[bigshot]

If you think you've got old stuff covered, you don't know enough about old stuff! Every time I think I've heard everything, something else pops up. I like both old and new. I just focus on good.

 

[Argyris]

It's always a thrill of discovery when I find something in my own collection that I never listened to before, or else tried but didn't initially care for, and end up absolutely loving it. I've bought a lot of albums just for one or two songs/performances, and sometimes it's ten years or more that the undiscovered gems slumber before being unearthed. So in a way, that's how I know for sure that I don't know enough about old stuff—if my own collection occasionally yields surprises, how much more is out there that I don't even know about?

 

[james444]

I've long ago abandoned hope of getting anything remotely *covered* when it comes to music, be it the older stuff or the plethora of new releases each year. Also, I forgot to mention that about half of my listening is dedicated to classical, of which I've bought not a single new release this year... simply because I'm still stuck with a huge backlog of older stuff.

 

[71 dB]

If you think you've got old stuff covered, you don't know enough about old stuff! Every time I think I've heard everything, something else pops up. I like both old and new. I just focus on good.

The question is how many lifetimes would it take to get all stuff covered. So, I cover it worth one lifetime and that has to be enough.

 

[bigshot]

My goal is to have more music and movies on hand than I can ever watch. That way I never run out of new discoveries. I have already achieved that goal, but I won't admit it to myself because "too much is never enough".

 

[bigshot]

Man! If you guys could see the comments and links I'm getting in PMs! Sound Science has a few regular posters, but there are lots of lurkers. Great stuff!

 

[pila405]

Share some links if it's interesting
Scientific articles?

 

[bigshot]

The gossip is the most interesting stuff!

 

[Niouke]

I've listened to some Mannheim Steamroller tracks, I agree that having my head inside the percussions is not very pleasing at times. Besides that I find the melodies to be naive and childish, but it is still a fun listen for a while...

 

[bigshot]

The forum feels like championship wrestling lately. People seem to think that they can earn respect by posting on the internet. Amazing.

 

[Strangelove424]

I got an urge to listen to U2's "Sweetest Thing" today (yes, people still listen to U2)... when I put the song it started out with an awesome low pass/high pass filter to make it sound like played over distant radio. I thought to myself "I don't remember this part, but it sounds great!" and was expecting it to fade into the full fidelity sweetness of the song. I was really digging this intro till I realized my headphones weren't plugged into my laptop, and that was just the sound of my laptop speakers. Doh! It sounded so good though, I'm thinking of mixing my own version of the intro later today.

 

[cel4145]

This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?

Was looking through another thread and saw this post from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):

A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are....

So is there like an online class for this training? Or is more like going to sports camp? And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Now those remarks are a bit flippant, but is there is actually any agreed upon standards for what is being described there? Or is just something people throw out to justify their beliefs, without any real shared basis for what it means?

 

[bigshot]

I've found stuff like that to be people who are a little too proud of their ears. If you suggest they try a simple blind test, their super ears become Clark Kent ears again.

I have more respect for people who struggle to understand the meaning of music than I do people who struggle to hear unbearable things.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?

Was looking through another thread and saw this post from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):



So is there like an online class for this training? Or is more like going to sports camp? And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Now those remarks are a bit flippant, but is there is actually any agreed upon standards for what is being described there? Or is just something people throw out to justify their beliefs, without any real shared basis for what it means?

There is certainly something to be said for training one's ears, for example, learning to recognize different frequency ranges by ear or what subtle harmonic distortion sounds like, or what a better/worse attack sounds like, can be learned. One way to do this is listen to the same songs over and over on different equipment with known, measurable differences, and listen carefully to specific sounds within the recording. Another way is to spend a great deal of time listening to the same things while messing with an equalizer and other DSP tools.

However, if the person saying their ears are well-trained, but aren't specific about WHAT they are "trained" for, I agree that skepticism is warranted. In a sense, you can't train your ears to hear more "musicality" or "fluency" or any of those other flowery things, because those phenomena are (if they're real at all - often just pleasant names for placebo effect) aggregates of other things.

If someone has truly well-trained ears, they'll be able to pass ABX tests a bit more often than your average punter, not because their ears work better, but because they have a mental checklist of things to listen for and know what those things sound like in a generalized way. But that's about as far as it goes. Someone with legitimately well-trained ears is not going to try and convince you that they can hear some unknown-to-science "musicality" of a DAC because their training lets them know that A) such things don't exist and B) you can't actually hear them even if they do.

 

[danadam]

A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are.

... And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Isn't that obvious? This is something science is not able to measure yet