Read percussive counterpoint reviews, rating & opinions:Check all percussive counterpoint reviews below or publish your opinion.
20 Reviews Found
So far so good. This is my second for this specific type of hearing protection. The first I bought for myself and liked them so well that I bought another pair as a bonus for Christmas. I shoot sporting clays and earmuffs create your ears hot and you bump them with the stock when pulling the gun up to your shoulder, expanding foam works but voices around you are muffled and causal conversation can be difficult sometimes. With these you can carry on conversations at a fairly low level and still hear the other person as well as other shooters around you. I am not exactly sure how they work so well in regards to hearing so clearly yet blocking out the gun blast, but I really like them and it has created my shooting experience a lot better. It's nice to be able to be protected but not have to constantly ask someone to repeat what they have said. Well worth the price
I bought these because I love the non-percussive ear pro this company makes. I’m a PRS shooter and have a little face, so muffs are not an option for me. The non percussive were great, but I had a hard time hearing what ROs were saying during matches and wanted the additional protection of the percussive filters. These blew me away at the latest match. I was exceptionally happy with how well they worked and I could hear all commands and other shooters talking.If you already have the non percussive ear pro from Decibullz, you can pull out and replace the insert in your already molded ear pro. As a side note, if you choose to mold them new, you can pull out the percussive filter and still mold without them in there. If you do place the percussive filters in the warm water when you mold them, just know they they will dry out and you’ll be able to hear people talking better afterwards. I was concerned at first since that’s how I molded mine and I couldn’t hear people talking like I thought I would be able to.I recommended them to several other shooters. I would definitely these again.
Just before Thanksgiving of 2018 I got a fresh job. In this I'm needed to wear hearing protection. I purchased theses custom molded heard protection because I do not like ear plugs in the ear canal and my ears sweat too much with earmuffs on. I was hoping I could just mold them in to my ear and not have to use the foam or rubber earpieces. Luckily I didn't have to use them. I will say useing the foam or rubber earpieces does support a lot with keeping the noise down.When molding them in my ear I followed the directions quite closely. I did use the foam piece for the molding. I thought that it was going to feel uncomfortable putting the hot ear piece in but it's not poor at all. I also used a mirror when molding just to see what I was doing. I only molded them once before wearing them for a ten hour shift. That was not a amazing idea. Although I did learn where I required adjust them. So maybe wear them for a few hours to figure out where you need to adjust them. After a few re-molds they fit very well.I have been wearing them for a few months now and I'm happy with them. The only thing I dont like is that my ear sweat but that just might be me.
The ideal user for the Decibullz custom molded percussive filters would be someone who needs hearing protection from short loud noises. As an avid hunter these percussive filters are ideal for me because I am exposed to a lot of gunshots. Another aspect that is nice is the ability to hear ambient noise and communicate with my hunting partners. Safety is a priority for me because at the end of the day returning home is the most important. Before purchasing this product I used regular earplugs that blocked out all sound. They were effective in protecting my hearing but did not fulfill all of my needs. Criteria used to evaluate this product.• Durability• Comfortability• Hearing protection• Relative costDurabilityThis product is created from a moldable hard plastic and is created to keep up for a long time. These filters will keep up significantly longer than regular fortabilityThe filters are custom molded to fit in your ear for a secure fit. The directions are simple to follow and if you take your time you will end up not even noticing that they are in most of the time. I routinely wear them for half of a day while siting in the duck boat and have not had a problem with my ears hurting. I regularly had problems with my previous earplugs hurting my ears after about an hour.Hearing ProtectionThe main purpose of this product is to protect your hearing and it would be useless if it did not. At the end of the day, this is the best product I have found to suit my needs as a hunter needing hearing lative CostCompared to related hearing protection products this one is moderately cheap. I like the fact that I do not have to worry about batteries as I would with an electronic version. Some electronic products can cost upwards of a couple hundred dollars. This product is well worth the at just seventy-five dollars.
These worked amazing at the range. I used them for the first time in a hunting situation latest week. In North Dakota for early season goose, we were field hunting in layout blinds. I was surrounded by other hunters in close proximity - about 6 feet away on either side. The filters worked amazing blocking all the shooting noise. More impressively, I was able to hear all the whispered conversations and distant geese honking! With 7 guys in the field , I was the first to hear the geese on a lot of occasions. It's virtually impossible to call effectively with standard ear protection. I was able to call , shoot, listen to conversations up and down the line and didn't have to worry about batteries going dead in the middle of the hunt (which happened to one of the group!). These plugs are a must for Waterfowl and Upland hunters who need to hear normally but must have ear protection when the shooting starts! They create target shooting or clays much more enjoyable. These are the true deal! I even search myself checking to see that they haven't fallen out when there is no shooting going on!.
This review is for the Decibullz Molded Percussive Filters, I have been using the filters for several range visits and they are very good. I can still keep a conversation but they dampen sounds when rounds are fired, exactly what you would wish in a product like this. I have only used them at outdoor shotgun ranges so I cannot comment on their use in an indoor range e fit is excellent, they are extremely comfortable due to the custom fit and are a large improvement to the active earmuffs I used previously. They do not interfere with mounting my shotgun and therefore do not adversely affect my scores (but also eliminate one of my excuses when I have a not good round).The noise reduction seems to be in line with the stated values, and I can keep a conversation at normal levels while wearing this product. The product seems to live up to it's claims and I'm very satisfied with my e only problem I had with this product was the instructions for molding the pictogram instructions are not very clear about what part are supposed to be boiled. It is very clear that the percussive filters need to be removed, but what was not clear is that the filters and the, I'll call it the stem, can be separated and the stem is boiled with the molds and orange triple flange tips. Once I found their video on youTube, the process was much more clear and understandable.I highly advise anyone that these to watch the video before molding, you won't over mold one set of your Thermo Fit Molds beyond use like I ended up doing. Yes, the can be remolded, but if the hole in the middle closes, they're beautiful much toast. Luckily, Decibullz contains a pair of Thermo Fit molds with the percussive filter set, so I wasn't dead in the water, but I do want their instructions were more clear regarding this e second problem I had was not with the product at all but with the Add-ons that Amazon suggests when you the Decibullz Percussive Filters. They seem to suggest the carrying case and the Lanyard. First of all, the Decibullz Percussive Filters come with a case (although it isn't readily apparent from the product description on Amazon), so if you one you end up with two, and are out around $10 for the privilege. The second suggestion from Amazon is the Decibullz Lanyard, the problem if you it is that it completely defeats the percussive filter properties and you end up with ear plugs. According to the Decibullz website, they are working on a lanyard specifically for the Percussive Filters, but the suggested one will work, but you won't be able to hear much.If you follow Amazon's suggestion and and install these, you're essentially creating a Decibullz ear plug with no Percussive functionality, at a $50+ premium. So buyer beware on the suggestions from Amazon, sure you can return the items, but since there is nothing wrong with them, you have to return shipping. That policy doesn't seem right to me when Amazon is making suggestions that create absolutely no sense for the item you are purchasing, so research those before you add them to your cart.Otherwise I'm very satisfied with my purchase, I just want I had watched the video before attempting to mold the Thermo Fit Molds.
I've worn these on a duck shoot in Czech and a hunt in Romania. The duck shoot my ears were a bit irritated but I was taking them in and out several times throughout the day as we moved from pond to pond. They did provide adequate protection while shooting my 12 gauge. In Romania I found them to be a bit more comfortable as I was leaving them in for 3 to 4 hours at a time. The left one seemed to test to [email protected]#$%!s method out and I may just need to change the hint to a smaller size. Again these provided adequate protection when firing my 30-06. I did feel that ambient noise was muffled a small too much while stalking through the mountains. These did a decent job and were fairly comfortable but they are not as amazing as electric noise cancelling hearing protection that boost ambient noise. The molding process was fairly simple and straightforward. The instructions provided were decent and the available online videos helped as well.
The utility of this book is highly overstated, IMHO. As someone who has taught college math I am not intimidated by the 'multi-dimensional space' concept, and I've been a composer for decades (a movie for which I wrote the score is doing fairly well on Amazon Prime). I search his explanation of tonality wanting (really, the augmented and diminished chords are more 'natural' than the major and minor?), and I found nothing in here that inspired me with new approaches to composition. All the diagrams look pretty, but once I got past all the flash, at its core I found myself asking: "where's the beef?"
Several years ago I happened to see one of Dmitri Tymoczko's Science articles. I was hoping to search an introduction to that paper's ideas that would be suitable for a course aimed at students with an undergraduate background in both mathematics and melody theory, but none existed at that time. When OUP published A Geometry of Music, I was excited to see it; however, when I saw that half of the original six reviews here were strongly negative, I hesitated to it.Unfortunately, some previous reviewers seem to feel an animus toward the author and insist on using the book's dust jacket and introduction versus him. But plainly OUP selected the blurbs it did to emphasize the book's potentially broader appeal, and it's hard to see how the author's acc of his undergraduate melody theory education in the introduction can be regarded as an affront to his alma mater. One has only to turn to the author's acknowledgments and read his copious footnotes to see that he has given ample where is due. The homoousian claims that most of the book is trivial, that much of the work has been purlioned, and that the remainder is useless are easily seen to be ludicrous. Reviewers who claim to have written books on "Algorithmic Computer Music" which don't seem to be available or claim that "[d]efining an all-encompassing numerical or spatial model is simple (and, honestly, trivial)" should create their works available for all to see. Perhaps their papers will appear in the journal Science - right after the next article on crafting a perpetuum ter using A Geometry of Melody as the basis for teaching a course, I search myself in agreement with those previous reviewers who praised its strengths; however, I do have two criticisms to offer. The book's most significant shortcoming from my perspective is its paucity of exercises. Unfortunately, there are only 38 of them, and those are relegated to Appendix F. Of those exercises only eight relate to the entire second half of the book, and four of those concern one of the subjects of Chapter 7. While I understand that the book is intended to serve as an introduction for melody theorists, composers, and amateurs, it seems likely that its main audience is going to be melody students. In to better serve students future editions of this book should contain a lot of more exercises, and the exercises should appear as an integral part of the book, not in an appendix. More casual readers can skip the exercises as they see fit. Kostka's text on twentieth-century melody seems like a amazing model for the breadth and depth of musical analysis exercises that I would like to see, and the workbook for Cadwallader and Gagne's text on Schenkerian analysis could serve as a model for the level of difficulty that would be appropriate for this other shortcoming of A Geometry of Melody is its general avoidance of the underlying mathematics, even in the more technical appendices. I think a lot of more computational examples and exercises should be included in a book at this level, and the general level of computational difficulty I would like to see in future editions would meet or exceed those of Straus's text on post-tonal theory. The material currently in Appendices A through E, together with extra examples and exercises, would enhance the body of the book. More technical appendices could then discover subjects along the lines of the author's on-line supplements to his Science papers. This extra material would also demonstrate the falsehood of homoousian claims that the book is "trivial," that it lacks original ideas, and that topology adds nothing to our understanding of l in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in seeing where melody theory is going in the twenty-first century.
The author shows how harmony and counterpoint can be described as efficient movements in higher dimensional space. And then he uses this as a model to present how melody from various eras are actually related. Which was very interesting and I learned a lot through the discussion, but it fails to explain much about the nature of melody that hasn't already been stated by other authors. And it's certainly not the fresh revolution in melody theory that he hypes it up to be. It's simply a really nifty fresh tool to analyze 's a amazing read and I recommend it to anyone interested in theory or composition but it's not offering a practical working theory by any stretch of the imagination. I seriously question the usefulness of this fresh model for composition and I suspect the constraints of zone and time a person experiences through the use of a physical instrument such as a piano may render this model completely redundant for making music. As an analytical tool it seems useful.
An interesting academic read with small practical utility imo. While technically very accurate, tediously mapping voice leading onto multidimensional graphs isn't overly superior than just looking at the notation or other easier methods. And while geometry validates rules of thumb that are already common practice (no pun intended), those rules of thumb are still a lot easier than the analysis methods presented in this book. A lot of "lecturing birds on flying" i'm afraid. So yes as an academic work, beautiful good. But for the "ideal composer" as the book was intended...meh. Theory with small practical application.
Here are a few things I loved about A Geometry of Music:1. I've never encountered a more comprehensive explanation of tonality. In particular, Tymoczko's "Five Components" are extremely enlightening in showing that tonality's wonderful versatility is in fact derived from the confluence of multiple constraining musical forces. He sums it up beautiful well with the clever analogy of God and the suitcases on page 64.2. The author makes a compelling case that there is a continuum tying the tonality of the Western classical tradition to the tonality in modern genres such as rock and jazz. I have college degrees in melody composition but I don't recall a single professor offering an analytical tool that could be applied to modern pop melody as readily as to Chopin or Debussy. For that matter, I'm not sure they would have taken the endeavor seriously. I hint my hat to Tymoczko for bringing John Lennon and Roger Daltrey into the same compositional arena as Stravinsky.3. As a composer, viewing the musical relationships in three-dimensional cubic lattices brought a fascinating fresh perspective. Perhaps it's ironic that musicians speak so commonly in terms of musical zone ("intervallic distances", "key areas", etc), but it always remains two-dimensional in standard notation. The geometric mappings lend an almost tangible quality to the musical relationships, and I found it very revealing to visually gauge and compare the proximities of different notes and chords to one another in 3-D space.4. Personally I love the data graphs. For example, the graph showing the prevalence of different chord root motions in the melody of Schubert vs. Chopin (pg. 99), or the speed of pitch-class circulation across composers spanning various centuries (pg. 160). Again from my perspective as a composer and sometime theorist, I think a snapshot of compiled "musical metrics" can be worth a thousand words. You rarely see these in theory textbooks, but I search them extremely informative for defining some aspect of the compositional decision-making. I think these meticulous data collections are likewise a tribute to the author's thoroughness in his research methods.5. Lastly, I enjoyed the author's candid tone. Theoretical writings can be so clinical, but Tymoczko's private style created this work a true pleasure to read. I got a kick out of the clever quips, the jokes, the private anecdotes, and other moments of levity so often missing in works of dense topic matter.Overall I highly recommend Tymoczko's A Geometry of Music.
Tymoczko is undeniably right about the mathematics here. You could choose to represent a four-note voice-leading as a fourth dimensional orbifold. But, by the end of the book, it's still unclear why you would. E.g., the symmetries that exist in these geometries are mathematically valid, but is a composer working in a major key likely to value the suggestion they invert it into the Locrian mode? Read this if you wish some interesting mathematics, but don't expect it to be practical.
The hint of the iceberg. An exciting analysis and synthesis of musical styles and development, hopefully this work will become the progeny of a lot of future works as it is rich in is work adds extra ways of seeing melody that are not clearly apparent with standard notation.I was surprised that so a lot of of the composers artists and works were ones that I had noted to be significant in there avant-garde expansion of musical boundaries.A joke punchline is achieved by misdirecting the audience to believe that the joke is taking them in one direction when it is actually taking them where they did not wise, a lot of of the clusters of tones in jazz, Tristan, Shostakovich, Debussy, Chopin and others, make ambiguity about the intended direction and resolution and these clusters may include a lot of possible future paths, thus making anticipation difficult and surprise likely.