I would think that any legitimate, repeatable, reproducible demonstration would get objective type people interested in doing a serious investigation.
But then if it only applies to 5% of the listeners why would they tell the other 95% to use their own ears?
But then on the other hand, if 5% can hear something, that by itself is worthy of further investigation.
There is a lot that could be said, but perhaps I could suggest to look at another thread here in the forum: The only ''definitive'' answer in this Subjective world is...
If you search that thread for posts by "gedlee" (without the quotes), there is some discussion related to hearing you might find interesting. No point in me trying to summarize it all here when the original discussion is readily available.
I suspect the 5% people are talking about here (maybe JC among them?) would consider themselves non-objective listeners since they have probably often been told they can't possibly hear what they say they hear.
Assuming there really IS a 5% (which I tend to believe).
Have they ever bothered to prove that they can hear things others can't?
Unless they do that to a degree that shows their hearing ability of various features is well above average their opinion is at best anecdotal and generally worthless. It is worth less than anybody elses opinion if they have financial interests in audio.
I consider myself 'objective' as well as 'subjective' as I use both in designing and evaluating audio products. I think the 5% is low in reference to hearing differences, but then many are not educated, and are even dissuaded from giving sound quality an important place in their lives.
Not that I'm not incredulous of most people's claims, 5% is more apt to a decent HS sprinter than Usain Bolt. Some claims of effects, however, seem to exceed the thresholds of defects typically considered near the limits of human detection (eg 192 kbs mp3) by a couple orders of magnitude, so the tall tales of Usain Bolts are prevalent.
Interestingly when I demo my filters, the 'normal' consumer types hear the difference straight away, musos and hifi shop staff might need a couple of A/B's to 'get' it.
It seems that musos typically listen in a fundamentally different way to the most of us.
Once heard the responses are strongly positive in all cases.
One member here has heard the difference when applied to mobile phone ear buds/mic headset....all audio gear benefits !.
Dan.
It seems that musos typically listen in a fundamentally different way to the most of us.
Once heard the responses are strongly positive in all cases.
One member here has heard the difference when applied to mobile phone ear buds/mic headset....all audio gear benefits !.
Dan.
To err is golden (ears)
I usually have a few speakers on display, when someone comes around, looking to buy a pair of them.
One friend of a friend was interested in electrostatic hybrids; I had them there, but not connected, as he arrived @ an hour early.
He immediately waxed on and on about the obvious superiority of them, as compared to the "wretched" Revelator and Peerless ring radiator bookshelf mini, which was actually playing music at the time.
He said he thought most people must be deaf to the obvious difference, and wondered why I even bothered with cone dynamic speakers.
I guess I probably shouldn't have laughed, when he paused long enough to inform him he wasn't listening to the electrostatics.
He accused me of making him look stupid, and left- no sale. It was still worth it. He is one of those guys, everyone's system is crap, but his. Everyone is deaf, except him. His newest component is the greatest, much better than the last, because it cost more.
Everyone is deaf because wire is not just wire.
It MUST have a battery on it to charge the insulation...
I usually have a few speakers on display, when someone comes around, looking to buy a pair of them.
One friend of a friend was interested in electrostatic hybrids; I had them there, but not connected, as he arrived @ an hour early.
He immediately waxed on and on about the obvious superiority of them, as compared to the "wretched" Revelator and Peerless ring radiator bookshelf mini, which was actually playing music at the time.
He said he thought most people must be deaf to the obvious difference, and wondered why I even bothered with cone dynamic speakers.
I guess I probably shouldn't have laughed, when he paused long enough to inform him he wasn't listening to the electrostatics.
He accused me of making him look stupid, and left- no sale. It was still worth it. He is one of those guys, everyone's system is crap, but his. Everyone is deaf, except him. His newest component is the greatest, much better than the last, because it cost more.
Everyone is deaf because wire is not just wire.
It MUST have a battery on it to charge the insulation...
Earl Geddes said a preliminary study to start working on that would cost somewhere between several thousand dollars and a few tens of thousands of dollars.
It appears there are people on both sides of the arguments that would like to see the results of such research with the expectation it would confirm their preexisting beliefs. And of course there are some people with no particular expectations one way or the other, and probably they are mostly part of the vast majority of people who couldn't care less about any of it one way or the other.
Anyway, so far nobody has been willing to put up the money so proof can be had. If anybody wants to start taking up a collection, I would probably chip in a little, but not a lot. Anybody else?
Somebody did a study to find out what stands out to most people as exemplifying extreme stupidity. IIRC, it has to do with being wrong or mistaken about something combined with the appearance of extreme over-confidence one is right or knows what one is doing.
Trying to carjack a police car or something of that nature would one type of example. It's like, how stupid can someone be?
Last edited:
Interesting thing is, highly intelligent people on average tend to be more over-confident that less intelligent folks. It appears that highly intelligent people are very good at thinking up long lists of all the reasons they are right, but no better than average at thinking up all the reasons they might be wrong.
I firmly am of the opinion that such studies, conducted within fully sound scientific principles, protocols and procedures...would generate a lot of red-faced individuals. The supposition that there are individuals who hear distinct minutia within music, would be dis-proved, poked so many holes, essentially laying waste the entirety of "Hi fidelity".
I offer up the "tests" of the professional violinists who couldn't tell the vaunted ancient Strad, from its modern contemporaries. Several other seemingly "shocking" results have been conducted, all one of those "Of course I can tell the difference!" types.
Why, after all this time has no one bothered to tally the public at large, to find out just how well (poorly) we as a species can actually hear?
--------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...........
I offer up the "tests" of the professional violinists who couldn't tell the vaunted ancient Strad, from its modern contemporaries. Several other seemingly "shocking" results have been conducted, all one of those "Of course I can tell the difference!" types.
Why, after all this time has no one bothered to tally the public at large, to find out just how well (poorly) we as a species can actually hear?
--------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...........
Better back that one up. Everything I've read coming off dunning Kruger points to it being more agnostic to intelligence.
I am inclined to disagree, without any basis other than guesswork.
I do know people see with widely varying acuity, it seems reasonable the same may be true of hearing, even in those with excellent hearing.
That's a major stumbling block right there. People tend to believe what they want to believe (on both sides of any issue), despite however much evidence to the contrary.
Given the above, I wonder if it's even possible these days to design a study of this type that would be irrefutable enough to silence even a significant percentage of the "fake news" group(s).
Maybe not one study, depends in significant part what it might say. Also, with humans, replication is usually highly advisable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.