And if you think you might prefer tackling aural tests that don't require superhuman feats of memory - or singing - there's always Trinity .
I think that there is a lot of memory involved in Trinity aural, especially at later grades with the spot the difference and describing features.
I agree with this also. I did a related test for Part I Music BA at Reading, but there you listened to a recording while looking at the sheet music and marked differences in pitch or rhythm.* The Grade 7 Trinity Aural demo that I just saw and heard on the WWW was much more difficult, both in the subtlety of the differences and the demands on memory.
Hearing the differences between sound and score is an important skill for a conductor or a teacher, so Reading wins on that one. OTOH, a good conductor ought also to have a good memory for a performance, so as to run through a substantial chunk of music, and then go to the sections that differed from what s/he wants and put it right. Sir Adrian Boult, working with good British orchestras and minimal rehearsal time, would not even try it again: he would run a movement of a symphony, then tell the players all the changes he wanted to hear (George Hurst called it "Boult's laundry list") and expect to hear them in the performance. He tried that on a tour of the US as guest conductor of several orchestras, but found that with American players you had to run it through to get anything different from what they had just played.
* E.g. dotted rhythms that sounded like triplets.