2. misc-audio
  3. 170451-134201

Can You Hear Me Now

In an interview with Laurence Borden of Dagogo, Dr Earl Geddes talked about the ability of people to really have golden ears. In his work at Ford, he tried to gauge how good the ten member golden ear panel was. I will let him tell you his findings. “For the most part the study concluded that this panel was “not capable.” In other words their judgments could not be relied upon to be statistically stable. That said, there were two members of the ten who were capable, so it was possible. But the real point here is that someone is not a good judge of sound quality just because they think that they are – all ten members would have claimed that they were audiophiles and good judges of sound quality.
After several more studies along these same lines, I came to conclude that the more someone claimed to be a “golden ear” the less likely it was that they actually were.”  
That got me thinking: how many of our members would belong to the group of eight and how many would be with the two who could really hear. Interesting reading. The full interview can be found here:
https://www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-dr-earl-geddes-of-gedlee-llc/
N.B. Dr. Earl Geddes is one of the pioneers of the Distributed Bass Array system. His work on the subject is well known. 
spenav
spenav OP
442 posts
 
@mahgister
The general consensus is that golden ears do exist but the majority of those who claim to be are not. There is a lot to unfold here. Consider it food for thoughts. 
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
One year at CES there was a problem with the PA. I was way in back of the packed room but saw the commotion, the running around trying to find the problem. One guy in the middle of the room says something. Everyone pays attention.

Nobody believes me when I tell this story. People with tin ears all want to think they're all there is. Vast majority, tin.

This story proves it. Whole room, at least 100 audiophiles, everyone hearing the same thing and it is just like here, majority nowhere even close. The one guy was right. And I was too far away to see it, all I know is it took a soldering iron. (Last time I told this someone says soldering iron, no way! CES, people. Yes way.) Sound comes back, whatever it was is fixed. Eventually word filters clear back to me, the guy who identified the problem by ear was Stan Ricker.

Now I am no Stan Ricker. But I have been saying if you know how to listen then you can indeed understand what you are hearing even with a strange system in a strange room playing strange music. Stan Ricker picked out one part from among hundreds in a system he had never heard before in a room he'd never been with music he didn't know.

Think what you like people. If you want to side with the folks who can't hear and aren't interested in learning, be my guest. But I will tell you, contrary to popular opinion, this is not a zero sum game. Improve one, improve all. If only they be willing.
terry9
2,353 posts
 
In any experiment, especially psychological, the devil is in the details. Even when elementary errors of logic have been avoided, and even when the statistics have not been abused, measurements are often irrelevant to the goals of the study.

The whole scientific literature is littered with claims not supported by the data.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,192 posts
 
In any experiment, especially psychological, the devil is in the details. Even when elementary errors of logic have been avoided, and even when the statistics have not been abused, measurements are often irrelevant to the goals of the study.

The whole scientific literature is littered with claims not supported by the data.


Half at least of the scientific litterature published is made of "tailored" measurements on demand , by big pharmas for example...Then it has NOTHING to do with science and is only at best some technological financially interesting "garage lane"...In a word "crookery" or in audio term "snake oil".....This was claimed by one of the director of the Lancet for example decade ago...



All the work of the great philosopher of science and scientist polymath Michael Polaniyi demostrated that science is not about measurements but about the way idea and perception subordinate to one another...

The Ptolemaic model was at least as accurate for measurements than the Copernician model...

But the Copernician subordinate the perception of the apparent centered sun to the invisible movement and idea placing earth AROUND the sun, in contrast to the perception of the sense data...


Today in the era of transhumanistic materialistic technological idolatry " science" is no more an ethic of the Reason and Spirit over the senses, a yoga of the perception like Goethe was teaching us, but the triumph of the blind hubris and of the formula called computer " program" and A.I. ....

Polaniyi remind us also of the destructive effect of any pyramidal control and centralized research over science ... i will not summarize his book....Nor will remind you in the actual crisis on world scene how centralized pharmas destroyed autonomous reason, democracy and freedom and autonomous medecine....
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,903 posts
 
Great sommeliers rate about the same, I would think. Same goes for those who work in the perfume industry. We’re talking about a curve for rating the senses. It’s a given. How unusual is 20/15 vision? Fighter pilots have 20/10 vision.

If we’re talking about maybe 20% of us having better hearing than "normal", what’s all the hub, bub? If there are 10 million audiophiles in this country, then at least 2 million know what they’re hearing.

Considering that our hearing acuity is part of what attracted us to this hobby to begin with, it’s a good bet that a normal curve of, say, 20% for the general population would work out to maybe 40-50% for audiophiles because of our abilities. 

I can’t imagine tone deaf people flocking to our hobby though I think I’ve encountered some here.

All the best,
Nonoise
More to discover