Justin from Queens wrote:

rayj wrote:
I think this depends on a set of variables. Amongst those variables are probably such items as:

1. overall amplitude. Fletcher-Munson curves, anyone?

2. hearing damage. I have a dead ear on the right to anything over 18khz or so. I used to hear OVER 20khz, I think. According to the old test at the St. Louis science center, anyway...

3. practice. Critical listening skills get better with practice. That 'Golden Ears' training thing works wonders. You lose it if you don't use it, though...

4. fatigue. As in hearing fatigue.

Ray -

Here I am, disagreeing with you again. Please don't take it personally.

1. Amplitude shouldn't be a factor. The test allows you to change the volume and replay the sample. F/M is a test of apparent loudness, so I don't see how that would be relevant.
2 - 4. While all of these should affect how someone performs on the test, it doesn't change my point. The developer noted on his message board put my suspicions in technical language that made sense. There's a greater hz difference in high frequency semitones than in low frequency semi-tones. Since the test measures variations of tones in comparison to a 500hz tone, the measurements given are only relevant for that tone.

= Justin

Hey-
You aren't disagreeing with me...you are helping to tighten up the language and thoughts here. I appreciate it, actually, and enjoy it.

-Amplitude probably isn't a serious factor, as everyone will more than likely turn up the volume to a comfortable level, naturally. However, the low-end rolloff can be significant. In a full-on research project, amplitude would have to be a fixed value.

I agree with your point. However, like any other research project, the more specific it tries to be, the more unaddressed variables tend to manifest themselves. And the more general a project's focus, the less it ends up saying...sort of the catch-22 most scientists wrestle with on a daily basis.

-I think practice might be the killer here...you'd be amazed at how quickly you can train your ear. If a population of trained audio engineers decides to join the subjects, well, that's going to skew results. Whaddya think?

it'd be cool to see tests like these taken a little bit further. they should have had questions at the end reguarding which instrument the test taker plays and wether or not they play in a loud rock and roll band.... hehe. i wonder if violinists would generally do better than guitarists on the pitch perception test.

also, i took the tests twice today. the first time was right after waking up. i got 88.7% and 2.7 hz. the second time was just now, after getting home from work: 94.4% and .825 hz. i guess i'm not only dumber in the morning... but also tone deafer (which i thought is not a word... but according to spellcheck it is!).

stewie wrote:

mattr wrote:80.6% on 1st. 0.28125 Hz on 2nd. Both through the crappy internal speaker on the front of my mac!

Jebus H. Christing.

Yeah, how bout it, I thought I was hot shit for getting .525.

82% on the musical
0.375 Hz on the other one

Hmmm....


Non-musician here.

69.4%/3.9 Hz

I did worse than I expected on the first test, but I was eating crunchy bacon and using loudspeakers. I did far better on the second one than I thought would.

These tests just confirm what anecdotal evidence has suggested for years - I have virtually zero innate musical skills.

Ty Webb wrote:Hmmm....


Non-musician here.

69.4%/3.9 Hz

I did worse than I expected on the first test, but I was eating crunchy bacon and using loudspeakers. I did far better on the second one than I thought would.

These tests just confirm what anecdotal evidence has suggested for years - I have virtually zero innate musical skills.

That means you can actually enjoy listening to music! Hooray! Hooray for you!

Sorry...being forced to run sound for casino bands has me a little warped...when your defense is to merely focus on the technical aspects of a performance...