PDA

View Full Version : Test your ability to differentiate pitch



Gadzukes!
12-06-2011, 05:51 AM
http://tonometric.com/adaptivepitch/

According to this test, at 500 Hz I can reliably differentiate tones 1.5 Hz apart. No wonder it drives me nuts if my uke is slightly out of tune!

I note that the results aren't corrected for age, so take that into account when you're seeing how you compare to others.

ukulefty
12-06-2011, 06:48 AM
I got 1.95 Hz apart but I guessed quite a few of the tones that I couldn't tell apart!

(and got them right, probably giving me a slightly better score than I should have)

garyg
12-06-2011, 06:58 AM
Great post, really useful! cheers, g2

bobqrublic
12-06-2011, 07:44 AM
1 got 1.575 apart. I did find that there was a fatigue issue. I'd listen to those beeps over and over and they'd sound more and more alike. so I'd stop for a few seconds and the diference would be way clearer. I'd have never thought of ear fatigue.

KamakOzzie
12-06-2011, 07:45 AM
I got 2.1 through my Radio Shack headphones and 1.2 through the Event studio monitors.

Bill

mr moonlight
12-06-2011, 08:25 AM
I got 0.8625 through my Sony headphones. No wonder I'm always hearing stuff no one else does.... or they could just be those voices in my head again! :p

I definitely felt some ear fatigue once I got really into it. Towards the end I started messing up on stuff that I had no problem with earlier on. I imagine it would be less of a strain through my studio monitors.

Definitely a fun test!

pulelehua
12-06-2011, 08:45 AM
I was taught, quite a long time ago, that a trained ear can differentiate pitches at 6 cents, so about 1/16 of a semitone. So, that would be a bit less than 2 Hz at this range. Which more or less agrees with the chart.

I'm not taking the test. As a music teacher, I think my ears are in a constant state of fatigue........... ;)

Dan Uke
12-06-2011, 09:01 AM
I don't know if this is a mistake but I got 0.375 hz but made 1 mistake at 0.75 hz. Took the test three times and always get to 0.375. I have Sennheiser earphones.

Maybe the decimal point needs to move over. I know I have good ears but horrible eyesight!! LOL

Trinimon
12-06-2011, 09:20 AM
Thanks for posting the test site.

Got down to .375 but got distracted and finished with 1.05hz. Good enough to know I'm not totally tone deaf as I thought I was. lol Pretty fun exercise. My coworkers were getting annoyed at the sounds so had to go dig up the headphones. lol

ukuhippo
12-06-2011, 10:23 AM
1,3, which came as a pleasant surprise.

OldePhart
12-06-2011, 01:03 PM
Hmmm. I think his scoring algorithm is a bit flawed. The first time I got distracted and missed one at a high level, then did quite well after, and ended up with a score of like 10.5hz. A proper algorithm would boot any result that was obviously a "flyer" as we called them when I was shooting.

The second time I didn't miss anything except one in the 1.5hz set and several (about 1 out of 5, maybe) in the .75hz set - yet this scored me at 2.4hz.

In fact, the second time through I made it through several of the 0.75hz samples before missing one. When I missed one, it started going back up, then back down again, and did that about three times. Each time I got the first few samples in the .75hz set correct and it was on the second or third iteration that I missed one in the 1.5hz range.

I just don't see how a single miss at 1.5hz and maybe 20 or 30% misses (at the outside) at .75hz can give a score of 2.4hz.

Anyway, pretty cool little test but I'd take the final score with a large dose of salt. Also, not sure of the usefulness of it. I scored pretty poorly (about 8 cents) yet I know that in a quiet room I can tune by ear (referencing string to string) about as tightly as my strobe tuner can measure - i.e. well under a cent. For tuning, once you get within a few cents you're listening for the beat note, not for whether one note is higher or lower than the other (this is why you always start tuning from below your reference string so you know you need to tune up until you get the beat note - after that it's just a matter of matching frequencies so the beat note goes away).

The important test for musicians is whether you can tell if the note you are playing is in tune with the note someone else is playing - and that's best done with the notes being played at the same time.

Still, fun.

Edited to add: Oh, and FYI i was using an $18 set of Philips earbuds and the grandkids were screaming in the other room... :)

John

mm stan
12-06-2011, 02:40 PM
Hmm changing the pitch...I will notice it right away...the tempo slows...that is why it is better for my untrained voice...I meant $hitty...ha ha
I have done alot of experminting....and I feel no one setting is good for me on all ukes...I set them to my style, voice and tone I want from my uke...
you have to play with it and learn how to tune by ear first...for starters, remember my dog has fleas..reinterent as anything, it is personal preference..
you know most all good musicians have their own special tuning...most don't
divulge them...:)

austin1
12-06-2011, 02:50 PM
I scored normal on all the tests, except for the music/visual intelligence one, on that one I scored a 95%

Plainsong
12-06-2011, 03:47 PM
The website reset itself when I tried to see how "normal" I am, which I'd guess I'm fairly normal. Headphones and what the headphones are plugged into are going to play a role here, but I got down to .75 hertz. If it's tough to hear the differences in pitch, it's probably your headphones and audio source. I was using these earbuds from China that are targeted sort of at the audophile set. These M2Cs compete with the Yuin Pk3 for best bang for buck earbud.

janeray1940
12-06-2011, 05:09 PM
Innnnteresting... highest on the musical-visual, firmly in the midrange/normal/very good on everything but pitch, where I am low-normal. Which makes sense, because my entire life I've had trouble hearing half-steps sometimes. I blame my wasted youth and too many hours in the punk clubs back in the day :)

Curious about one thing though - how I could get a "very good" on the tonedeaf test but do so poorly on the pitch one. Wouldn't they be directly related?

Ukulele JJ
12-06-2011, 05:34 PM
Very cool!

I did pretty well at 0.4125. I'm crediting the fact that I was alive and tuning instruments back in the days before electronic tuners became ubiquitous.

JJ

MGM
12-06-2011, 05:49 PM
Huh? What. Hearing test? I didn't hear anything. Oh well. Deaf dumb and blind ain't that bad....lol. Guess I need to click on the link to hear....awww still nothing. Can't hear a darn thing thru this iPad speaker. What
Ever happened to vinyl?

Ryan<3Ukes
12-06-2011, 06:14 PM
When I had my eyes closed I scored around a 3. I tried it again with my eyes open halfway through and I got around a 6. The first time I did it with my eyes open I got a 12.5. My android and a noisy room isn't exactly ideal for this type of thing though...

Plainsong
12-07-2011, 02:26 AM
I gotta try this with propa cans and a amp/dac to see if they help me out!

Steedy
12-07-2011, 11:41 AM
Nice link, thanks!

OldePhart
12-07-2011, 12:45 PM
Curious about one thing though - how I could get a "very good" on the tonedeaf test but do so poorly on the pitch one. Wouldn't they be directly related?

Like I said before, I wouldn't put too much faith in these - I think there is a fairly big error in his scoring algorithm for the pitch test. I also scored very highly on the tone deaf test but poorly (well, relatively, still listed as above normal but low compared to what people here are reporting) on the pitch test. Also, all of the tests asked you to enter your score from the tone deaf test (which was, of course, impossible if you hadn't taken that test yet). I think maybe he's using this to adjust the algorithm.

Also, the tone deaf test actually measures your ability to distinguish whether a tone "belongs" in a sequence. I.e. in most of the "difference" samples one sample had a tone that was outside of the key the rest of the sample was in. Once I tumbled to that it was dead easy. (Also, the sample with the tone outside the key was almost always - maybe even always - the second sample.) Again, kind of a flawed test for two reasons. First, the test would be useless to someone not used to the western major and minor scales (i.e. asian microtonal musicians would probably do horribly on this test). Second, the test measures memory as much as "tone deafness." You can have perfect pitch sense and poor memory and you will do poorly - the results description even mentions this. Actually, the test suffers on three, not two, points. "Tone deafness" is not something that can be measured on a scale. People who are truly "tone deaf" are not even going to have any interest in music.

All in all, I'd say this test reveals more about the state of America's educational system than it does about any individual's ability to perceive tones. This isn't sour grapes, BTW; the test was entertaining and I performed "above average." But, it says something when somebody with no advanced degrees behind his name can so quickly point out numerous flaws in a doctoral project at a really prestigous university...

John

Little Plink
12-07-2011, 01:13 PM
Heh, I have these attention span problems, so I kept forgetting what they sounded like while I was thinking about other things the first time. I only got 6 Hz, then I buckled down, and actually listened and got 1.125 Hz. If only it were so easy in school...

EDIT:

Got home and took it again through crappy computer monitors (as opposed to my actual setup, amplified Grado's) and got 0.4125 Hz, 94th percentile! My trick is that in between each one that isn't completely obvious, I play a little bass, or maybe guitar, and then replay. I find that the ukulele's range is too similar to the tones being played to prove useful. Bass, slapped, popped, or picked, with lots of treble in the EQ is the best, IMO. After that, if you replay it rapidly, you'll begin to hear a very obvious distinction...

Also, on the tone deaf test, I scored at 91.7%, and on the rhythmic and visual portions, I scored absurdly low. Like, below average low. Not sure why. I'm a drummer, (though, admittedly, not very good.) and as far as I can see, many of the Musical-Visual questions were subjective.

scottie
12-07-2011, 01:23 PM
I got 0.956. . . listening through Yamaha HS 50M monitors; better than the level of acuity necessary to be able to perceive the intonation problems inherent in a guitar or ukulele.

Adaptive pitch is what applies when you discover the quirks of your instrument over time and adapt to them.

Plainsong
12-07-2011, 11:28 PM
I dunno what gives with this algorithm, because I got down to 0.09 hertz before having issues. This time I used some Audio Technica EP700s powered with a Headroom Total Bithead. I went with those over my trusty Beyerdynamic T5p headphones because the ep700s are open, but monitors built for monitoring. The T5s color the sound more, and the ep700, while being just supra-aural, have huge drivers.

Anyway, put on some better cans and you'll get a better result. :)

The algorithm though, says I stopped at 0.3, which is horsepucky! Is it taking my gender and/or age into account? Why? Well anyway.. just put on better headphones, and you'll do better. This might be more of a study of people's audio sources than our ears.

Magoosan
12-08-2011, 06:21 AM
I'm 65 years old and have been actively involved in music for 55 of those years. Scored .24375 which I guess is pretty good. I firmly believe pitch differentiation is a function of experience and really focusing on it.

janeray1940
12-08-2011, 06:38 AM
the test measures memory as much as "tone deafness." You can have perfect pitch sense and poor memory and you will do poorly - the results description even mentions this.

This makes a whole lot of sense to me - I'm really, really good at recognizing patterns (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, whichever) and the whole time I was taking the test it seemed far more of a pattern-recognition exercise than anything to do with tone or pitch.

Which means my pitch still sucks. But I knew that already :)

sugengshi
12-08-2011, 10:26 PM
I love the website. There are few tests in there and I had to stop everything just to explore the tests. LOL

vickersdc
12-09-2011, 02:46 AM
I used a very cheap pair of Phillips earbud-style 'phones and scored 69.4% on the tonedeaf scale (normal) and could reliably differentiate between two tones 24Hz - yes, that's twenty-four Hertz - apart.

That explains why I'm no good at music; still, it won't stop me attempting the ukulele (all I was ever allowed at school was a chime bar, and I rarely got that right ;) ).

And as for that musical-visual test - what was that about? Surely that's subjective isn't it? Apparently my answers were wrong, but what if the option I chose 'did it' for me?

Chris Tarman
12-09-2011, 01:06 PM
I took this a little bit ago (I don't remember my exact score but it was in the upper end of "good").... I think someone needs to develop a scientific test to explain how my two dogs can hear me pick up my socks when they are sleeping in another room. They come running. One of them is 14 1/2 years old and can't hear anything BUT the sound of me picking up a pair of socks. It's as if they have a super power that allows them to sense that someone might POSSIBLY be preparing to go for a walk. Weird.

OldePhart
12-10-2011, 11:46 AM
I took this a little bit ago (I don't remember my exact score but it was in the upper end of "good").... I think someone needs to develop a scientific test to explain how my two dogs can hear me pick up my socks when they are sleeping in another room. They come running. One of them is 14 1/2 years old and can't hear anything BUT the sound of me picking up a pair of socks. It's as if they have a super power that allows them to sense that someone might POSSIBLY be preparing to go for a walk. Weird.

I think it's related to the power that lets a twelve-pound dachsund shake an entire house (pier and beam foundation) by running across the floor when a 200lb man doesn't even make the floor creak...

John

Plainsong
12-10-2011, 02:35 PM
I think it's related to the power that lets a twelve-pound dachsund shake an entire house (pier and beam foundation) by running across the floor when a 200lb man doesn't even make the floor creak...

John

Because doxies are magical, and wirehaireds are the most doxie of the doxies. ;)