I think you mean people who think they hear better, but never really put that to the test should stop insulting others. All these people who claim they have "superior" hearing, rarely do but they certainly feel the need to tell everyone else they do and that others are inferior. Look how often it happens here.Jealousy, thy name is audio2design. I’ve never claimed to have "superior" hearing. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that, I’d be able to buy you a hearing aid. Why is it that that old saw is brought up as representative of everyone who’s ever made the claim that they could hear the difference? For a fallback position after all else fails is sad.
And why the appeal to authority with all the engineers and pros who, mostly, are just churning out stuff? Yes, they’re trained to hear better but so does the lowly audiophile that you look down your nose at. It goes both ways. John Atkinson wrote a great article on how sound and recording engineers fall victim to their craft by being limited by it. I can’t find the article but it’s out there for the inquisitive.
Greater visual acuity does not confer greater ability to quickly find detail in a scene, nor to better understand the image being presented. It’s not like smells, or even taste, where the sensing is complex, but processing more simple.And stop with the strawman arguments. No one stated that and it makes for a poor analogy. Better visual acuity would make it so much easier to train to see better, if that were one’s chosen path, compared to one who had poorer vision. No contest.
As for tasting and smelling we seem to agree that it is complex but where we diverge is that you feel no one hears better if not professionally engaged in it and I feel that hearing acuity varies greatly from person to person due to its complexity, just like any other sense, which you’re dancing around on, avoiding the topic, as one would have to admit that hearing acuity is strengthened through years of hearing.
All the best,
Nonoise
