Tonedeafness test
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
![listening-to-music[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/U9ghWO6.jpg "listening-to-music[1].jpg")
http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
>>64758369
75%, but I knew some ones I accidentally messed up and judged too quick.
I got 86.1%. Should I continue listening to music or just fucking give up?
>>64759087
that's a pretty damn good score. >90% means you're a fucking savant
80.6%
>>64759322
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. I got a 100% and I'm pretty damn sure my hearing can't be that great, I don't even have much of a proper education in music. This test must be pretty hit and miss.
>>64759763
>The test is purposefully made very hard, so excellent musicians rarely score above 80% correct.
66.7%
at least i still have television
>>64760005
I'd take that kind of claim with a grain of salt, there's no telling what the test measures exactly to begin with. Sure, I guess we could assume it's good at serving its purpose of measuring someone's hearing to some extent, but I'm pretty sure we're still in the dark when it comes to accurately measuring something as complex as human cognitive function with simplistic toys like this.
Even if my hearing is supposedly a "100%" according to this test, where does that put me exactly? I do enjoy music, but I'm mediocre at best at writing melodies or harmonies alike - I just get overly analytical and mess everything up in the process, having only very basic knowledge of structure in music doesn't help either. So in all seriousness, I wouldn't overthink this too much, or take the score to heart.
:^)
this one is more interesting. who can defeat me? http://tonometric.com/adaptivepitch/
>>64759322
am I savant? I make money transcribing music btw
>>64763164
I notice that the 3 wrong answers I got were due to putting different when they were in fact the same, which makes me think that I was expecting and looking for hard to hear small differences, when in fact it was always immediately obvious to me when they were actually different.
>flash
yeeaaaahnah.
>>64762745
i got like 2 on that, 80 on the tonedeaf, and 92 on the rhythm
I recall taking this test ages ago, and it's clearly more of a memory test than anything else
anyway i got 75% which seems to be an average score
>80.6%
The whole thing is fucking wrong, this is fucking bullshit, what a shitty fucking test
>>64762745
Jesus that was a fucking nightmare
>>64763308
This. Besides, is this test challenging your ability to differentiate notes or actual phrasing? Maybe I should go back and do it again...
I know for a fact that I have perfect pitch and I can tell if you aren't nailing the entire section in the way it was written with author's intent. This text is whack. 63.9% my ass
>88.9% Correct
What a retarded memory test.
>>64762745
got 59th percentile
this one is harder tho
>83.3%
I've done it before and im pretty sure i've scored higher :P
77.8%, i suck
