Originally Posted by Bojamijams
My problem with this article, or any statement where the author claims there's no difference to some long standing 'truth', is the basic principle thats wrong with EVERYONE's opinion on here.
Everyone that makes these claims assumes the false truth that all ears are created equal. Thus, if he cannot hear a difference, no difference must exist. Well clearly thats bull. There's people who have perfect pitch, that can identify a note just by hearing it. 99.9% of people CANNOT DO THIS. Thus this could be another thing that people could easily claim is false (PERFECT PITCH IS A LIE, ITS A MYTH) except of course that it has been proven to be real.
So the point I'd like to leave you with, is that most people do not have golden ears. Just because one person cannot hear something doesn't mean its not there. We're not all created equal and most people writing reviews have inferior ears (again, people with perfect pitch being the reference of 'golden ears' to me)
There's two things that made me think of:
1. Does having perfect pitch (or ability to identify frequency) increase enjoyment when it comes to listening to music?
Here's a definition from wikipedia: "Absolute pitch (AP), or perfect pitch, is the ability to name or reproduce a tone without reference to an external standard."
This is a bit off-topic (and irrelevant to enjoyment of mastered tracks) but my piano tuner once recited a story of a musician with perfect pitch who was forced to performed on a out-of-tune piano (It was in-tune with itself but middle C was not tuned to 440hz, but 420hz for example). Story goes that he couldn't play at all because what he was hearing was conflicting with what he was trying to play (or expecting to hear). Apparently he said to the piano tuner later that it was the most embarrassing moment for him because he couldn't even play twinkle twinkle little star.
Perfect pitch has been scientifically verified as real. Golden ears, however, have not. It's difficult to discuss the subject because we (or at least I) lack a concrete definition of what abilities someone with golden ears has over everyone else. I assume it means they can identify sounds and textures, etc, that the general population can't, but how do you measure this? Can you measure this? I'm guessing it would be similar to perfect pitch, in that it's a genetic quality concerned with improved or more efficient brain process in regards to aural perception. Still, we need specifics.
2. I think you made a very good point that in order to disprove something you must do your very best to prove it (and test each fact proving it) instead of creating statistics against it. This reminds me of the whole god debacle: no, we can't disprove god, but all the evidence out there (all the findings of evolution, physics, chemistry, biology) points that his existence is so unlikely (and unnecessary for our existence) that it is illogical to believe that he does exist. Maybe it's the same with golden ears.
By that I simply mean that they can't be disproved (not commenting on how likely or unlikely their existence is). I still lack a definition to go by and until I come across one it's pointless to keep talking.