Talk:Golden ear

Comments

Is this spam? I'm not a big audiophile. Ifnord 04:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spam but it's not very accurate either. A "golden ear" is not someone who considers themselves to have exceptional hearing, they are a professional who is assessed by the audio industry as having exceptional hearing, and is paid to evaluate audio products.

is there any certification board with specific criteria to assess these people by? if not it would seem to be a subjective claim, if not by themselves by others and the fact they are paid for their services would seem to make them more likely to be biased than any other. 87.254.66.168 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

71.141.249.70 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Steve P.[reply]

The Moulton article referenced as Note 1 states a blatant lie and claims it is an inescapable fact, i.e "this obvious but inescapable fact: It is harder to correctly answer questions whose answers we don't know than questions whose answers we do know. Setting aside the obvious issues of prejudice, bias and cheating for a moment, we will get "correct" answers more often when we "know" the answers than when we don't."

In the context of detecting sound differences, this is a ludicrous statement. The whole point of blind testing is that in sighted testing (when we always know the 'correct' answer) we are most unlikely to get it 'right' when 'right' does not match our bias!

The reference to Moulton should be removed. If you really want to discredit controlled testing procedures, try to find something more rigourous. In the meantime, include some references to rigourous research that discredits sighted testing. Nowater57 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he's right that when you know which answer will be the 'correct' one (correct as defined by your preconceptions) you are more likely to give that answer. his conclusion that this somehow invalidates double blind testing is utterly bizarre though. 87.254.66.168 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE - I will be blanking this article shortly and converting it to a redirect page to Soundedit Festival. This article does not meet Wikipedia's standard guidelines and meets one or more criteria for deletion. This article was tagged nearly 5 years ago as needing additional citations. None have been provided. Additionally, nearly all of the (few) citations that are present are all dead web links. I suspect the original author of this article was trying to define a term that doesn't actually exist, other than the fact that the phrase 'golden ear' is contained in the name of an award at the Soundedit Festival. If anyone has a substantial argument as to why this article shouldn't be removed, voice your reasons here on the talk page and we'll discuss it. B1naryatr0phy (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chosen target of Soundedit Festival is very unsatisfactory since the concept of Golden Ear is a much larger one of perfect pitch and similar aspects of excellent hearing perception, not a single award ceremony. However, it would be far better to have an article about Golden ears than any sort of redirect. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden ear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614174823/http://svconline.com/mag/avinstall_listening_evaluation/ to http://svconline.com/mag/avinstall_listening_evaluation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]