Your Top 3 Recordings for Testing a Sound System?

[panteragstk]

Nirvana and Alice in Chains unplugged are both great tests. Saw them when they first aired. Makes me pine for the MTV glory days.

Jeff buckly's Grace is a great recording. We used that to demo recording monitors at work (when I still did that).

The newer mono beatle's recordings are pretty good.

Pink Floyd will always be my go to, especially welcome to the machine to give a sub a good workout.

Tool is one of my favorite bands and their recordings are usually pretty high in quality. Reflection has quite a bit of subtle detail that only a decent setup will bring out.

Since Gene pushed them so much I had to find out about Porcupine tree and I have to say they fit right in with my other taste in music.

Lots of Foo Fighters songs come to mind.

So much music...so little time

 

[Steve81]

These are my go-to recordings b/c I know exactly what to expect and when. If something is different in a good or bad way, then I can pick it out.

Fair enough, but I guess what I'm trying to say is, every system you've listened to, you've heard what you would qualify as good and bad ways to reproduce sound, but the question is: which one is the right way (or at least closest to the right way)? That's why I'm not fond of comparing speakers to each other without a set reference.

 

[slipperybidness]

Fair enough, but I guess what I'm trying to say is, every system you've listened to, you've heard what you would qualify as good and bad ways to reproduce sound, but the question is: which one is the right way (or at least closest to the right way)? That's why I'm not fond of comparing speakers to each other without a set reference.

Well, I would like to say that I have heard live performances to compare them to. But, others in this discussion have already made the arguments against that and I must agree.

 

[Steve81]

Well, I would like to say that I have heard live performances to compare them to. But, others in this discussion have already made the arguments against that and I must agree.

I don't think anyone has made an argument against concerts/live music being a real reference point. It's certainly not perfect as I myself have pointed out, but I fail to see how that's worse than having no reference point at all. Else all you've got are your preferences of "good" and "bad", blissfully unaware of whether or not that "bad" might actually equate to "faithfully reproduced".

 

[j_garcia]

I don't think anyone has made an argument against concerts/live music being a real reference point. It's certainly not perfect as I myself have pointed out, but I fail to see how that's worse than having no reference point at all. Else all you've got are your preferences of "good" and "bad", blissfully unaware of whether or not that "bad" might actually equate to "faithfully reproduced".

I think, as long as you know what to listen for, the material doesn't matter as much; meaning if you know what it SHOULD sound like and you are very familiar with it, then it will generally work. Excellent recordings tend to be easier to pick out fine details though, so why not just start with something that you know to be good?

 

[Steve81]

I think, as long as you know what to listen for, the material doesn't matter as much; meaning if you know what it SHOULD sound like and you are very familiar with it, then it will generally work.

I don't disagree with this; I disagree with the notion that listening to a song on a bunch of speakers of varying quality, that necessarily you KNOW what a song should sound like in the first place since you don't have an original frame of reference. Conversely, I'd say I have a reasonable idea what the organ at my wife's hometown church sounds like because I've heard it live several times.

Excellent recordings tend to be easier to pick out fine details though, so why not just start with something that you know to be good?

Actually if you look at my OP on the topic, that's my general plan. I didn't have any big plans on bringing the organ recording to my Philharmonic Audio demo.

 

[j_garcia]

The idea, IMHO, is simply to compare what you do know and that would be the recordings, not what is "reality" since true reality doesn't exactly exist in recorded and mastered audio. Among the closest I've heard would probably be Jazz at the Pawnshop.

 

[slipperybidness]

I don't think anyone has made an argument against concerts/live music being a real reference point. It's certainly not perfect as I myself have pointed out, but I fail to see how that's worse than having no reference point at all. Else all you've got are your preferences of "good" and "bad", blissfully unaware of whether or not that "bad" might actually equate to "faithfully reproduced".

Well, faithfully reproduced in a live venue and faithfully reproduced in a studio are not the same thing......
Even taking any gear out of the equation

 

[monkish54]

The newer mono beatle's recordings are pretty good.

I LOVE the Beatles, but since I got my Phil's I just can't listen to 90% of their stuff. Some of their stereo stuff is great, but mono doesn't do it for me anymore.

 

[Steve81]

The idea, IMHO, is simply to compare what you do know and that would be the recordings

Except the problem is that you know the recordings through a variety of imperfect transducers. What's the yardstick? Just personal preference?

 

[Steve81]

Well, faithfully reproduced in a live venue and faithfully reproduced in a studio are not the same thing......
Even taking any gear out of the equation

Perhaps, but I'd counter that live CDs and to a greater extent concert blurays can help bridge that gap. Further, going back to my earlier statement: I never claimed it to be a perfect reference. But if you and I were to judge the sound of a speaker based on a recording of someone playing the guitar, and I had never heard a guitar before except on car stereos while you played guitar in a band, who's opinion would be more useful?

 

[j_garcia]

Except the problem is that you know the recordings through a variety of imperfect transducers. What's the yardstick? Just personal preference?

Yes. If you've heard it only on two sets of speakers, then your frame of reference is small. I've heard the recordings I use to audition on a LOT of speakers. If you want to get technical, few if any listening environments are ideal either, so yes, it just comes down to the individual's experience.

Perhaps, but I'd counter that live CDs and to a greater extent concert blurays can help bridge that gap. Further, going back to my earlier statement: I never claimed it to be a perfect reference. But if you and I were to judge the sound of a speaker based on a recording of someone playing the guitar, and I had never heard a guitar before except on car stereos while you played guitar in a band, who's opinion would be more useful?

I understand this reasoning, but in the typical home theater there is little hope of reaching near perfect reproduction, so I don't need to have heard my music from that guy standing right in front of me to have a pretty good idea of what a guitar sounds like. He may listen to my system and be able to say that it sounds different that his guitar, but even if I heard them both, I might not be able to hear the differences that he does.

 

[Steve81]

I understand this reasoning, but in the typical home theater there is little hope of reaching near perfect reproduction, so I don't need to have heard my music from that guy standing right in front of me to have a pretty good idea of what a guitar sounds like. He may listen to my system and be able to say that it sounds different that his guitar, but even if I heard them both, I might not be able to hear the differences that he does.

Not sure I really understand what you're trying to say here. Because there is no chance of reaching near perfection (I disagree to some extent by the way*), there's no point in having heard live instruments to have a frame of reference?

*Something from Floyd Toole worth thinking about, and the quote also applies to our conversation in other ways as well.

The audio industry is in a "circle of confusion." Loudspeakers are evaluated by using recordings...which are made by using microphones, equalization, reverb, and effects...which are evaluated by using loudspeakers...which are evaluated by using recordings...etc., etc. Recordings are then used to evaluate audio products. This is equivalent to doing a measurement with an uncalibrated instrument! Of course, professional audio engineers use professional monitor loudspeakers...which are also evaluated by using recordings...which are made by using microphones, etc...which are evaluated by using professional monitor loudspeakers...which are once again evaluated by using recordings...which are then auditioned through consumer loudspeakers! Thus the circle of confusion continues. It is broken only when the professional monitor loudspeakers and the consumer loudspeakers sound like each other - when they have the same sonic signature, i.e., when they are similarly good. Of course, sounding alike also includes the interface with the room and the listener within it. Then, and only then, can we hope to preserve the art. All else is playing games.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf

page 6 of the pdf

I'd say something like THX is a step in the right direction here, as they address what is heard in the studio, the theater, and the home.

 

[Steve81]

Yes. If you've heard it only on two sets of speakers, then your frame of reference is small. I've heard the recordings I use to audition on a LOT of speakers. If you want to get technical, few if any listening environments are ideal either, so yes, it just comes down to the individual's experience.

Just as a quick add on: do you believe in any specific ideal, ala the quote I posted from Toole, or is it as you imply, just up to the individual? If it's up to the individual, where does it end? When someone gets bored of switching speakers or runs out of money? Seems like that's how it goes in this hobby sometimes.

 

[panteragstk]

I LOVE the Beatles, but since I got my Phil's I just can't listen to 90% of their stuff. Some of their stereo stuff is great, but mono doesn't do it for me anymore.

The stereo stuff actually recorded in stereo is good, but the mono to stereo conversions (vocal hard pan to the left) is awful once you hear the mono recordings. I'm talking about the "remastered" ones released within the last few years. They sound great on a good set of stereo speakers. You should have a listen. I think you'd be surprised.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-beatles-in-mono-box-set-the-beatles/17971763?r=1&cm_mmca2=pla&EAN=5099969945120&cm_mmc=GooglePLA-_-Music-_-Q000000633-_-5099969945120

 

[GranteedEV]

I don't think top 3 is fair.

You need to have different recordings for the different aspects you want to evaluate? Timbre accuracy? Imaging or Soundstage? Treble quality? Dynamics? Overall blow-you-away package?

Each are different and need to be given equal weight.

And you have to be familiar with that recording's "comfort zone" so as to not listen to it too quietly etc. FWIW, in a bit i`ll post some recordings I most enjoy on the Philharmonics, but I can`t claim them to be anyone else's taste.

 

[j_garcia]

Just as a quick add on: do you believe in any specific ideal, ala the quote I posted from Toole, or is it as you imply, just up to the individual? If it's up to the individual, where does it end? When someone gets bored of switching speakers or runs out of money? Seems like that's how it goes in this hobby sometimes.

Sounds like Toole and I are saying the same thing, as are you: it is an imperfect situation by design. Since the average consumer cannot remove this fact from the equation, all we can do is go by what we hear.

It does not end. I've had the same speakers for quite a few years now, but I went through a lot of different ones before I ended up with these. I knew as soon as I heard them that they were where it "ended" for me at the time, and I haven't had a compelling reason to change since then. I have more money now than I did when I bought them and can afford more expensive speakers, though I don't feel the need to. So the quest ends when you want it to. There will always be "something better out there" but it isn't difficult to reach a point where you should be listening to the music not the speakers.

"You've gotta see the waves not the wine bottles"
-Steven Wilson

 

[Steve81]

There will always be "something better out there" but it isn't difficult to reach a point where you should be listening to the music not the speakers.

Well why the heck would I want to do that

 

[theJman]

1. Alice in Chains - Alice in Chains (MTV Unplugged)

2. Nils Lofgren - Keith Don't Go
- Should be extremely rich and detailed sounding with no harshness; if you have fatigue then there's a problem area(s)

3. Christina Aguilera - too many to list

4. Dire Straits

5. Deftones - Diamond Eyes
- this can really bring out problem areas

You must have the most eclectic music collection on the face of the earth...

 

[Dan]

You must have the most eclectic music collection on the face of the earth...

I like to start quiet and move to things played best loud. People have a sense of how human voices and pianos "should sound so I start with those, George Winston "Cast your fate to the Winds" and Sunny Sumter from the Mapleshade sampler. While Diamanda Galas has an amazing voice, any store I played that in would ask me to leave instantly

Talking Heads "Nothing but Flowers" (from "Naked") has great bass and drums.
E. Power Biggs Bach Organ Cantatas will test the low end of any speaker.

Skeleton Crew (Fred Frith and Tom Cora) have multitracked backround sounds far beyond anything Pink Floyd ever dreamed of on Learn To Talk but it's long out of print.

David Grisman Hot Dawg has great mandolin for tweeter assesment. Violins on baroque era music Bach Brandenberg Concertos or Vivaldi are also good.

Is that eclectic enough for ya?