Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

Is A Golden Ear, Special Hearing Abilities & A Trained Ear The Same Thing?

98.85.40.170
Posted on October 17, 2009 at 10:40:57
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Way below in another thread Don Till asked me: Can you tell me the difference between a Golden Ear, someone with extraordinary or special hearing abilities, or someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man? I mean really Tom they're the same thing!

It's my contention that these three aren't the same thing and I responded: Don I'll answer your question. The difference between a Golden Ear, someone with extraordinary or special hearing abilities, or someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man?

1) Golden Ear Although it might not have started that way, these days this is a negative or derogatory term often used by objectivists like yourself (Don Till), to decry, disparage or belittle those who've taken the time to train their ear/brain to have better listening skills.

2) Extraordinary or Special Hearing Abilities This implies an innate listener ability that is not learned and is beyond what is usual, regular, or customary. This is NOT what audiophiles are speaking about when they refer to having a trained ear. Extraordinary or special hearing abilities more a correctly definies a prodigy or someone who was absolute pitch or as it better known perfect pitch listening abilities. It's estimated that only one in 10,000 Americans have absolute pitch, whereas virtually anyone without actual hearing impairment can learn to how listen better.

See link on absolute pitch: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/absolute.html

3) A Trained Ear I cannot use your statment of: someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man, because I don't believe people can learn to hear better. People can only hear as well as we do, otherwise people with bad hearing wouldn't need hearing aids because we could teach them to hear better. However one can train their ears to recognize traits or characteristics that a person with an untrained ear would miss. It absolutely amazes me that a "supposed" audiophile/music lover such as yourself (Don Till) has such difficulty with this concept when it's very similar to a singer's or musician's training their ear through intense training, practicing to hear differences between major, minor, diminished, and augmented intervals for relative pitch!

So I'm curious what's the general view on this question? Do all three terms describe the same exact thing or do they describe different things? What's your opinion?

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

I Don't Know............., posted on October 17, 2009 at 17:40:15
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 A person either spends time to train his ears to discern the nuances in music and audio, or he doesn't. If people who spend their time whining over "golden ears" would instead spend that time in training their ears, this conversation wouldn't be needed.

IMO, people who bellyache over "golden ears" only do so because they're either too lazy or lacking in self-confidence to spend time training their ears. This has nothing to do with ability, and everything to do with work and dedication to develop aural recognition of sonic qualities and flaws in both audio and music.

But one cannot train his ears overnight...... It can take months, if not years.


"trained ear", posted on October 17, 2009 at 23:57:34
FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3308
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
  Since: May 17, 2009
 Always thought this meant one could tell a C note from a C-sharp or flat note. Or if an instrument was in tune or not. Anyhow, one's ears get trained after a period of time, hopefully. I can tune my guitar without aids, but I'm afraid I can't distinguish some details my audiophiles friends hear.

RE: "trained ear", posted on October 18, 2009 at 06:06:39
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Hello FenderLover!

As Tony Lauck said: A trained ear can mean many different things, according to the type of training and your post is an excellent confirmation of that fact. Today you can tune a guitar without aids. However I'm willing to bet when you first began playing your guitar you didn't have that ability did you? So where did that ability come from?

Obviously it's a learned ability. It was developed over time through continued exposure to the sound of your guitar. It was through practice and training that you developed the ability. Now you have a guitarist's "trained ear" i.e., an ear that is now trained to tune the guitar you previously couldn't tune without aids.

The only reason you can't distinguish the same details your audiophiles friends easily hear is because you haven't taken the same time you did with your guitar to learn and develop a "trained ear." If you had done so you would have developed an audiophile's "trained ear" that would allow you to distinguish the details your audiophiles friends hear! Each of those "trained ears" is developed according to the type of training that's used.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

You are correct, sir!, posted on October 18, 2009 at 07:49:57
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 The same sort of training as learning to tune a guitar is necessary to be able to identify audio system characteristics like soundstage depth and height, rhythm, tone, channel separation, frequency extension, air, various types of distortion, glare, *loss of information,* glassiness, coherence, "wetness," presence, image density/tangibility, etc.

Beyond learning to identify audio characteristics, should we also learn when they are improved or worsened? And how to control or change them, you know, in order to progress? So there's at least two other levels of training required. Does this necessitate listening to many different systems, especially ones that are much better than ours? Hmmmm.

"Your hearing is only as good as the best system you've heard." - anonymous

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - Wm Burroughs

RE: You are correct, sir!, posted on October 18, 2009 at 13:20:21
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "Beyond learning to identify audio characteristics, should we also learn when they are improved or worsened? And how to control or change them, you know, in order to progress?"

I would hope that if "progress" were the goal the manufacturers would at least be attempting to do these things. As a consumer all I care about is whether accurate language exists to describe these things and that someone honestly uses this language to give realistic information about differences among the product I'm interested in. If this happens then I can define my own goals, read honest prduct descriptins and buy with a virtual guarantee what I'm purchasing does what I expect it to.

"Does this necessitate listening to many different systems, especially ones that are much better than ours?"

What would be the point once accurate and universally understood language exists which truly works to describe the differences among pieces of gear?

RE: You are correct, sir!, posted on November 3, 2009 at 14:41:57
Curly Woods
Audiophile

Posts: 118
Location: Texas
Joined: January 31, 2006
 What makes you think that manufacturers do not listen to what they design? I know of quite a few high end electronics manufacturers that do indeed listen to what they design to ensure that they are marketing a product that will fill the needs of a serious listener. If they did not their products would not sell! People have come to expect all of the "audiophile" characteristics from their equipment purchases and will listen for them before spending any money. I have sold high end audio for over 20 years and have yet to have a customer purchase any piece of equipment without listening intently prior to purchase and with the understanding that they had the right to return it if it did not perform in "their" systems.
Just because something measures superbly, never guarantees greatness in terms of its sound quality. Too many want to bes that never make it out there that thought otherwise.

To various degrees and more!, posted on October 18, 2009 at 09:07:57
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Regardless of our intentions we shouldn't dismiss the importance of test methodology. In fact I would suggest if one understands his own particular purpose, ie. reasons for owning hifi equipment in the first place, an understanding of testing and methodology is all he really needs to know in order to end up with a great and satisfying audio system. As audio performance, regardless of how one choses to define it, is really just a function of how one determines his own purpose in the hobby.

Whether one is a pure objectivist, ie. a proponent of the live reference (1), a mostly objectivist measurement fanatic(2) or mostly a subjectivist in search of the most pleasant sounding system is up to the individual. How one defines his purpose determines how much learning outside of the listening room is required.

Understanding the concepts of using a live reference, measuremenst or the audio glossary are only as important to the stereo builder as his requirments determine them to be. And often I think these things inject as much confusion into the process as they do clarification.

1 - The live reference is an absolute reference, ie. there is no room for subjectivism.

2 - The measurement fanatic somewhere down the road quantifies measurements and based on his subjective evaluation choses which ones are prefereable.
The best system I've heard..., posted on October 18, 2009 at 08:57:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Your hearing is only as good as the best system you've heard." - anonymous

Symphony Hall, Boston.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "The best system I've heard is Symphony Hall, Boston", posted on October 18, 2009 at 10:12:38
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 I've heard better systems than Symphony Hall. Much better. And they were home audio systems.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."
RE: "The best system I've heard is Symphony Hall, Boston", posted on October 18, 2009 at 20:23:21
otari
Audiophile

Posts: 718
Location: N. Central Massachusetts :-)
Joined: May 12, 2000
 quote:

"I've heard better systems than Symphony Hall. Much better. And they were home audio systems."

I'd be willing to bet there was a jar of rocks, or some other diabolical device nearby as well. Where's the ":rolleyes:" smiley when ya need it.

otari



My mother-in-law, after seeing the Levinson 33H amps in my listening room: "Those are the nicest electric room heaters I've ever seen".

RE: "The best system I've heard is Symphony Hall, Boston", posted on October 19, 2009 at 18:06:40
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Maybe it could be improved over the phone?

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Uh, oh, posted on October 20, 2009 at 07:36:55
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

Am I being called out by the Masked Wonder? That really hurts. LOL

The trained listener is always a Golden Ear while someone who can hear better..., posted on October 17, 2009 at 14:29:48
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 must learn to recognize and articulate what they are hearing before they can be considered a Golden ear.

At one time I worked for a company producing electronic mufflers. The first obstacle to overcome with the auto manufacturers was to pass the "Golden Ear" test. In our case Chrysler sent 3 trained listeners to listen to our mufflers and give a thumbs up before they even looked at actual performance data.

Someone who can hear more details or greater frequencies or has other measureable abilities beyond the norm is not a Golden Ear. Such a person can be a Golden Ear only once he learns to recognize and articulate what it is that he is hearing.

I attached the Wiki definition for a Golden Ear in the thread below.

Golden Ears should be applauded for thier skills not ridiculed. What I think happens is that many audiophiles believe they actually can hear better or have more learned skills but in the long run they are proven to be mistaken. But this is hardly justification for denial or ridicule for those Golden Ears with proven abilities.

Regardless if someone claims to be a Golden Ear, a trained listener or to have better hearing ability they all must support the claim in order to be taken seriously.

Personally I take all 3 claims with same grain of salt - but I do know for a fact that there are listeners with Golden Ears. Problem is I'm not so sure that it means a damn thing to me one way or the other when we get right down to it.
I'd say your assessments are spot on., posted on October 17, 2009 at 13:23:38
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 The average observationalist (there you go, E-Stat!) does not have better hearing than anyone else. I'd go so far as to say their listening skills are not necessarily better overall. But there listening skills for differences in audio components obviously are. The average person simply doesn't know what to listen for. If they did, they could hear it perfectly well (assuming they could overcome any biases - think: LFO's).

Thanks Kerr, posted on October 17, 2009 at 14:30:56
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Unfortunately trolls like bhj consider it drek. Strangely this simpleton continually mocks what many others say, yet never has anything good to say himself. I never see him starting a topic of discussion, he prefers to berate and mock what others say instead. Typically people who behave like bhj does have deep seated emotional problems.

I remember when he actually thought what he was doing was funny and he believed others here enjoyed and wanted more of his tripe! It's sad that a person could come to an audio forum and get his enjoyment from berating & disparaging others beliefs. In many ways from reading his posts I'd say bjh is a lot like AJinFLA.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Wow ... you figure your drek is worth recounting!, posted on October 17, 2009 at 13:07:11
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 If you ask me the first time around version is already one time too many.

LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"If you ask me..." - I don't recall anybody asking you., posted on October 18, 2009 at 18:30:46
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Needless to say, usefulness of your comment is solid 0, as always. So, why don't you just shut that hole up - the one from where you usually talk?

Come now, don't waste your energy on this foolishness,, posted on October 18, 2009 at 20:16:34
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 put on some nice Death Metal (or whatever the stuff you listen to is called) as stimulating backgroud and pen for us an insightful article on the Loudness Wars.

LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: Is A Golden Ear, Special Hearing Abilities & A Trained Ear The Same Thing?, posted on October 17, 2009 at 12:15:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 At one time, perhaps, a Golden Ear was someone who had both special abilities and training, but a self-styled "Golden Ear" was then, and still is, someone endowed with excessive ego. I agree that this phrase has become a derogatory term and hence is best left out of discussion.

Extraordinary and/or special hearing abilities reflect individuals with specific native abilities. These include people "born" with perfect pitch (although there is some evidence that some people born without this ability can acquire it by training). They also include people who simply hear much better than average, e.g. can hear quieter sounds, higher pitched sounds, etc. This is an attribute of the "hardware" so to speak, and is generally lost as people age.

A trained ear can mean many different things, according to the type of training. For example, blind people can be trained to do echo location, and I understand that recently schools have been established to teach this ability, a skill that was previously in the "extraordinary" category. Musicians train their ear to recognize intervals, pitch, rhythms, musical phrasing, etc., as they learn to hear, speak, read and write the language of music. Recording engineers and audiophiles train their ears to recognize various technical aspects of audio engineering and acoustics. These different trainings can often be in conflict with each other, e.g. my wife (who is a musician with perfect pitch and the ability to echo locate) was never an effective listener for audio sound quality, because her focus was on the musical ideas that she heard and not the sound quality. Similarly, audiophiles can learn to hear subtle differences by concentration on sound and some undoubtedly do this at the expense of their ability to enjoy listening to music. Others, who are both audiophiles and music lovers, try to strike a balance and focus one's attention appropriately according to the task at hand.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Almost but..., posted on October 17, 2009 at 14:54:00
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "At one time, perhaps, a Golden Ear was someone who had both special abilities and training, but a self-styled "Golden Ear" was then, and still is, someone endowed with excessive ego. I agree that this phrase has become a derogatory term and hence is best left out of discussion."

Laugh! As if big egos aren't associated with claims of being a trained listeners or claims of exceptional hearing abilities?

I guess the "Golden Ear" Awards are reserved for high fidelity components and/or recordings whose manufacturers are endowed with the biggest ego?

The term Golden Ear is one whose listening abilities, whether learned or born with, can be demonstrated as superior to most audiophiles. Simply removing the term or not using it or ofuscating it's meaning (see wiki for an adequete definition) hardly excuses those making such claims from having to demonstrate them.
RE: Almost but..., posted on October 17, 2009 at 15:38:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Simply removing the term or not using it or ofuscating it's meaning (see wiki for an adequete definition) hardly excuses those making such claims from having to demonstrate them."

Some posters talk of "claims" or "demonstrations" or "proofs". This terminology does not resonate with me. I don't see this forum as either a debating society or a courtroom. YMMV.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Almost but..., posted on October 18, 2009 at 07:19:02
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Some posters talk of "claims" or "demonstrations" or "proofs". This terminology does not resonate with me. I don't see this forum as either a debating society or a courtroom. YMMV.

Your other comment about the term Golden Ear becoming a derogatory because such claims were being made by those endowed with big egos seems to be in conflict with this comment. Such "claims" must resonate with you to some degree in order for you to have concluded the term has now become a derogatory.



Here is your previous comment -
"At one time, perhaps, a Golden Ear was someone who had both special abilities and training, but a self-styled "Golden Ear" was then, and still is, someone endowed with excessive ego. I agree that this phrase has become a derogatory term and hence is best left out of discussion."
RE: Almost but..., posted on October 18, 2009 at 03:20:27
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "I don't see this forum as either a debating society or a courtroom. YMMV."

Sure, it just a forum for making fanciful claims about one's hearing ability and posting endless fanciful arguments about how blind testing is not applicable to 'trained' audiophile listeners.


Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: Almost but..., posted on October 18, 2009 at 07:32:09
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Sure, it just a forum for making fanciful claims about one's hearing ability and posting endless fanciful arguments about how blind testing is not applicable to 'trained' audiophile listeners."

And then when people disagree one can call them names and if ones feels up to it followup with more name calling and some illusionary drivel in support the original fanciful claim.

It would be very nice if more PH members attempted to ensure the veracity of the on-going arguments but really what we've got here are equally obfuscated, polorized and confused positions whose members seem more interested in preserving thoughtless agendas and the shallowest of friendships than engaging in interesting as well as rewarding conversations.

It's really kind of sad.
"the shallowest of friendships...", posted on October 18, 2009 at 18:58:24
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? How many inmates would consider other inmates their "friends?"

Maybe you or one of the other soft-and-fuzzies ought to start an asylum facebook page so everyone can be "friends."

RE: "the shallowest of friendships...", posted on October 19, 2009 at 05:34:56
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? "

I have some friends in real life who occasionally read my posts but never comment on AA.

My question to you is - is your interest in ME of a personal nature or are you trying to win a few brownie points from those who disagree with my points?

don't read so much into my coment., posted on October 19, 2009 at 06:08:03
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 Don, I don't give a rat's ass about having any "friends" online, nor do I think most posters here, regardless of point of view. I was merely commenting on how you made an issue out of something that I don't think comes into play in the debates and squabbles here.

"My question to you is - is your interest in ME of a personal nature or are you trying to win a few brownie points from those who disagree with my points?"

My answer to you is that you must think very highly of yourself to wonder if someone is interested in you personally. And "earning brownie poins???!?" Are you still playing in the sandbox? Get a grip. People form their own opinions, and inevitabl, some agree more typically than disagree, and vice-versa. That doesn't make cliques, or friends, or anything else for that matter. And whether I agree with your post or not is irrelevant: I was only commenting on one part that seemed absurd to me, yet had no impact on the basic point you were making. Try not to confuse basic Asylum banter with a "personal interest."

RE: don't read so much into my coment., posted on October 19, 2009 at 10:40:34
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Don, I don't give a rat's ass about having any "friends" online, nor do I think most posters here, regardless of point of view."

Fine but did someone ask you! I didn't and as far as can tell no one else gives a crap whether you give a rat's ass or not.

"I was merely commenting on how you made an issue out of something that I don't think comes into play in the debates and squabbles here."

And clearly we disagree.

""My answer to you is that you must think very highly of yourself to wonder if someone is interested in you personally."

Well then why in heavens name would you ask such a question?

"And "earning brownie poins???!?" Are you still playing in the sandbox? Get a grip. People form their own opinions, and inevitabl, some agree more typically than disagree, and vice-versa. That doesn't make cliques, or friends, or anything else for that matter. "

No not all people are capable of forming opinions as can be clearly evidenced by the veracity of the discussions/arguments in the objectivists v. subjectivist debate, the analog v. digital debate, the tube v. SS debate. Though I would agree all people are capable of chosing sides and emitting pigeon holes from their pie holes.

And if one cares to deny the polorization and the general reliance on one-liners that is occuring in this audio forum as well as in society at large all I can say is there is no law against rose colored glasses or ignorance.

"And whether I agree with your post or not is irrelevant: I was only commenting on one part that seemed absurd to me, yet had no impact on the basic point you were making. Try not to confuse basic Asylum banter with a "personal interest.""

Well I don't really care whether you agree, not do I really care to listen to your excuses/rationalizations. An since you aren't my mom your motherly yearnings are coming across as kind of weird to say the least.
Hmmm. Hard to resist responding., posted on October 19, 2009 at 10:58:04
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 ""Don, I don't give a rat's ass about having any "friends" online, nor do I think most posters here, regardless of point of view."

Fine but did someone ask you! I didn't and as far as can tell no one else gives a crap whether you give a rat's ass or not."

Are you nuts? This is an audio discusion forum. That means you don't get to choose who responds to your posts. No one has to ask anyone about participation. Get it? And not caring is exactly the point, Don. Remember the bit about "friends" that I criticized you for?


""I was merely commenting on how you made an issue out of something that I don't think comes into play in the debates and squabbles here."

And clearly we disagree."

Duh. You think a bunch of "friends" are ganging up on a bunch of other "friends." And I think friendship hasn't got anything to do with it. BFD right back at you.


"Though I would agree all people are capable of chosing sides and emitting pigeon holes from their pie holes."

What does that translate to in English, and what does it have to do with what you are seemingly trying to respond to?


"And if one cares to deny the polorization (sic) and the general reliance on one-liners that is occuring in this audio forum as well as in society at large all I can say is there is no law against rose colored glasses or ignorance."

I don't think anyone denied the polarization, Don. This little mini-thread is about the whole "friends" thing that you inserted into your otherwise compelling comments, not about polarization.

"Well I don't really care whether you agree, not do I really care to listen to your excuses/rationalizations. An since you aren't my mom your motherly yearnings are coming across as kind of weird to say the least."

What the f*ck is wrong with you? First, if you don't care, don't respond. Secondly, what "excuses/rationalizations?" You make a statement, I respond. That's called discourse, not "excuses/rationalizations." And thirdly, "motherly yearnings??" That's the comment of a wack-job. If I'd posted that crap to you, you'd have gone whining to the moderators to get the post removed.






more fun in the modern world, posted on October 19, 2009 at 12:27:28
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009



"Are you nuts? This is an audio discusion forum. That means you don't get to choose who responds to your posts. No one has to ask anyone about participation. Get it? And not caring is exactly the point, Don. Remember the bit about "friends" that I criticized you for?"

No I'm mot nuts. Your motherly yearnings are showing through again and I remember and I told you I disagreed - remember! Don't you get it?

"Duh. You think a bunch of "friends" are ganging up on a bunch of other "friends." And I think friendship hasn't got anything to do with it. BFD right back at you. "

Yea sure I think it's got alot to do with it. In fact it's got more to do with it in some cases more than the arguments or discussions itself.

If you think posts are made here based purely on pragmatic thought you are completely out of touch with what's going on.

Obviously the level of pragmatic conversation on PH or most other AA forums is quite low. Efforts at social acceptance, positive reinforcement and reaction to demeanor inspire more responses than do efforts at exchanges of information/ideas or discussions of differences.

"I don't think anyone denied the polarization, Don. This little mini-thread is about the whole "friends" thing that you inserted into your otherwise compelling comments, not about polarization."

I see you must now be going to suggest the polarization is more than just groups of mostly small minded people, who've sold off the search for the truth or real pragmatic solutions, for social acceptance accompanied by positive reinforcement.

"What the f*ck is wrong with you? First, if you don't care, don't respond."

Like I said I didn't ask if you had "friends" on AA and I still don't care. It doesn't matter to me if in fact you actually fit the comments I made or not - I still see most posters on AA as those seeking positive reinforcement or social acceptence to the detriment of pragmatic conversation. Ie. - I see most poster efforts as efforts mostly in search of friendship and less in search of honest, truthful audio information.

The fact you want to present yourself as someone who doesn't give a "rat's ass" doesn't for an instant disuade me from my original comment. I would suspect most inmates, regardless of the big chunk of brown they've got stuck on the end of their noses, would make the same denial you have put forward.

"Secondly, what "excuses/rationalizations?" You make a statement, I respond. That's called discourse, not "excuses/rationalizations."

From the offending post your rationalizations/excuses -

"I was only commenting on one part that seemed absurd to me, yet had no impact on the basic point you were making."

"And thirdly, "motherly yearnings??"

From the offending post your motherly yearnings -

"Try not to confuse basic Asylum banter with a "personal interest."

"My answer to you is that you must think very highly of yourself to wonder if someone is interested in you personally."

"Are you still playing in the sandbox?

"Get a grip."

You've done a much more manly jjob displaying your indignation in this follow-up -

"Are you nuts?

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

That's the comment of a wack-job.
I'm posting back so you can't erase the crap you just wrote., posted on October 19, 2009 at 12:33:08
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 Maybe the "motherly" bit would fit if your mother thought you were a self-centered twit with the intellectual capacity of a small soapdish. If she didn't think that, then I guess you'd be wrong again.

As an ass, you never disappoint.
LOL!, posted on October 19, 2009 at 15:17:54
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 And as a mommy wanna-be you always leave me with the warm and fuzzies!

"As an ass, you never disappoint."

I take that as a complement. Surely I don't want to be your friend and clearly, hopefully, I've objected to your attempts at mothering.
Glad to relieve you of at least some of your troubling anger., posted on October 19, 2009 at 15:33:40
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 But really, you need to go see a specialist about how you respond to criticism. I'm fairly certain you haven't even got the slightest idea what I was criticizing your post for. I think you sense someone disagreeing with you, and you go on some sort of childish rant to cover your lack of knowledge.

I'm particularly glad that others in this forum can read your posts. From claiming Wikipedia as an authority on the Forum usage of "Golden Ear," to accusing the messenger of a little criticism of "mothering," you are having a fine old DonT kind of day. There aren't many who remember you from those glory days of unabashed douchebaggery, but I'm glad that every once in a while you squeeze it back out for the world to see.

BTW..., posted on October 19, 2009 at 16:23:54
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 It was Don T not DonT, prior to that it was don_t.
On the contrary...., posted on October 19, 2009 at 16:03:42
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "But really, you need to go see a specialist about how you respond to criticism. I'm fairly certain you haven't even got the slightest idea what I was criticizing your post for. I think you sense someone disagreeing with you, and you go on some sort of childish rant to cover your lack of knowledge."

On the contrary Robert, if you remember your first response to me was as follows -

Title " "shallowest of friendships"
"Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? How many inmates would consider other inmates their "friends?"

Maybe you or one of the other soft-and-fuzzies ought to start an asylum facebook page so everyone can be "friends."

I think it's quite dishonest at this point in the thread for you to try to get on the high road. Clearly your criticism was mostly hidden with the demeaning nature of your response from the onset of your involvement.

It dishonest for you deny it as it's laid out here in front of you - which is exactly how it was.

Of course I assumed you were objecting to my reference to my belief that friendship and companionship effects our posting.

Now I did make an honest attempt at responding on the topic as I percieved it from the comments included above and you did clarify your criticism in your next comment by stating -

"I was merely commenting on how you made an issue out of something that I don't think comes into play in the debates and squabbles here."

And again furthered my disagreement.

And now you're here to tell me I wasn't even on topic?

"I'm particularly glad that others in this forum can read your posts."

Me too!

"From claiming Wikipedia as an authority on the Forum usage of "Golden Ear,"

This is kind of silly and dishonest as I also claimed that in industry a Golden Ear is a complementary term, many audiophiles do (including me) and that the Absolute Sound regards it as so as well.

Nobody presented any reputable source other than some audiophile who consider Golden Ear a derogatory term.

"to accusing the messenger of a little criticism of "mothering," you are having a fine old DonT kind of day. There aren't many who remember you from those glory days of unabashed douchebaggery, but I'm glad that every once in a while you squeeze it back out for the world to see."

I'm just going to refer others to look at the obvious condescending and derogatory nature your original post, the follow-ups as well as your use of obscenities and name calling.

The sincerity of my discussion is obvious and though veracity of the supporting arguments may be questionable you didn't bother.

Your attempts to support your position were not much more than trying to sway people into your corner by personal attacks and name calling. Your use, in fact attempt abuse, of unrelated prior history makes my point to a certainty.

It's an ugly display but it is exactly the kind of thing I was objecting to with my original remarks.
You assumed incorrectly right from the start., posted on October 19, 2009 at 16:59:55
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 Let's go right to my first post to you , Don:

"Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? How many inmates would consider other inmates their "friends?"

Maybe you or one of the other soft-and-fuzzies ought to start an asylum facebook page so everyone can be "friends.""

I thought it was funny; you however seem to think it was aggressively mean-spirited. You write below, "I'm just going to refer others to look at the obvious condescending and derogatory nature your original post..."


Well, there's the first error. I wasn't suggesting you lack friends, but was suggesting that no one on AA is friends with other inmates. But because you assumed the worst, you replied with this, which is clearly both insulting and condescending:

"My question to you is - is your interest in ME of a personal nature or are you trying to win a few brownie points from those who disagree with my points?"

So how does this fit in? "Now I did make an honest attempt at responding on the topic as I percieved it from the comments included above..." That's bullshit, Don, and you know it. You got served back exactly what you served up yourself.


"The sincerity of my discussion is obvious and though veracity of the supporting arguments may be questionable you didn't bother."

So where does this come from? "Well I don't really care whether you agree, not do I really care to listen to your excuses/rationalizations. An since you aren't my mom your motherly yearnings are coming across as kind of weird to say the least." And this: "I would suspect most inmates, regardless of the big chunk of brown they've got stuck on the end of their noses, would make the same denial you have put forward." And this beaut? "And as a mommy wanna-be you always leave me with the warm and fuzzies!"

""From claiming Wikipedia as an authority on the Forum usage of "Golden Ear," This is kind of silly and dishonest as I also claimed that in industry a Golden Ear is a complementary term, many audiophiles do (including me) and that the Absolute Sound regards it as so as well.

Nobody presented any reputable source other than some audiophile who consider Golden Ear a derogatory term."

Have you not been following the RBNG saga? For at least a couple of years, "Golden Ear" has been a derogatory term around here. It is disingenuous to ignore the history of the term on this forum.

Now back to this one: "I'm just going to refer others to look at the obvious condescending and derogatory nature your original post, the follow-ups as well as your use of obscenities and name calling."

Dear Don, you do realize that you responded to my criticism with a condescending and rude suggestion that I had a personal thing for you. You continued throughout with the "mothering" bit, even posting a taunting picture. You deserved all that you got. But I keep forgetting about your history of whining: its ok for you to be condescending, but when you get it tossed back at you, oh my, the sky is falling. Stop being such a baby. You chose to read an honest and non-threatening question - do you yourself have any friends on the asylum? - as something other than an attempt to point out that friendships don't really exist online. You went right to the personal attack, claimming I had an undue interest in you, and that I was a "mother-wannabe." That kind of behavior deserves a term like "douchebaggery," because that's exactly what it is.


""Your attempts to support your position were not much more than trying to sway people into your corner by personal attacks and name calling. Your use, in fact attempt abuse, of unrelated prior history makes my point to a certainty."

What "corner" would that be? As stated in two of my posts in this thread, I don't have big issue with most of your post, only with your assertion that their are friendship issues at play, which I still find absurd.

Your "prior history" is relevant in trying to come to grips with the patterns of your behavior, which point to a hypocrisy. You like to dish out condescension and ill-informed blather, but get all whiny and defensive if someone dishes it back at you.


"It's an ugly display but it is exactly the kind of thing I was objecting to with my original remarks."

Perhaps, but as I've now come to understand, you fail to recognize your own part in it. I'd forgotten this lovely adage: never get in a wrestling match with a pig: you're both going to get dirty, but the pig likes it.
RE: You assumed incorrectly right from the start., posted on October 19, 2009 at 21:42:58
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Well, there's the first error. I wasn't suggesting you lack friends, but was suggesting that no one on AA is friends with other inmates. But because you assumed the worst, you replied with this, which is clearly both insulting and condescending:"

LOL as if I'm self conscience because I lack friends - now that one is actually funny! Geez Robert I got your point the first time!

I did not assume the worst I just read your words and responded according. When you said

"Maybe you or one of the other soft-and-fuzzies ought to start an asylum facebook page so everyone can be "friends."

Not only are you implying that my nature is hypocritical, ie. you are suggesting I am exactly what I consider offensive, and further you are name calling when you are refer to me as a soft and fuzzy.

But even before you made that condescending and derogatory that remark you said -

""Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? How many inmates would consider other inmates their "friends?"

And now you want to claim my response was -

"My question to you is - is your interest in ME of a personal nature or are you trying to win a few brownie points from those who disagree with my points?"

I'm sorry this is just further evidence of the dishonesty you've displayed in this thread as my actual response to your query was -

"I have some friends in real life who occasionally read my posts but never comment on AA."

What followed after I responded on topic to your query was as you say it was above. However it was only after I responded on topic to your question, which clearly was bundled with the derogatory statement, did I respond with the question above.

It's funny how you can make a statement calling me a name and implying that I'm a hypocrite and call it funny or humorous. But my asking a question, in response to what now you claim was a humorous remark, has got you writhing in righteous indignation.

++++++++++++

This is just my response to your first point in the response above. I apologize but I'm not going to take the time to further respond to your missive until we can get by this point.

It doesn't work with me and readers here in PP shouldn't be fooled by this kind of sillyness. Kind of like when you get stuck throw out enough crap and hopefully some of it will stick or maybe you can move the topic to something else.

We can move this discussion once we get beyond this point! If you want to continue on with your dishonesty I can and will respond with further illustrations of such.
A last reply from me - then you can have the last word., posted on October 20, 2009 at 03:53:46
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 ""Well, there's the first error. I wasn't suggesting you lack friends, but was suggesting that no one on AA is friends with other inmates. But because you assumed the worst, you replied with this, which is clearly both insulting and condescending:"

LOL as if I'm self conscience because I lack friends - now that one is actually funny! Geez Robert I got your point the first time!"

There you go again, Don. THAT's the incorrect assumption. I'm not at all suggesting you lack friends. I'm suggesting that "friends" is not part of the asylum. You are waaaaay too sensitive.


""Maybe you or one of the other soft-and-fuzzies ought to start an asylum facebook page so everyone can be "friends."

Not only are you implying that my nature is hypocritical, ie. you are suggesting I am exactly what I consider offensive, and further you are name calling when you are refer to me as a soft and fuzzy."

I'm implying nothing of the sort. You are in fact caustic and curmudgeonly, qualities I generally like around here. The "Soft-and-fuzzies" is sarcasm. You clearly aren't that, which is why I used the expression: to point out the absurdity of "friends" being a contributing factor in the arguments. You don't see the the humor in sarcasm? Clearly not. Do you get the "facebook" reference?? No? Well, on Facebook, people "friend" other people (it is used as an active verb), even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "friend" in actuality. Do you get it now?? A full-on sarcastic piece of humor, based on the absurdity on on-line "friends" and your generally caustic and curmudgeonly demeanor. Again, you may be too sensitive to have seen the humor.


"But even before you made that condescending and derogatory that remark you said -

""Just curious, Don: are you friends with anyone here? How many inmates would consider other inmates their "friends?""


Do you get it now, Don? No? (Now roll with me here Don. I'm going to make up a story that I will use as an example. It isn't about you.) I'll try another version, even more extremely absurd: Let's say you made a comment about how an important part of finding one's place in the cyber world was predicated on how many times one had landed safely on the dark side of the moon. I might have responded with something like this: "Don, how many times have YOU landed on the dark side of the moon? How many inmates here have ever landed on the dark side of the moon." Do you see it now?


"And now you want to claim my response was - "My question to you is - is your interest in ME of a personal nature or are you trying to win a few brownie points from those who disagree with my points?" I'm sorry this is just further evidence of the dishonesty you've displayed in this thread as my actual response to your query was -"I have some friends in real life who occasionally read my posts but never comment on AA."

"Dishonesty???" Don, I cut-and-pasted the response I claim you made and you now deny DIRECTLY FROM YOUR POST. The post is part of the public record, Don. But anyhoo, the response you want to use (skipping the other part you wrote as well), is somewhat irrelevant, because the question you were responding to was facetious. You completely missed it.


"What followed after I responded on topic to your query was as you say it was above. However it was only after I responded on topic to your question, which clearly was bundled with the derogatory statement, did I respond with the question above. "

Yes I'm glad you acknowledge your own role. But I find it far funnier than the initial post that you would so completely misinterpret that same post as egregiously as you did. It wasn't derogatory at all, Don. It was sarcastic. I didn't realize that your sensitivity would blind you to that.


"It's funny how you can make a statement calling me a name and implying that I'm a hypocrite and call it funny or humorous. But my asking a question, in response to what now you claim was a humorous remark, has got you writhing in righteous indignation."

Umm, it IS funny, considering I didn't call you a name or imply anything in the first post. And you may note that I usually don't rely on "implying" as a technique. I come right out and write what I think. Again, you are waaaay too sensitive. I'd normally ask you what "question" you asked, but I don't want to bother with a reply, frankly. My "righteous indignation" comes from a particular bit of aggressive taunting that you have left in the posting trail (hence making it "righteous.")


"This is just my response to your first point in the response above. I apologize but I'm not going to take the time to further respond to your missive until we can get by this point."

No need to continue, Don. Neither the topic nor your sensitivity is worth any continued effort.


"It doesn't work with me and readers here in PP shouldn't be fooled by this kind of sillyness."

I don't think many of them were fooled into so misunderstanding the initial post.


"If you want to continue on with your dishonesty I can and will respond with further illustrations of such."

Nothing dishonest in there Don. You may not like the alternative interpretation that I offer as the intended meaning, but that's your choice to make, and has nothing to do with "honesty," "dis-" or otherwise.


Respond if you wish, but the original point - that "friendship" has nothing to do with how people form "cliques" online - wasn't significant enough to merit time and effort. I stand by what I said, and I'm sure that you will do the same. Let's leave it at that. I'll try to remember your sensitive nature if I ever choose to respond to one of your posts again.
RE: A last reply from me - then you can have the last word., posted on October 20, 2009 at 06:58:47
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 I missed little, if anything, in spite of your attempts to obfuscate the facts.

The main point here is that we disagreed on how much making "friends" influences inmates in general on why and when and what they post.

The truth of the matter is every inmate, including those who claim they don't give a rat's ass about making friends, temper their responses to whatever internet personality they have chosen to portray. Who one is attempting to appeal to is obvious in most every response and most every post made on an internet forum.

My position on "friends" springs naturally and completely from the truth above. You can call me names, bring up past history or whatever you want to do it still doesnt change that clear and obvious truth.

Unfortunately and as usual my first word is the same as my last. I say you failed miserably in your half baked attempt to forward somekind of a disagreement.



Eloquently Stated, posted on October 17, 2009 at 14:06:01
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Tony,

Once again I'm impressed with your ability to state so eloquently what I believe to a much better degree than I could ever hope to. I find I'm in complete agreement with your post. Unfortunately for me due to my oft times inability to fluently express the thoughts in my heart, I was a lot more limited in the scope of my explanation. That said, as an audiophile but, primarily a music lover, I've taken the time to train my ear/brain to have the ability to recognize what characteristics live, unamplified, music has. I've accomplished this by obtaining as much exposure as I possibly could to different types of live, unamplified music played in as many different type locations as possible.

Like you said, I strike a balance and focus my attention appropriately according to the task at hand. For example I found this training was particularly useful when I set out to assemble an audio system that could as accurately as possible, within the confines of my audio room, replicate the sound of live, unamplified music. However when I'm listening to music for the purpose of enjoyment I don't consciously engage this training at all ---if it occurs subconsciously I'm obviously unaware of it--- instead I immerse myself in the music often getting so involved that I jump up (if you can picture someone with my back problems actually "jumping" up) to play air guitar, the bass or drums when I finally sit back down.

When I start playing tunes at my home I'm often a one man rock, jazz or bluesgrass band in fact, I actually stopped typing this to give what I think was an encore "performance" of Starship Trooper by YES, for my wife. Well Tony, now that Starship Trooper has ended and I've finished playing my air guitar licks that would make Steve Howe jealous I'll now finish this response to you. I believe a trained ear is absolutely essential for any audiophile who's also a music lover but GOD forbid it should never be at the expense of being able to enjoy listening to the music. With that I have to go I can tell from what I'm hearing that it's almost time for my performance of Perpetual Change to begin...

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Page processed in 0.197 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]