You missed the other factor - you have to know and like the music. Your tracks would be of no use to me.
I like to include something with a wide dynamic range, lots of instruments and play it loud to expose the whimpy speakers quickly. Always ask permission to do this when demoing somebody else's speakers.
Last edited:
This is a rebuild and is not rxsctly the same as the first one. Most used highlighted (graphic i ade is too small to really read/not doing it again)
dave
The knowing of the music came later in the post. It is not a property of the recording, its a property of you.
Also, I'm not sure you have like the music. Use of reference recordings is not about preference, it is about discrimination of audible differences.
Last edited:
I listen to a lot of rock-n-roll and popular music, from 1955 to last year. I have no idea what the original performance sounded like, electric instruments like Fender or Marshall amps are supposed to distort the sound. Rocket88 was recorded with a ripped speaker cone in the amp, for better fuzz (it has been alleged). Voice + acoustic guitar originals can be hard to get right, but have a really limited frequency range, only the mids. Usually I find if the following tests are right the voice sounds good too. I walked behind Allison Kraus talking to her bandmembers at Beanblossom festival one time, and her voice live sounds nothing like her stage voice.
For system test, I play piano recordings done with condensor mikes, ie no 1943 Rachmanoff recorded with ribbon mikes. RCA was using ribbon mikes until the mid-sixties on Horowitz, what a waste of talent. I know what a piano sounds like, I own a Steinway console. My hearing siill goes to 14 khz. I can hear a real Steinway grand at Ky Center for the Arts for calibration (grands have better bass than consoles). 99.99% of speaker systems can't sound like a Steinway grand. I like Rudolf Serkin 3 Beethoven Sonatas Appassionata in both LP & CD versions. Colombia. High & low notes should be heard solo, I used Peter Nero Young & Warm & Wonderful When I Fall in love for the solo Steinway high notes. Note other brands have different sound. Bosendorfer has thinner strings and more ping.
Telearc seems to make clean CD's but I only have orchestra ones, not solo piano. The trouble with orchestra recordings, each performance hall has it's own sound, plus the mike setup is an art.
There are other possible problems to test for. Tinkly bells and cymbals cause SSSSSHHH if there is any high freq intermodulation distortion. I was using Martin Denny Hawaii LP until it was stolen. Irreplaceable.
Bass drum can scoop up or down. I use ZZ Top Afterburner for the flat WHAP bass drum. Should not pitch slide up or down. I know what 30" bass drum sounds like too, I marched 3 m from a pair of them (in perfect sync) 10 Friday nights a year in Texas 1963-1968. I crashed a pair of Zildjan cymbals, and the band's two pairs of them sounded different even though they were the same diameter.
For system test, I play piano recordings done with condensor mikes, ie no 1943 Rachmanoff recorded with ribbon mikes. RCA was using ribbon mikes until the mid-sixties on Horowitz, what a waste of talent. I know what a piano sounds like, I own a Steinway console. My hearing siill goes to 14 khz. I can hear a real Steinway grand at Ky Center for the Arts for calibration (grands have better bass than consoles). 99.99% of speaker systems can't sound like a Steinway grand. I like Rudolf Serkin 3 Beethoven Sonatas Appassionata in both LP & CD versions. Colombia. High & low notes should be heard solo, I used Peter Nero Young & Warm & Wonderful When I Fall in love for the solo Steinway high notes. Note other brands have different sound. Bosendorfer has thinner strings and more ping.
Telearc seems to make clean CD's but I only have orchestra ones, not solo piano. The trouble with orchestra recordings, each performance hall has it's own sound, plus the mike setup is an art.
There are other possible problems to test for. Tinkly bells and cymbals cause SSSSSHHH if there is any high freq intermodulation distortion. I was using Martin Denny Hawaii LP until it was stolen. Irreplaceable.
Bass drum can scoop up or down. I use ZZ Top Afterburner for the flat WHAP bass drum. Should not pitch slide up or down. I know what 30" bass drum sounds like too, I marched 3 m from a pair of them (in perfect sync) 10 Friday nights a year in Texas 1963-1968. I crashed a pair of Zildjan cymbals, and the band's two pairs of them sounded different even though they were the same diameter.
Last edited:
Had a group of classical music fans and frequent concert-goers come here for a visit. One teaches piano, and another has a Steinway Baby Grand at home. They told me the system here makes the difference between a Bosendorfer and a Steinway audibly apparent on recordings. My custom AK4499 dac was the first oversampling dac they said they ever heard that could make different pianos distinguishable. Since their visit the system has been improved in multiple ways. It is possible to do, is the only point.
Part of getting a system to that point involves knowing selected reference recordings very well, as well as choosing sufficiently useful-for-the-purpose pieces of music.
Last edited:
I used Beothers in Arms , Fleetwood mac greatest hits 2 , Pat Metheny letter from home and Steely Dan Gaucho.
My turntable is virtually bang on with the CD.
I am going to add Andre Rieu to the list as I have a few youtube videos but nothing high quality.
My turntable is virtually bang on with the CD.
I am going to add Andre Rieu to the list as I have a few youtube videos but nothing high quality.
Last edited:
Thx Dave
I took the liberty of doing some cosmetics on your txt file in case anyone else is interested 😉
I took the liberty of doing some cosmetics on your txt file in case anyone else is interested 😉
Markw4,
Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me: even on NS10 anyone is able to distinguish between Tory Amos's and Keith Jarret's instruments... if not there is a SERIOUS flaw in the ears of listeners imo.
Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me: even on NS10 anyone is able to distinguish between Tory Amos's and Keith Jarret's instruments... if not there is a SERIOUS flaw in the ears of listeners imo.
After i posted, i thot, i never looked at that text file, i wonder if there is some iMuscic stuff buried in it..
dave
I 2/3 agree with you.
Agree: Main requirement is that you are very familiar with the song, so you can easily use it to judge FR and maybe some other things.
Also Agree: Perfectly mixed songs aren't good for testing speakers. Flawed mixes are better because they reveal flaws of speakers faster.
For example Paul Simon's vocals on Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes are just a HAIR sibilant. If you get unpleasant sibiliances on playback then you have excess energy in the ~2-4khz range. Most tracks on my list are like this (they have known flaws), except for the ones that I just happen to like.
Disagree: Your choice of test music determines your opinion of a speaker? I don't think so. If you are evaluating objectively and you have a suitable list of test songs, you should be able to cover the full performance envelope of any speaker, the genre doesn't matter as much as the sonic content.
I have classical, electronic, hip hop and rock on my list of test songs, because they cover many scenarios of playback quickly.
I used to work for a consumer audio company and went on sourcing trips, where I would need to demo various speakers and headphones in a few minutes each. Everything on this playlist has a specific reason for being there, but none are because they sound particularly nice. In fact most of the mixes are crap, but each has a specific feature that reveals the performance of the speaker quickly.
Realistically I would just play sweeps and PN if they would let me, (not always possible or appreciated, so music is needed) tells you even more than music.
Last edited:
its not a matter of distinguishing that a guitar is a guitar, if that's what you are thinking. Nor is it just about how a guitar is EQed to fit in with female versus male vocals. It goes much deeper than that. If you don't already know what I mean then maybe we can help if you tell us about your system, and how you listen.
His method may be better in that he gets a song that squawks on poor speakers oe systems at several different places in the audio band.
If his selections sound fairly good, the system is really good.
I am going to try a few of those on mine!
If his selections sound fairly good, the system is really good.
I am going to try a few of those on mine!
LoL.
How many time have you made direct comparison of said piano to their recordings? I mean something like changing the location of microphones on a Fazioli, Yamaha, Bowendorfer, Steinway, Pleyel or whatever and monitor the results to assess results?
This is the only real way to rely on (short term we should not even talk about long term) memory for comparison purpose.
Don't you know too that there is different way to locate a pair of mic around an instrument to favor a kind of rendering versus another and that change much more the way peoples think an istrument sound and how credible it sound to them than what youuse to playback on it?
Given we already had exchange were you told me you were doubtful about the quality of gear used to record the message you then playback to give your conclusion about gear i don't see the point to talk about what i use as only things you modified or your own bias ( about loudspeakers and converters) seems to have a kind of truth and this is the kind of gear i prefer.
For me it sound like a kind of show of status or the deepness of your pocket ( not that my dsp's initial rrp wasn't in that kind of thing - Dolby Lake dlp4d12- or my loudspeakers wasn't either as Flagship's of a Japanese big brands in early 90's).
Typical audiophile disease to me.
So yes teach me how to listen to things please... or better no thank you, i'm fed up with gurutism.
It's very personal, as you want to hear if your recording works well on the system (aka a subjective judgement).
If you want it objective, use measuremts, not listening sessions as they will be subjective by definition.
But test tracks i always use for that subjective listening (and know inside out):
"Don't you worry about a thing" from Stevie Wonder
"Shakara" from Fela Kuti & The African 70
And to test subs i use a UK dub classic called "Light Up Your Spliff" by the Bush Chemists, with bass that goes all the way down to 31Hz
If you want it objective, use measuremts, not listening sessions as they will be subjective by definition.
But test tracks i always use for that subjective listening (and know inside out):
"Don't you worry about a thing" from Stevie Wonder
"Shakara" from Fela Kuti & The African 70
And to test subs i use a UK dub classic called "Light Up Your Spliff" by the Bush Chemists, with bass that goes all the way down to 31Hz
The problem with reference reccordings is it is useless untill you heard them on a reference system before to be able to know how good are those reccordings and what you missed.
I find many acoustical instruments as well as the voices a challenge to reproduce well. As already said, small ensembles are very useful. Harmonicas, cellos, pianos, trompets, different size of saxophones, flutes, tablas, gamelan concerts, guitars.
The best is to work with reccordings you perfectly know and listen to in real life those non amped instruments.
Most of reccordings are good enough for tonals. Soundstage is another story But you can find many loudspeakers imaging well but having so-so tonal balance and bad harmonics and decay or texture problems. It can not be done without looking at in details what are the playback chain in your system and the quality of parts ime in the filter, cables included and of course amp.
I would cite Chesky reccords just for the discussion, but no needs to go there imho.
I find many acoustical instruments as well as the voices a challenge to reproduce well. As already said, small ensembles are very useful. Harmonicas, cellos, pianos, trompets, different size of saxophones, flutes, tablas, gamelan concerts, guitars.
The best is to work with reccordings you perfectly know and listen to in real life those non amped instruments.
Most of reccordings are good enough for tonals. Soundstage is another story But you can find many loudspeakers imaging well but having so-so tonal balance and bad harmonics and decay or texture problems. It can not be done without looking at in details what are the playback chain in your system and the quality of parts ime in the filter, cables included and of course amp.
I would cite Chesky reccords just for the discussion, but no needs to go there imho.