What kind of recording is suitable as a reference?
I would like to ask you guys specifically which songs or albums you think are suitable as a reference and why.
For example, when evaluating a speaker, one person may say it's the best, while another may say it's the worst. I often think that this is actually just a matter of the music being listened to or the listening habits. There's no way that someone who listens to modern hip hop at high volume and someone who listens to antique chamber music quietly can give the same evaluation.
For myself, I have been using Steely Dan's "Gaucho" as a reference for a very long time. It's a great production, very well balanced, but it's not perfect. In fact, I think that the vocal production on this album is quite poor. However, the reason why I still use it as a reference is simply because I have been listening to it for a very long time. It was my favorite album when I was in college. I feel confident that I can evaluate playback devices fairly well just by listening to the first 30 seconds of this song, which I have been doing consistently for decades since purchasing my first audio system in college. My wife says, "You love this song." but I don't actually listen to it because I fall in love with it. It is rather a cursed relationship. I have several other references for myself, but I think I'll write about those later.
Furthermore, I think that audio forums like this should make it mandatory for users to list a few reference songs on their profile. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time to argue with someone whose taste and listening habits are unknown. It would only lead to the conclusion that it's a matter of personal preference, without any real learning taking place. I believe that information about a member's musical references is much more useful than knowing what kind of equipment they own...
I would like to ask you guys specifically which songs or albums you think are suitable as a reference and why.
For example, when evaluating a speaker, one person may say it's the best, while another may say it's the worst. I often think that this is actually just a matter of the music being listened to or the listening habits. There's no way that someone who listens to modern hip hop at high volume and someone who listens to antique chamber music quietly can give the same evaluation.
For myself, I have been using Steely Dan's "Gaucho" as a reference for a very long time. It's a great production, very well balanced, but it's not perfect. In fact, I think that the vocal production on this album is quite poor. However, the reason why I still use it as a reference is simply because I have been listening to it for a very long time. It was my favorite album when I was in college. I feel confident that I can evaluate playback devices fairly well just by listening to the first 30 seconds of this song, which I have been doing consistently for decades since purchasing my first audio system in college. My wife says, "You love this song." but I don't actually listen to it because I fall in love with it. It is rather a cursed relationship. I have several other references for myself, but I think I'll write about those later.
Furthermore, I think that audio forums like this should make it mandatory for users to list a few reference songs on their profile. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time to argue with someone whose taste and listening habits are unknown. It would only lead to the conclusion that it's a matter of personal preference, without any real learning taking place. I believe that information about a member's musical references is much more useful than knowing what kind of equipment they own...
Last edited:
I'd say that any album that you know inside-and-out is a candidate. Bonus points if the album is also well-recorded.
I like Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms and On Every Street. Nils Lofgren's live album is good too. There are many others.
I think you'll find that the test songs are more reflective of an individual's personal taste in music than their ability to discern minute detail, though.
Tom
I like Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms and On Every Street. Nils Lofgren's live album is good too. There are many others.
I think you'll find that the test songs are more reflective of an individual's personal taste in music than their ability to discern minute detail, though.
Tom
What I need to know when evaluating speakers is 'how will our music sound with these'?
Firstly, I use music I like: there's little point in doing otherwise. Since we listen to pretty much anything except heavy metal and folk music, I have a selection of well recorded and produced music covering jazz, classical and pop/rock. That covers 90%of our collection.
However, about 10% of our collection consists of older albums or music which were not that well recorded: Django Reinhardt, Charlie Christian, Hendrix bootlegs, classical recordings from the 30s and 40s, etc so it's important to listen to some of these as well.
Here's a few tracks/records I find useful:
So What from Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
Bach Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin, Julia Fischer
Bach Brandenburg Concertos, Harry Newstone
Angel, Sarah McLachlan
Don't Do It from Rock of Ages, and Up on Cripple Creek The Band
Hey Jude, The Beatles
Verdi Requiem, Carlo Maria Guilini (specifically, Dies Irae)
Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 2, Sergei Rachmaninov (recorded 1943)
The Blue Note Sessions, Nigel Kennedy
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 1, Martha Argerich/Charles Dutoit
Machine Gun, Jimi Hendrix Band of Gypsys
Rikki Don't Lose That Number, Steely Dan
I don't worry to much about the small stuff, the important thing is does it sound good? For example, speakers which are too 'bright' will make the brass on 'Don't Do It' sound harsh; a good top end will really bring out the harmonics in the Bach and the sheer racket in the Verdi needs to sound clear. A speaker with poor bass or limited woofer performance will readily bottom out on 'Cripple Creek' with a 'thwack'.
Geoff
Firstly, I use music I like: there's little point in doing otherwise. Since we listen to pretty much anything except heavy metal and folk music, I have a selection of well recorded and produced music covering jazz, classical and pop/rock. That covers 90%of our collection.
However, about 10% of our collection consists of older albums or music which were not that well recorded: Django Reinhardt, Charlie Christian, Hendrix bootlegs, classical recordings from the 30s and 40s, etc so it's important to listen to some of these as well.
Here's a few tracks/records I find useful:
So What from Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
Bach Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin, Julia Fischer
Bach Brandenburg Concertos, Harry Newstone
Angel, Sarah McLachlan
Don't Do It from Rock of Ages, and Up on Cripple Creek The Band
Hey Jude, The Beatles
Verdi Requiem, Carlo Maria Guilini (specifically, Dies Irae)
Rachmaninov Piano Concerto 2, Sergei Rachmaninov (recorded 1943)
The Blue Note Sessions, Nigel Kennedy
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 1, Martha Argerich/Charles Dutoit
Machine Gun, Jimi Hendrix Band of Gypsys
Rikki Don't Lose That Number, Steely Dan
I don't worry to much about the small stuff, the important thing is does it sound good? For example, speakers which are too 'bright' will make the brass on 'Don't Do It' sound harsh; a good top end will really bring out the harmonics in the Bach and the sheer racket in the Verdi needs to sound clear. A speaker with poor bass or limited woofer performance will readily bottom out on 'Cripple Creek' with a 'thwack'.
Geoff
Last edited:
Basically agreed.
Having plenty of older recordings I am very familiar with
I still use them as reference. And dont let issues with the original recording
skew my view.
If I wanna test a sub, I throw big electronic transients at it.
Wanna test a tweeter, just use recordings with a lot of horns
or cymbals to hear attack / decay
testing mids usually very loud classical, or movie soundtracks.
with dramatic cello or strings. or vocal / guitar rich classics
Having plenty of older recordings I am very familiar with
I still use them as reference. And dont let issues with the original recording
skew my view.
If I wanna test a sub, I throw big electronic transients at it.
Wanna test a tweeter, just use recordings with a lot of horns
or cymbals to hear attack / decay
testing mids usually very loud classical, or movie soundtracks.
with dramatic cello or strings. or vocal / guitar rich classics
1960's
Percy Faith version
" Theme from A Summer Place "
Blast that at childish levels.
If the strings dont rip your head off.
System is good ..LOL
Percy Faith version
" Theme from A Summer Place "
Blast that at childish levels.
If the strings dont rip your head off.
System is good ..LOL
I used to share time with a crowd of audiophiles who were just that in the most figurative sense. The same albums and samplers would came out every weekend, and they didn’t play it for the musical content, as they weren’t listening to it. They played them to hear the gear.
I play what I personally enjoy and am intimately familiar with. Those are my references. Orchestral, classical, choir, guitar, piano, cello, prog, modern pop pressings, two orchestral video game soundtracks, and even some disco. A very wide range of genres and some sonic treasures among them.
I made the conscience choice of placing the importance of the content first and foremost. I don’t care nor chase what it sounded like in the mixing booth or at the mastering engineer’s desk, I care about what I’m getting from the recording in my listening space.
I have digital (CDs, SACD, DSDs, HDCDs, Flac) that to my experience sound very good, others less so.
I also used generational testing and recording when it was warranted. Doing an A versus B comparison instantly between hi-res recordings of the same audio through different devices was a great way to ward off any audio nervosa. As a result, I spend far more on music today than gear.
On the analog side, the levels and SQ can vary by a wide margin. Some 12” LPs singles can be useful for checking overload levels of the transcription amplifier and the tracking capability of the stylus, as they tend to be half speed cut masters with higher than normal quality. Some of my LPs have a full frequency range of sub-20Hz to ultrasonics, with bass grooves so large you could snap a photo of them from space. Some have twice the dynamic range of modern digital remasters. These can be great for testing and it’s a bonus if the content is enjoyable, because that’s where my heart is.
I play what I personally enjoy and am intimately familiar with. Those are my references. Orchestral, classical, choir, guitar, piano, cello, prog, modern pop pressings, two orchestral video game soundtracks, and even some disco. A very wide range of genres and some sonic treasures among them.
I made the conscience choice of placing the importance of the content first and foremost. I don’t care nor chase what it sounded like in the mixing booth or at the mastering engineer’s desk, I care about what I’m getting from the recording in my listening space.
I have digital (CDs, SACD, DSDs, HDCDs, Flac) that to my experience sound very good, others less so.
I also used generational testing and recording when it was warranted. Doing an A versus B comparison instantly between hi-res recordings of the same audio through different devices was a great way to ward off any audio nervosa. As a result, I spend far more on music today than gear.
On the analog side, the levels and SQ can vary by a wide margin. Some 12” LPs singles can be useful for checking overload levels of the transcription amplifier and the tracking capability of the stylus, as they tend to be half speed cut masters with higher than normal quality. Some of my LPs have a full frequency range of sub-20Hz to ultrasonics, with bass grooves so large you could snap a photo of them from space. Some have twice the dynamic range of modern digital remasters. These can be great for testing and it’s a bonus if the content is enjoyable, because that’s where my heart is.
Last edited:
Dire Straights has some good ones. I also like side 2 of the Wall. Side 1 is vg too, but 2 does it for me.
The clatirty the dynamics, imaging, percussion, the music, the lyrics, on and on. I like everything about it. Just take a fresh listen turn down lights and crank it. That should best explain why.
Fleetwood Mac Rumors.
The clatirty the dynamics, imaging, percussion, the music, the lyrics, on and on. I like everything about it. Just take a fresh listen turn down lights and crank it. That should best explain why.
Fleetwood Mac Rumors.
The usual answer is recordings of acoustic instruments, preferably made with two microphones. This kind of recording readily reveals whether something is "off".
Ed
Ed
It does not hurt if you have heard the same live (unamplified). But that is rare.
I have some 10k songs on my macMini, something less than 50 in my demo folder. I can likely snapshot that if anyone is interested.
Tom, thr Dire Straight was a regular demo in my hifi days.
dave
Brother's in arms is stellar.
Recordings I consider personal favorites get the least play time. I guess its for a few reasons.
Recordings I consider personal favorites get the least play time. I guess its for a few reasons.
I wish symphonies were better recorded. I don’t know why but these recordings always leave me disappointed.
ElArte - Orchestras are usually recorded with two microphones suspended overhead. That captures a lot of the sound of the hall. This kind of recording can make my system disappear. 🙂
Ed
Ed
I know, but it never quite turns out as being in the audience; instrument separation is often lacking.
Maybe I never got a good recording. Any recommendations?
Capturing a symphony with any sort of realism is a daunting task.
dave
dave
Ever seen a van dd Graf generator? Pretty close to bottled lighting. The recording, the real thing is a bit more dramatic
dave
dave
As the current recording/replay chain has no theoretical way of being correct, I suggest You choose the recording that you would like to sound the best - as you already did - and optimise on that. A reference is not necessarily "the best" but something you always compare towards.
My only other observation is that a studio recording is not a recording of a natural event (i.e. its processed and some instruments was direct fed into a mixer electrically) but a 2 mic recording of an acoustic event is something that is possible to experience IRL and hence, could be compared to a reproduced version.
//
My only other observation is that a studio recording is not a recording of a natural event (i.e. its processed and some instruments was direct fed into a mixer electrically) but a 2 mic recording of an acoustic event is something that is possible to experience IRL and hence, could be compared to a reproduced version.
//
Clean and simple, Mary Black The Holy Ground (Dara cd05) is a great recording.
King Crimson In the court of the Crimson King. IF you get a good master, some are very degraded copies
Original masters edition DGM0501 is good)
Beatles mastered by George Martin are usually clean recordings but with 60s extreme stereo effects.
Originals rather than re-masters. (IMHO.)
King Crimson In the court of the Crimson King. IF you get a good master, some are very degraded copies
Original masters edition DGM0501 is good)
Beatles mastered by George Martin are usually clean recordings but with 60s extreme stereo effects.
Originals rather than re-masters. (IMHO.)
My reference record would be:
Mahler 4 - recorded by Falkner with a single pair of B&K mics.
https://www.discogs.com/release/138...ienna-Philharmonic-Lorin-Maazel-Symphony-No-4
Enjoy!
//
Mahler 4 - recorded by Falkner with a single pair of B&K mics.
https://www.discogs.com/release/138...ienna-Philharmonic-Lorin-Maazel-Symphony-No-4
Enjoy!
//