other phenomenon.
Vision tests show a distribution, how many people from birth are near sighted? Far sighted?
Most natural phenomenon have a distribution curve, why should hearing differ?
Loss with age also has a distribution curve which looks like it follows the "Normal Distribution Curve" if I read this article correctly:
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol19-1940/articles/bstj19-4-533.pdf
This would be interesting to read:
ISO 28961:2012 - Acoustics -- Statistical distribution of hearing thresholds of otologically normal persons in the age range from 18 years to 25 years under free-field listening conditions
Certainly all people do not have the same number of hairs in their cochleas. If the number of hairs varies so does their effect on hearing.
It then follows that there are people who's hearing is more acute.
Is this in dispute?
Given that it is possible to train one self to hear distortions and other phenomenon, then it follows that if people with more acute hearing make the effort to train themselves then they could be classified as "Golden Ears".
However, in dispute could be the veracity of those claiming such ability.
Vision tests show a distribution, how many people from birth are near sighted? Far sighted?
Most natural phenomenon have a distribution curve, why should hearing differ?
Loss with age also has a distribution curve which looks like it follows the "Normal Distribution Curve" if I read this article correctly:
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol19-1940/articles/bstj19-4-533.pdf
This would be interesting to read:
ISO 28961:2012 - Acoustics -- Statistical distribution of hearing thresholds of otologically normal persons in the age range from 18 years to 25 years under free-field listening conditions
Certainly all people do not have the same number of hairs in their cochleas. If the number of hairs varies so does their effect on hearing.
It then follows that there are people who's hearing is more acute.
Is this in dispute?
Given that it is possible to train one self to hear distortions and other phenomenon, then it follows that if people with more acute hearing make the effort to train themselves then they could be classified as "Golden Ears".
However, in dispute could be the veracity of those claiming such ability.
I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek, since I cannot believe anyone would say that with any seriousness at all.
10,000 hours / 168 = 59 1/2 weeks "of serious listening training". Good grief, the idea of someone, presumably, sitting and concentrating on "training" their listening for more than a year? Do you get a certificate of completion when the solid, continuous year is over? Or, maybe, is it split into month blocks so the "training" extends over a 12 year period?
I'm sorry but the assertion is so absurd I cannot take it seriously. Does anyone else believe their intelligence has been insulted by the claim?
It is a pretty well established estimate if the time needed to become really good at any serious endeavor -- sports, musician, a profession, on & on...
.
I was fortunate to get in that many early in my life. On this forum Nelson Pass also makes a comment about passing that milestone.
I am insulted that you thot so little about it that you could say the above.
dave
It is the fact that I "thot" so much about it that I did say it, after calculating how much time it actually is. At eight hours per day, seven days a week, it is still 3 1/2 years doing nothing but sitting (since it would be too much to stand for such a long period) listening and doing nothing else but concentrating on "training" your listening.
Please, do you seriously expect someone to accept such a claim?
Yes. It took me about 8 years to hit that number.
Are you good at what you do? How long did you spend at Universtity or apprentisship? And then add how long in the field before you were considered good.
The best at what they do have some genetic aptitude and probably spend at least 10x that number to get to the pinnacle -- gold medal, industry recognition, what-ever.
dave
Eight years is still eight hours a day for three days a week doing
No, I cannot believe it because it is totally implausible. Unless, you are claiming that it includes "casual" listening, as in having the music on in the car and the hifi on in the background? That is believable but it hardly qualifies as "training" your listening.
6-7 days a weelk for most of that. Add casual listening and the number doubles.
It was part of my job.
dave
certainly in audio we might expect that "directed practice" would involve verification by DBT, repeated drilling in things like Harmon's or Moulton's listening training
even thousands of hours of "practice" simply reinforcing "I know what I hear" without any standard of comparison or "ground truth" is unlikely to lead to mastery that has any objective cognate
it doesn't take much reading or pro forums frequented by sound engineers, recording production professionals like GearSlutz to see examples of clear errors of technical audio/electronic/digital signal theory, many instances of engineering knowledge misapprehension, ignorance
even thousands of hours of "practice" simply reinforcing "I know what I hear" without any standard of comparison or "ground truth" is unlikely to lead to mastery that has any objective cognate
it doesn't take much reading or pro forums frequented by sound engineers, recording production professionals like GearSlutz to see examples of clear errors of technical audio/electronic/digital signal theory, many instances of engineering knowledge misapprehension, ignorance
The misuse of the word "patience" cracked me up (in your attached document image).
Last edited:
Sensitive hearing is mainly a blessing - is easily as powerful as highly sophisticated signal analysis software, when one adjusts to the right level of focus ...
The right level of focus? I'm pretty sure that most can learn this, most non-audiophiles usually have it in decent quantities - when was the last time someone you know who wasn't interested in audio 'fooled' by your system? ...
For me, it's being able to pick differences, by not 'forcing' my brain to work out what it is I'm hearing, as an intellectual exercise - but by relaxing, hearing the sound as a texture of vibrations in the air. As an analogy, you can 'focus' on someone talking at a party, actively 'compensating' for the noisy background - if you tune out, so to speak, then all the sounds in the room, the people talking, etc, becomes a burble of noise, like a live orchestra tuning up. Which will have a certain texture, quality to it depending on acoustics, and everything else. That's the mindset I find effective for picking things, differences up ...
The right level of focus? I'm pretty sure that most can learn this, most non-audiophiles usually have it in decent quantities - when was the last time someone you know who wasn't interested in audio 'fooled' by your system? ...
For me, it's being able to pick differences, by not 'forcing' my brain to work out what it is I'm hearing, as an intellectual exercise - but by relaxing, hearing the sound as a texture of vibrations in the air. As an analogy, you can 'focus' on someone talking at a party, actively 'compensating' for the noisy background - if you tune out, so to speak, then all the sounds in the room, the people talking, etc, becomes a burble of noise, like a live orchestra tuning up. Which will have a certain texture, quality to it depending on acoustics, and everything else. That's the mindset I find effective for picking things, differences up ...
Last edited:
Yes, the same goes for vision. I find that if I concentrate, my vision sensitivity easily exceeds the most powerful telescopes and microscopes. Even on a sunny day I can see planets revolving around distant stars in perfect detail if I know where to look (that takes practice!) and it is possible to see individual molecules if I use a torch, and squint.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.