Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Noise Reduction/Cancellation--What Good Is It?

Noise Reduction/Cancellation--What Good Is It?
Thread Tools
gulmatan
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 04:58 AM
 
Hi there. A brief intro--Two months ago, I bought a pair of Macally Noise Reduction headphones in the hopes that I could block out external noises so i could hear my iPod clearly. Even though I turned on the NR full strength, I could still hear people that were three feet away. That was a DUD! Next, today i bought a pair of Noise Cancellation headphones. This was worse. I could hear my phone ringing when I sat at the dinner table and the phone was five feet away on the kitchen wall and I could hear my dad when he was conversing on the phone.

I'm beginning to think this NR/NC gag is just a gimmick and a racket. Why don't these things block out external sounds enough that your device is the only thing you hear? Is there a pair of headphones that can do this? I know, I know, if this happens I wouldn't be able to hear emergency signals.
PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz/1GB RAM/OS/X (10.4.11)
Windows--A fate in league with Communism.
     
willed
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: USA at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 05:53 AM
 
I don't think they were ever advertised as magically blocking out all other sounds - they are called noise REDUCTION headphones after all. Maybe you're expecting too much from them? I presume you do notice some improvement over normal headphones?
     
gulmatan  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:00 AM
 
But, what about the Noise Cancellation gimmick?
PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz/1GB RAM/OS/X (10.4.11)
Windows--A fate in league with Communism.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:29 AM
 
There's a reason why, in the studio, folks standing in front of a Marshall stack while expecting to be able to hear their headphone mix aren't given "noise cancelling" models.

Get some Beyer DT150s and have done with it.

There's some even better ones (isolation-wise) out there from Extreme Isolation but since I haven't used these I can't comment on the sound quality. I use the Beyers all the time and they do the job with near perfect sound quality, so go with them.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
gulmatan  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:34 AM
 
Where and how much?
PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz/1GB RAM/OS/X (10.4.11)
Windows--A fate in league with Communism.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:43 AM
 
I get mine from studiospares.com at about $180.
No idea where you'd get them Stateside - might be worth looking at Beyer's site (www.beyerdynamic.com) to see if they list distributors.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
MaxPower2k3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 10:30 AM
 
B&H has them.

They look real nice

To the OP: electronic noise cancellation works best on mid-frequency, (not very low or very high pitch) constant noises, like the drone of an airplane, or similar things. I think sennheiser actually does only market their noise cancellation 'phones for airplane use, because that's all they're really good for.

If you don't want something as big as Doofy's suggestion, check out the Sony Fontopia earbuds on the cheap end ($39) or the Shure or Etymotic earbuds on the high end ($99-$499+). They're basically like wearing earplugs with speakers in them; they reduce all noise around you. If you're expecting to be able to stand on a subway platform and hear your music while a train races by, you'll still be disappointed, but those are really the best way to cut down on the general noise around you.

"I start fires!"
     
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 10:44 AM
 
Noise cancellation headphones can only suppress steady sounds, such as those caused by wind and engines. They can't suppress rapidly modulating sounds, such as speech. One of the perverse effects of NC headphones is that they can actually make eavesdropping easier by enhancing the S/N ratio.
     
JFischel
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 10:46 AM
 
Hey there...

May I humbly suggest the Bose noise reduction headphones? I got a pair yesterday, and while they don't block out all sound, they do an amazing job isolating sounds. When the headphones are active, the sound coming from my iPod was compeletely amazing. If the $300 pair is too much, they make a pair called the TriPort which is about $150. They have similar "speaker" parts.

Josh
20 Inch Intel iMac * MacBook 2 GHz * 60GB iPod * 4GB iPhone
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 12:15 PM
 
You got **** headphones. My bose bones work great.
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 02:45 PM
 
Noise Reduction headphones are not designed to block out speech or other sounds like that. They're designed to block out rumbles, engine noise, etc. that is constant. That's why they work well on airplanes, but really crappy on buses that start and stop.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon
You got **** headphones. My bose bones work great.
Bose sound like they were filtered through tin foil with a oatmeal container for bass.

But if you like that sound, then that's what's important.
     
CMYKid
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 05:46 PM
 
Bose sucks large. In general, the headphones in particular however. Pretty much as a rule ANY nose-cancelling gear is guaranteed to suck if you're looking at it from a fidelity standpoint. Its unavoidable since thats the basis of the way the technology functions. If thats what you're into then hey, whatever, but for the same price you can get some that isolate really well, like the Etymotics or Shures mentioned above, they not only sound good in quiet environs but also block out ambient noise in louder environments due to their superior fit.
     
jebjeb
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aussie in UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:26 PM
 
Yeah, most noise cancelation stuff is just to cut out the constant lower freq noises. As much as I dislike Bose, I do have a pair of the QC2 noise canceling 'phones and they are worth their weight in gold. I only use them for traveling (plus I take a pair of Shure's or 'sens for actual listening to music at my destination). They are great on the plane, train or bus. I also use them in the office where it really cuts out the background hum of machine fans and A/C. We were just in the states last week and my wife picked up a pair as well. I reckon they effectively knock about 1/3 off the travel time in how you feel when you reach your destination. Believe, that is important after 24 hours of flying between the UK and Australia. It makes a difference.

They don't have the best audio quality in the world (use them in a quiet room and you can here the background hiss) but the have everything built in to the headphone itself (whereas most other N/C phones have a separate battery/processing box which just gets in the way).
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:40 PM
 
I use etymotic's ER-4P.

I amplify the line out of the iPod for better reproduction and I am happy.

NR phones are good when the "noise" is continuous, and always the same. Things like a honking car or a ringing phone would not be adequately canceled imho.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
There's a reason why, in the studio, folks standing in front of a Marshall stack while expecting to be able to hear their headphone mix aren't given "noise cancelling" models.
Do they actually use full stacks in the studio? You'd think they would just need half.

I know some even use small 12" combos.

Since I don't "Play out" anymore, I thought about selling my head and cab for something smaller.

But I can never bring myself to do it.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Do they actually use full stacks in the studio? You'd think they would just need half.
Depends on how nuts the guitarist is*. Or how nuts the producer is. There's a certain sound which can only be had via use of a full stack - the controlled fat punch of the straight mixed with the sort of skinny watery feel of an angle.

(* Remember Vinnie Vincent's "Invasion"? That album was reportedly done with Vinnie completely full-boring eight stacks)



Originally Posted by Kevin
Since I don't "Play out" anymore, I thought about selling my head and cab for something smaller.

But I can never bring myself to do it.
Might wanna check out the Vox Tonelab SE - some very nice sounds in a small package and you can get 'em to sound good pretty much whatever you plug them into.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
(* Remember Vinnie Vincent's "Invasion"? That album was reportedly done with Vinnie completely full-boring eight stacks)
Heh yes I remember it now.. I really tried to get it erased from my memory.

He really was a sucky guitarist.
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Bose sound like they were filtered through tin foil with a oatmeal container for bass.

But if you like that sound, then that's what's important.
Shame the reviews don't agree with your audiophile ears.
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 09:34 PM
 
Well, I think the more important thing about Bose is that, at least with respect to speakers, they are not bad, but are wildly, insanely overpriced for what they are. You can get the same quality speakers for much less money, or you can get a lot more speaker for your money by going elsewhere. I think that what audiophiles are seeing is that, for what they cost, they are really lousy.

tooki
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 11:27 PM
 
I agree with tooki. Most people think they sound great, but Bose has good marketing, so most people hear Bose, and not the cheaper competition.

Bose's only claim to fame is that they make tiny speakers sound loud. Not great, but ok and loud.
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 03:32 AM
 
Oh I agree, bose home theatre speakers are meh but some products like that compact radio, noise cancelling headphones and the iPod speaker system are all pretty damn good.

Don't they make the iPod headphones?
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
CMYKid
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 10:48 AM
 
The insides are, literlly, car stereo quality components.

Crap, for that price.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon
Shame the reviews don't agree with your audiophile ears.
You're reading the wrong reviews.

Bose is - at BEST - average-sounding.

Their €380 Bose iPod SoundDock is worth €60 at most, perhaps €80 if you think the design is pretty.

Don't lift it up, though, because you'll notice that the finish is as craptacularly flimsy as the rest of the components (especially the iPod dock at the front - it seems ready to just fall off if shouted at).

I just read that they are among the three most-respected brands in America (along with Apple and one other I forget). That, however, says nothing about quality. Remember, Sony used to be very highly regarded as well, and their consumer stuff has sucked complete donkey balls since at least the mid-80s.
     
jebjeb
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aussie in UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 12:32 PM
 
Bose is all about using different technology or objects to make their products. There speakers are small, they make glorified alarm clocks and they market very well. Their idea of trying to make good sound is using heaps of signal processing. In most places this is is not so successful but it is quite good in cars (not that they are anywhere near the best car audio OEM) and for DSP relying hardware such as, bring this back to the original topic, noise canceling headphones.

Personally no other Bose product interests me other than their NC 'phones.
     
Scandalous Ion Cannon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 12:54 PM
 
So what better NC headphones are there?
"That's okay, I'd like to keep it on manual control for a while."
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon
Oh I agree, bose home theatre speakers are meh but some products like that compact radio, noise cancelling headphones and the iPod speaker system are all pretty damn good.

Don't they make the iPod headphones?
Is that supposed to imply Bose is good?!?

iPod 'phones suck!!!
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
You're reading the wrong reviews.
I just read that they are among the three most-respected brands in America (along with Apple and one other I forget). That, however, says nothing about quality. Remember, Sony used to be very highly regarded as well, and their consumer stuff has sucked complete donkey balls since at least the mid-80s.
Bose was the most-respected, with Apple and Dell as number twos (but with different respect metrics). http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6491.html

Sony certainly has not "sucked complete donkey balls" at any point. Some of their stuff is better, some worse, but in terms of build quality, Sony is still superior to a lot of its competition. (For example, after being burned by a Sharp, I went right back to using a Sony MiniDisc player -- one that survived repeated drops and drowning in Kool-Aid [no, I don't use MD any more].) What certainly is true is that a lot of Sony stuff is overpriced, though not to the absurd degree that Bose is.

tooki
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
Bose was the most-respected, with Apple and Dell as number twos (but with different respect metrics). http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6491.html

Sony certainly has not "sucked complete donkey balls" at any point. Some of their stuff is better, some worse, but in terms of build quality, Sony is still superior to a lot of its competition. (For example, after being burned by a Sharp, I went right back to using a Sony MiniDisc player -- one that survived repeated drops and drowning in Kool-Aid [no, I don't use MD any more].) What certainly is true is that a lot of Sony stuff is overpriced, though not to the absurd degree that Bose is.

tooki
Okay, I will concede that they may have made some minidisc players that didn't immediately break.

I can also see that this is an important criterion when purchasing a minidisc player.

In every other respect, Sony's consumer audio division has sucked complete donkey balls for at least twenty years - and that includes the original ATRAC format that the minidisc format is based around.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 03:54 PM
 
analog this is what happened. Most people were used to really crappy speakers and sound. Bose came out with TONS of hype and tons of infomercials going on about how GREAT it sounds being so SMALL.

And it was! Compared to most products people were listening to the Bose DID sound better, and it being SO SMALL people loved it.

It didn't become great because it was better than most.

We are talking regular consumers. Not audiophiles.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
Okay, I will concede that they may have made some minidisc players that didn't immediately break.

I can also see that this is an important criterion when purchasing a minidisc player.

In every other respect, Sony's consumer audio division has sucked complete donkey balls for at least twenty years - and that includes the original ATRAC format that the minidisc format is based around.
I can't disagree more. The whole audiophile thing aside, Sony's consumer products have consistently been of high quality, at least compared to similarly priced consumer gear from other vendors. Sony puts out, IMHO, reliably good (but seldom exceptional) consumer gear. If you don't have the time to look at a gazillion other brands to find the very best model, you can at least go with Sony and know that while what you get may not be the very best the market has to offer, it will be good.

And as for ATRAC: "donkey balls" to your clearly super-biased opinion. The entire point of MD was to create a practical replacement for the audio cassette for portable use. In that respect, MD did a superb job. MD is superior to audio cassette in every respect. And since the first generation of MD, the ATRAC encoders have gotten substantially better, to the point that by 1999, one audiophile magazine decided that the ATRAC Type-R encoder (fed with 24-bit source) produced better sound than uncompressed audio CD.

(And FYI, the only Sony gear I use now is my small TV and my earbuds, which sound damned good for $49. My surround system is a Pioneer DVD/DVD-A/SACD player, a Denon receiver, and B&W speakers, lest you think that I'm a Sony junkie/blind believer.)

tooki
     
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:11 PM
 
Really worth it if you commute via the subway.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
super-biased opinion
Well, duh.

The CD players they put out until the early/mid-nineties were atrocious, with artificial "emphasis" added to the high-end in an attempt to compensate for the fact that most CDs put out in the 80s (and Sony's consumer D/A stages) sounded like complete crap.

They have also consistently added features to successor-products at the same price point while consistently reducing sound quality (badly necessary but real improvements to the ATRAC algorithms aside). That is a trend I simply disapprove of.

Bose does the same thing as many other manufacturers - mask inferior sound quality by heavily ****ing with phase-shifters and stereo "enhancers" on the high frequencies, giving a startling and impressive sound. I realize that there's a market for that, and that people are used to phase-****ed audio from the radio.

But it's just sad that most of these devices (as most radio stations too, at least around here) no longer conform to even the minimal standards for audio fidelity set by the Hi-Fi DIN norm of 1975.

Call me elitist, but faking something you just can't achieve using the components you stick into a box is lying to customers. Charging €380 for it, and actually being able to market it, is just...well.
</rant>
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:31 PM
 
If I could hear out of both ears I'd probably be more concerned. It kinda sucks that I can't hear DSOTM properly.

But then again, I was blessed with perfect pitch.

So I guess it kinda evens out.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
The CD players they put out until the early/mid-nineties were atrocious, with artificial "emphasis" added to the high-end in an attempt to compensate for the fact that most CDs put out in the 80s (and Sony's consumer D/A stages) sounded like complete crap.

They have also consistently added features to successor-products at the same price point while consistently reducing sound quality (badly necessary but real improvements to the ATRAC algorithms aside). That is a trend I simply disapprove of.
But I think you're forgetting the all-important matter of context. As I said, Sony's consumer gear is seldom the best available. But for the people this stuff is targeted for -- regular consumers -- it's good enough. The increasing audio quality defects that you are complaining about are plain and simply non-existent to the untrained ear, which is what most people have. If people all had golden ears like you, MP3 would never have caught on. Nor would audio cassettes, which were clearly markedly inferior to the phonograph records that predate them.

To most people, the addition of some useful feature is a worthwhile tradeoff for some noise or distortion that they'll never perceive. Now, I am thoroughly opposed to trading off quality for gimmicky "features", but Sony has also added a lot of legitimately useful stuff. For example, around the late 90s, Sony realized that for most portable electronics (CD players, MD, cassette players, camcorders, etc), there were really no features left to add, and that size couldn't really be practically reduced much further, so Sony decided to add real value by starting the "Stamina" program of making all the portable stuff have long battery life. The result of that is things like a cassette player that could run for 65 hours off of a single AA battery. Considering the context of use -- walkmans are for on-the-go use, in places where ambient noise will completely mask the noise from the audio circuitry -- that is a superb design decision. To this day, Sony's portable music players have the best battery life in the industry, regardless of what media the player uses.

So basically, my point is that you can't, with any fairness, slam Sony for producing gear that isn't audiophile-grade: Sony's market for consumer products is consumers, not audiophiles, and the design priorities are different!

What I certainly will fault Sony for is its hard-on for proprietary formats. MD, for example, was sensible since nothing comparable existed at the time. The same with CD. But creating a gazillion forms of Memory Stick, and making its flash memory and hard disk players play only ATRAC (until recently) was just stupid. Same with UMD (or whatever those movies for the PSP are called). I think Sony could do a lot better if it stopped spending tons of resources creating incompatible technologies when there's already an established standard in the marketplace.

tooki
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
But I think you're forgetting the all-important matter of context. As I said, Sony's consumer gear is seldom the best available. But for the people this stuff is targeted for -- regular consumers -- it's good enough. The increasing audio quality defects that you are complaining about are plain and simply non-existent to the untrained ear, which is what most people have. If people all had golden ears like you, MP3 would never have caught on. Nor would audio cassettes, which were clearly markedly inferior to the phonograph records that predate them.
Bull.

It's not a question of "golden ears". Nor are consumer ears "untrained". My mother, who was as untrained a consumer as they get, could easily discern a difference supposedly only audible to "audiophiles" without any prodding as to what to listen for on my decidedly middle-end stereo ten years ago.

The problem is that consumer ears ARE trained. And they're trained to garbage. Scintillating and LOUD.

Stuff that isn't compressed to hell isn't LOUD. Stuff that isn't shoved through at least five exciters doesn't sound "brilliant". And stuff that isn't shoved throught a stereo enhancer or two doesn't sound "ambient" or "broad".

On a six-inch transistor box with 40¢ drivers and a six-dollar amp circuit, sold for over three HUNDRED dollars.

What a surprise.

Most consumers CAN tell the difference. Most consumers AREN'T stupid. They're just ignorant, and Bose marketing and Clearchannel radio, with the cooperation of increasingly frustrated record mastering engineers, help keep them that way.


Cassettes and mp3 players are an entirely different matter. I have an iPod. I used to use cassettes, as well (which, btw, can be *much* better than their reputation). Those are largely a matter of comfort. I used cassettes because I couldn't really listen to vinyl in the car, or on the train. There was no other option for that until the Discman showed up. iPod and mp3s are following in that market. Comfort and portability.

It helped the widespread adoption that people could build collections of thousands of songs for FREE because the mp3 format first made file-sharing of music possible on a wide scale.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:57 PM
 
analogika some people do have better ears than others. You probably have a better ear because of genetics (Your mom does too)

Some people are tone deaf. Some can't discern the difference in "depth" of sounds either.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
analogika some people do have better ears than others. You probably have a better ear because of genetics (Your mom does too)

Some people are tone deaf. Some can't discern the difference in "depth" of sounds either.
I have yet to meet a single person who couldn't discern an appreciable difference between different pressings of a single album on my stereo.

In fifteen years.

And that includes people who couldn't hold a tune if their life depended upon it.

If people couldn't hear a difference, they wouldn't be dazzled by the crap that Bose and JBL put out. That stuff sells *because* people can hear the difference (and because it sounds like total **** without the "spatializer" masking that fact).
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 08:08 PM
 
Point made.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
It's not a question of "golden ears". Nor are consumer ears "untrained".
Balderdash. You absolutely can, and some people do, train your senses. This includes hearing. But I think few people do.

For example, I am not a wine connoisseur. Have me taste two wines and I can tell the difference, but I wouldn't necessarily be able to articulate the difference. Then, let's say someone tells me to look for a specific flavor note that's present in one but not in the other... oh, there it is, indeed! Boom, that's training of the senses. Audiophiles practice listening, so they notice things that the average joe simply overlooks. And remember, there's nothing wrong with this! If someone who can't tell the difference is happy with the equipment they choose, that's all that matters! For those of us who care, there is gear available from other vendors who have us in mind.

I also do not believe for a second that everyone has identical ears capable of detecting differences in sound. I have had arguments with people (normally when justifying why I paid $$ for good audio gear rather than el-cheapo) who honestly couldn't tell the difference between audio systems that sound worlds apart to me. Similarly, I know lots of people who can't tell different qualities of foods (e.g. chocolate) that to me are night and day different.

tooki
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
Balderdash. You absolutely can, and some people do, train your senses. This includes hearing. But I think few people do.
Everybody does.

If you only eat fast food, you tend to prefer one burger over others.

It's still fast food, but to claim that you're completely untrained simply because you're perceiving at a different part of the scale simply isn't true.

From a gourmet's perspective, it's all ****. But the ability to discern is very much there, and it is used.

All my customers can easily tell the difference between the Altec inMotion 3, the JBL onstage, the Harman Kardon Soundsticks, the JBL creatures, the iPod Hi-Fi, and the Bose SoundDock (I actually sell these things). All of them.

They're trained to different listening habits which influence their decision, or they're led by Bose's absurd reputation for quality, or the design heavily weighs in.

But everybody hears that there IS a difference.

People aren't as deaf as you make them out to be.

(Some may simply not care, though.)
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
If I could hear out of both ears I'd probably be more concerned. It kinda sucks that I can't hear DSOTM properly.
I feel for you. Nothing beats a well engineered stereo recording.
Originally Posted by Kevin
But then again, I was blessed with perfect pitch.
I. Hate. You.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 10:56 PM
 


Just raised my action on my guitar as well. It's amazing how much better it sounds.

More like a musical instrument.
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
Everybody does.

If you only eat fast food, you tend to prefer one burger over others.

It's still fast food, but to claim that you're completely untrained simply because you're perceiving at a different part of the scale simply isn't true.

From a gourmet's perspective, it's all ****. But the ability to discern is very much there, and it is used.

All my customers can easily tell the difference between the Altec inMotion 3, the JBL onstage, the Harman Kardon Soundsticks, the JBL creatures, the iPod Hi-Fi, and the Bose SoundDock (I actually sell these things). All of them.

They're trained to different listening habits which influence their decision, or they're led by Bose's absurd reputation for quality, or the design heavily weighs in.

But everybody hears that there IS a difference.

People aren't as deaf as you make them out to be.

(Some may simply not care, though.)
Ahem: untrained ≠ unable to discern. You are confusing the two, or perhaps don't know the meaning.

Training, by definition, is deliberate and explicit. This means having deliberately, consciously learned how to appreciate certain aspects of a sense. Most people have not done this with anything. Audiophiles train their hearing. Vintners and gourmands train their palates. Artists train their sense of vision. Perfume mixers train their sense of smell.

These are all deliberate acts. A normal person may or may not be able to tell a difference. As I have already stated, but you refuse to accept, I have met real-life people who swear up and down that they cannot tell the difference between things that are obviously different to me. Clearly, some people are more intrinsically sensitive to things than others. But also, a person can CHOOSE to learn how to be sensitive to things and how to detect and describe the differences.

As in my previous example: I don't know wines. My untrained palate can tell the difference between two wines, but it can't describe the differences. But if someone tells me what to look for, I can begin to understand the difference. THAT is training. Simply being able to detect a difference (or even rank it) in no way is indicative of training.

tooki
     
Miniryu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2007, 04:15 AM
 
Just a word of scientific/biological advice: you will never be able to block out all sound you can hear by placing something over your ear. That is because you can hear stuff through your skull. Sounds vibrate your face, skull and bones. The outer ear is the most sensitive organ for picking up these vibrations, but the rest of your face does the same.Your inner ear is still interpreting these vibrations even when you ear is completely plugged up.

When you hear your own voice, you are not hearing it through your ear like other people are hearing your voice- you are hearing it through the Eustachian tubes that connect your ear drum to your oral cavity and through the surrounding bone. This is why your voice sounds different to you when you are listen to it recorded.

"Sing it again, rookie beyach."
My website
     
phantomdragonz
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Boulder, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2007, 04:38 AM
 
hurray! 9 month old thread!

Zach
     
Miniryu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2007, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by phantomdragonz View Post
hurray! 9 month old thread!

Zach
I'm the king of digging up old threads- its because I'm ways doing searches for something specific and forget to look at how old something is before I comment on it.

"Sing it again, rookie beyach."
My website
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,