advertisement


Are you tone deaf ?

94%/2.1, and I fell over on the same two as everyone else. I could hear a distinction, but was muddled on which way it went.

There used to be a member on here who was driven half mad by the minuscule pitch variations he could perceive on a Linn LP12. He eventually acquired a couple of Garrard 301s.
 
I only got 26 on AirPods. However, now that I know what I’m listening for, I feel I’d do better on a re test, so I guess the test has an inbuilt bias towards professional musicians rather than people like me who just listen for pleasure?
 
Well I'm tone deaf (24), although I was doing it on a mobile phone...and I do own a 301...though it looks like it may well be wasted on me...and I have a lovely singing voice, sadly lacking in character/originality...more suited to musicals...not that I'm a fan of musicals.
 
As a listener, I reckon it's probably beneficial for listening pleasure not to be hyper-sensitive to micro pitch variations, otherwise you'd be constantly distracted by instruments that aren't perfectly in tune or by playback media that isn't 100% speed stable. You do of course need an adequate degree of sensitivity to it to be able to easily identify certain artistic recording effects such as double- and triple-tracked vocals.
 
ToTo Man said:
As a listener, I reckon it's probably beneficial for listening pleasure not to be hyper-sensitive to micro pitch variations, otherwise you'd be constantly distracted by instruments that aren't perfectly in tune or by playback media that isn't 100% speed stable.
Click to expand...

There are people who consider perfect pitch (i.e. being able to not only identify a note by name, but to be able to tell if it is slightly flat or sharp) to be a curse as it impacts your enjoyment. I’d take it if it was on the table though, it would make playing music way easier. I’ve got reasonable relative pitch and I can certainly jam along in tune to stuff, though I have no musical theory so don’t know what I am doing.

ToTo Man said:
You do of course need an adequate degree of sensitivity to it to be able to easily identify certain artistic recording effects such as double- and triple-tracked vocals.
Click to expand...

That is a whole different thing and again a blessing and curse. I spent so much time in music, in studios, rehearsal rooms etc that I can dissect a recording with ease and pretty much tell you where the mics were, what outboard FX was used etc etc. It took a lot of the magic and awe I felt as a kid away as I now know how it works. I understand the slight of hand. It’s also a reason I gravitate towards classic studio systems these days as to my mind that control room sound is the only reality. Everything beyond that is just illusion, just the way various mic feeds have been blended and processed.
 
30 here. I actually got the 1/64th notes, but failed on two 1/16th notes, i'm not sure why that would be. Maybe not concentrating, or maybe I got lucky with some of the others. I've got nothing even approaching perfect pitch, which probably helps with relative pitch, that and having sung for lots of years when I was young where adjusting to match those around you is more important than absolute pitch.
 
32/32, allegedly better than 99.9% of others, average response time was 1.3 seconds, done using the iPad speaker.
The 64ths were the more tricky ones, but maybe listening to guitarists bending notes, or me playing Harmonica where frequently bending notes is common practice helped?
 
26 for me. No surprise as I've known for a while my sense of pitch is pretty poor!

Interesting for me is whether pitch is inherent or learnt. I grew up on nth generation cassette copies of death metal and hardcore. Even now my taste if often towards the discordant or abstract.

Did my brain not learn about pitch properly or does poor pitch mean I'm drawn to the timbre of music more than it's harmonic content?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top