On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 08:08 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > no, this is also not true. they want to *think* they are in the 10%, > but they are not. its a common woo belief that you can "train" the ear > to hear these differences and people who work in audio like to think > they've done so. the current understanding of the ability to hear the > differences, however, is not based on "training" but physiological > abilities of the inner ear. double blind tests of discrimination > including self-classified "golden ears" doesn't show them to > substantively better than a random population sample. And why tend non-musicians to miss radical differences between two versions of the same song, while musicians _always_ notice the differences? Make ABX tests yourself with non musicians and replace a snare with a cowbell, I suspect that even this is a difference, some people won't notice. I produced a lot of music with non-musicians, they miss such radical differences very easy, but sure, the hobby guitarist does notice a difference for the sound, when you move an EQ at the mixer that isn't used by the audio chain. Most people do this tests with expectations. Because they experienced at home that sound becomes muddy when they copy their records with elCheapo equipment and auto-leveling etc., this is what they take care about + that the rhythm and tune _seem_ to be equal, but even here, they won't notice differences in phrasing that easy. Less people are educated to listen to individual musical lines by all the aspects an audio engineer and musician should be able to listen to music. You can train your listening! Filtering audio btw. is an issue for many people, that's why speech therapist educate listening. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
