The "golden ear" (Questions)
Sep 10, 2009 at 1:33 AM Post #17 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've noticed that too with vocals. But even moreso as you go down the upgrade path. The better the gear, the more center stage becomes transparent and falls into focus. And just when you think it can't be anymore transparent, the (usually) next, better piece of gear will always prove you wrong.


Actually, in my experience, as often as not, these vocal "epiphanies" hit me when I'm not listening through anything special. Like a boombox or the cheap little radio in the bathroom while I'm in the shower or something.

I think it really has more to do with what I'd call "listening askance."

Like when I play darts at the pub. If I focus intently on the intended target, I do much worse than if I just sort of stare off at some point distant from the dart board, only taking in the dart board visually in a more peripheral sense.

Weird.
atsmile.gif


k
 
Sep 10, 2009 at 2:49 AM Post #18 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Actually, in my experience, as often as not, these vocal "epiphanies" hit me when I'm not listening through anything special. Like a boombox or the cheap little radio in the bathroom while I'm in the shower or something.

I think it really has more to do with what I'd call "listening askance."

Like when I play darts at the pub. If I focus intently on the intended target, I do much worse than if I just sort of stare off at some point distant from the dart board, only taking in the dart board visually in a more peripheral sense.

Weird.
atsmile.gif


k


I do this too but no one will sit by the dartboard.

I do understand your concept and use it as well. I found focusing beyond the board strengthened my throw, keeping the flight arch at a minimum.
 
Sep 10, 2009 at 3:09 AM Post #19 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I do this too but no one will sit by the dartboard.


atsmile.gif


Quote:

I do understand your concept and use it as well. I found focusing beyond the board strengthened my throw, keeping the flight arch at a minimum.


Yeah. I think also what it does is, by not focusing on it, allows "muscle memory" to come a bit more to the forefront.

k
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 3:56 AM Post #22 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! |

in 128 the hihats sound wooshy as hell.


Yay! I passed the test
smile_phones.gif


I agree with your statement about 128kbps files. When I compared a few songs at 128kbps with their CD counterparts, I found the 128kbps files sounded flat, empty, airy, and distant compared to the CDs.

BUT, I do believe it all depends on the quality of gear you are using. If you use apple's horrendous earbuds, you won't be able to tell the difference. But if you are using something more dynamic (I used a pair of Grado SR225s), the difference is staggering.
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 5:06 AM Post #23 of 26
I don't think the 128 vs. 320 is a fair comparison really since 128 is not considered a good bitrate. Go ABX v0 from flac (hint: it's very difficult) and you'll realize that only a very small percentage of people can tell the difference.
Also, yes cymbals are the obvious giveaway,but you need hearing that extends past 16khz to tell. With v0, the mp3 goes up to 19.5-20khz (of 22) so it is much more difficult.
 
Sep 16, 2009 at 5:57 AM Post #24 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by AtomikPi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't think the 128 vs. 320 is a fair comparison really since 128 is not considered a good bitrate.


This isn't always true. It really depends on the codec. I have an MP3 encoder that does 20Hz - 20kHz at 128kps and can sound nearly lossless.
 
Oct 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM Post #26 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by Champ10 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I dont actually know anyone who personally claims to have "golden ears". This is usually a derogatory label (of late) given by an auditorial non believer.
One could maybe argue that such a thing exists given that some musicians have "perfect pitch" and others do not.


Remind me of this passage of the Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook.

Quote:

Most mixing engineers, as well as many musicians and producers, spend a lot of years fine-tuning their perception of sound. If you're not among those people, you may find this hard to believe, but many audio professionals really do hear things that the average person does not hear. They eardrums may not vibrate any differently than the next person's but they have acquired a heightened nerve brain sensitivity and a greater ability to carefully interpret those physical vibrations. As a result, they often demand sonic improvements for defects that the average person may not perceive at all or may discount as being unimportant. These audio professionals, along with many amateur audiophiles, should be treated with respect because they generally do have the so called golden ears that have led to many of the refinements and improvements in sound equipment. From our experience, we 'd give the golden ear the benefit of the doubt. If a qualified person claim to hear something significant in a sound system and you don't hear it and can"t seem to measure it, then you're probably not performing the appropriate tests.


And this funny story about the TI PCM2702 design:

Quote:

When the guys in charge listened to the prototype I saw dubious faces and was asked a variety of questions such as "Is the source coming from the PC corrupted?" In the end I was told to measure the audio performance. When I announced the results in a subsequent meeting I was told the distortion was an order of magnitude too high; the THD+N was 0.03%.

I wondered what was wrong with 0.03%, but was told that "We could never sell a device with this performance as one of our own."


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top