Critical (Best) Music Tracks for Speaker and Room EQ Testing

[Doodski]

Sure. But can quality of reproduction of these tracks be taken as an indication of quality of of one's room treatment, speakers (positioning, quality, etc.) and digital room correction?

Of course not but every little bit helps. To setup the room is one supposed to use inferior tracks? Of course not.

Otherwise I don't see the point and surely there are tons of greatly recorded material that don't need a scientific approach to shine.

It helps to use good source material to let one's system shine and not use poor recordings. It's that simple.

 

[Roland68]

Listened to the majority of tracks listed here. They all sound unequivocally great on my system.

What conclusions should I draw? That tracks that don't sound as great are simply worse recordings?

Honest question, I really do wonder what to make out of this.

These titles are often used to make comparisons, e.g. EQ settings for speakers, room, etc., devices, speakers and headphones among each other, etc.
Everyone who does something like this has their own reference titles and these often consist of well-recorded and well-mastered pieces of music that they know well and can assess.

 

[MediumRare]

Sure. But can quality of reproduction of these tracks be taken as an indication of quality of of one's room treatment, speakers (positioning, quality, etc.) and digital room correction?

Otherwise I don't see the point and surely there are tons of greatly recorded material that don't need a scientific approach to shine.

I think the point to remember is that we get used to our systems’ sound and accommodate to it. Sure, it sounds great. But the question is: objectively is it great? You can only answer that with measurements. You can get closer if you can compare it side-by-side with another system, but of course that’s impossible. You’d have to switch almost instantly.

Regarding challenging tracks, the question isn’t do you enjoy them, the question is when listening to the most challenging sections of those tracks, is a system falling short? Is the bass tight and deep? Balanced? Is the soundstage ideal? Do the highs get harsh? Do some notes get emphasized or deemphasized? That’s why good tracks are not necessarily the best for discriminating between systems. Some folks here have published Harman‘s research showing which tracks are better for discrimination between systems. They aren’t always the ones that seem the most “audiophile“.

 

[cavedriver]

It helps to use good source material to let one's system shine and not use poor recordings. It's that simple.

I'm not saying I have the answer to this, but I infer from the discussion on Harman's blind testing that all that matters is that the source material have 1) a wide range of frequency content, and 2) be familiar to the listener. I have not found where they said "be free from distortion" or other criteria related to the "quality" of the recording. Although for the recordings that they use for which I am aware of the quality of the recording they are all fairly well recorded pieces, I suspect that if you ask them the answer might be "distortion is distortion, as long as the source material is low enough in distortion for the listener to detect an increase in distortion and correctly judge the flatness of the frequency response across multiple frequencies, the rest of the "quality" doesn't matter". Note that complicated rock music ranks high on their list of genre's for usefulness, where there often may not be the best recording methods.

 

[MRC01]

... good tracks are not necessarily the best for discriminating between systems. Some folks here have published Harman‘s research showing which tracks are better for discrimination between systems. They aren’t always the ones that seem the most “audiophile“.

As an extreme example: when blind testing, test signals like square waves or jangling keys can sometimes enable listeners to identify differences that are otherwise inaudible when using music (even the highest quality recordings).

Since most of us don't listen to signals like that for enjoyment, one might wonder if it matters. That is, if a system has shortcomings that one can only hear with test signals but are masked by music, who cares? There are reasons one might care. One may be curious about what is audible or perceptible. One might have certain types of rare music that can make such differences audible, for example recordings of castanets or unusual percussion, etc.

 

[gorman]

I think the point to remember is that we get used to our systems’ sound and accommodate to it. Sure, it sounds great. But the question is: objectively is it great? You can only answer that with measurements

Sorry, I gave the above for granted. I have measured everything already.

Some folks here have published Harman‘s research showing which tracks are better for discrimination between systems. They aren’t always the ones that seem the most “audiophile“.

And those are exactly the ones I quoted and asked about. ;-)

 

[cavedriver]

Listened to the majority of tracks listed here. They all sound unequivocally great on my system.

What conclusions should I draw? That tracks that don't sound as great are simply worse recordings?

Honest question, I really do wonder what to make out of this.

Are people really using these tracks to comparing speakers in a listening session? Or worse, spread across >1 session?

Comparing speakers is fraught with issues at home -- look at what Harman had to do to make it work.

I went back and read these posts that sort of started this latest cycle. For me, the point I'm here for is to find the best speakers for my various rooms and interests, as in I don't already have a settled system that I'm simply looking to enjoy. To that end culling about ~30 tracks based on this thread, my own experience, researchers like Harman, and so on, is genuinely meant to check different speakers and make a crude attempt to discern their relative performance. I think probably the vast majority of the people on this site do this even when we know it's not reliable and not nearly as accurate as blind testing and side by side listening. It may be that it is simply a compromise because we can't easily force the opportunity to do the kind of testing that could tell us more.

 

[foolion]

I'd like to mention this...

 

[Von Nassau]

Regarding challenging tracks, the question isn’t do you enjoy them, the question is when listening to the most challenging sections of those tracks, is a system falling short? Is the bass tight and deep? Balanced? Is the soundstage ideal? Do the highs get harsh? Do some notes get emphasized or deemphasized? That’s why good tracks are not necessarily the best for discriminating between systems.

I really don't agree with this. If the recording is lousy it should sound lousy. If it's great it should sound great. If the recording have lot's of detail a good system should make you be able to hear them. If it's a lousy system you won't be able too.
I really don't think it's the audio systems job to make a bad recording sound great. The job of an audio system is to be true to the recording no matter what.

I have attended a lot of classical concerts in many different concert halls and among those concerts halls are one of the world's best whatever that is.
One of the beautiful things about attending live concerts is that the sound is so different depending on the concert hall. Especially things like soundstage and probably the most important for me is how the reverberation is. I really like a long reverberation (Leo's Janacek's Tara's Bulba with a lot of reverberation, oh so great).

So my audio system should be true to the recording (Lousy or great) and it should almost be possible to hear in which concert hall the music have been recorded, it should not be colored by the system.

When Danish Radio the official Danish broadcaster built their new concert halls I didn't like the sound there. It was simply to dampened and with way to little reverberation. They fixed it and it got better, but I still prefer the old concert hall they had. The sound there made the horns, trumpets yes whatever instrument that they played sound grander more open, and detailed. If a recording is great you can hear this and much more. But a great audio system should never color a lousy recording so it sound "better" imho.

In the end I just want to enjoy the recording with the intent the producer and artist had when they made the recording bad, or good (if it's bad I probably won't listen to it because I love all the small details you can hear especially in a great classical music recording).

 

[MediumRare]

I really don't agree with this. If the recording is lousy it should sound lousy. If it's great it should sound great. If the recording have lot's of detail a good system should make you be able to hear them. If it's a lousy system you won't be able too.
I really don't think it's the audio systems job to make a bad recording sound great. The job of an audio system is to be true to the recording no matter what.

I have attended a lot of classical concerts in many different concert halls and among those concerts halls are one of the world's best whatever that is.
One of the beautiful things about attending live concerts is that the sound is so different depending on the concert hall. Especially things like soundstage and probably the most important for me is how the reverberation is. I really like a long reverberation (Leo's Janacek's Tara's Bulba with a lot of reverberation, oh so great).

So my audio system should be true to the recording (Lousy or great) and it should almost be possible to hear in which concert hall the music have been recorded, it should not be colored by the system.

When Danish Radio the official Danish broadcaster built their new concert halls I didn't like the sound there. It was simply to dampened and with way to little reverberation. They fixed it and it got better, but I still prefer the old concert hall they had. The sound there made the horns, trumpets yes whatever instrument that they played sound grander more open, and detailed. If a recording is great you can hear this and much more. But a great audio system should never color a lousy recording so it sound "better" imho.

In the end I just want to enjoy the recording with the intent the producer and artist had when they made the recording bad, or good (if it's bad I probably won't listen to it because I love all the small details you can hear especially in a great classical music recording).

Welcome to ASR. The purpose of this thread is to consider tracks that help you find the weaknesses in a system so they can be fixed - or demonstrate strengths that other systems often don’t have. There is data to show some tracks are especially helpful at discriminating differences between systems. Is that clearer now?

 

[Sharkdrive]

Not only those 3 "Audiophile" certified recordings, some other notable examples:

Patricia Barber's Companion. Recorded @24/48, except for 1 track which was rec.16/44. Wonder if anyone listening critically could identify that particular track? Cafe Blue was also orig.16bit, along with Eva Cassidy's Live at Blues Alley; even more interesting since the dubs were transferred from 16bitDAT to "crappy" cassette to final mix.

Mind you, many would still have us believe that the mere act of transferring 'em to DSDxQuadJillion, then played back on a $100k dac, makes all those un-audiophile approved provenance issues magically disappear.

Jimmy Smith ( maybe the greatest B3 player of all time) had an album "Go For Watcha' know" with some tracks analog and others digital. It is worth searching out, for the sound quality is awesome, the musicianship outstanding and great song selection. The tune "she's Out of My Life" was my favorite track to check speakers when shopping.

 

[kolestonin]

This is my speaker testing tracks playlist:

Speaker testing tracks

Playlist - Speaker testing tracks - 94 items

tidal.com

 

[Titurel]

Virtually any modern recording of "Beim Schlafengehan" by Richard Strauss for soprano and orchestra (Vier Letze Lieder), can be used to assess speaker linearity from mid-range up and speaker tonal balance, overall. This is not a Telarc style stress test. The work is not bombastic, but it is a difficult challenge, nonetheless. A recording of this song was always on the top of my speaker audition list.

Both the soprano and the concert master display nearly the full compass (range) of their instruments. While no singer or instrumentalist's dynamic control is perfect, the writing in this piece is so devilish revealing that departures from perfect linearity by the singer and violinist should be obvious. The linearity of the speakers would be revealed by "wandering,"movement of the singer or violinist within the stage picture - movement front to back is response linearity whereas movement right to left is indicative of channel mismatch, which could be a product of room placement or speaker mismatch. Singers or string players will have little difficulty separating performer deviations from playback flaws.

Not necessarily my favorite, but the recording below is readily available and exhibits the sort of challenge I mentioned

 

[olds1959special]

Not a music track but, I use pink noise and an RTA app on my phone to set the level/crossover of my sub. Files available here:

Blue Sky » Blog Archive » Blue Sky Calibration Test Files

Professional Audio Monitoring Systems

abluesky.com

For listening tests I often pick Diana Krall.

 

[MarkS]

Per Harman research, pink noise is the most revealing signal for speaker listening tests.

 

[JRR]

Many of the tracks listed here repeatedly aren’t necessarily good at revealing weaknesses in my opinion. Rather, the likes of Chapman, Patricia barber, Clapton unplugged etc. were audiophile glitter image tracks and were popular at hifi exhibitions. The idea that these flattering “test tracks” could be “revealing” was a schtick played by the audio companies to make you think that the glitter image sound was an attribute of the system. Later an entire “audiophile” music production industry would emerge from these proclivities with labels like Stockfisch exhibiting artistically bankrupt artists such as Allan Taylor and Sarah K.

In my opinion there are no single test tracks that can reveal a speakers weaknesses. It requires listening across a gamut of titles. If anything a simple but honestly recorded piano sonata is probably the best bet but likely wont get anyone’s juices flowing for that exact same reason. It will be unflattering on most equipment and simply sound like a piano on very good equipment.

 

[GXAlan]

I just picked up both of these SACDs mentioned here. I haven’t had a chance to listen to them much, but they should be interesting recordings.

ƒRƒ“ƒv‚àƒŠƒ~ƒbƒ^[‚àŽg‚í‚È‚¢A“O’ꂵ‚½gŒ´‰¹ŽŠãŽå‹`hBuƒAƒ‹ƒeƒBƒƒCƒgEƒTƒEƒ“ƒhEƒVƒŠ[ƒYv‚̃}ƒXƒ^ƒŠƒ“ƒOŒ»ê‚ð–K‚Ë‚é - PHILE WEB

ƒRƒ“ƒv‚àƒŠƒ~ƒbƒ^[‚àŽg‚í‚È‚¢A“O’ꂵ‚½gŒ´‰¹ŽŠãŽå‹`hBuƒAƒ‹ƒeƒBƒƒCƒgEƒTƒEƒ“ƒhEƒVƒŠ[ƒYv‚̃}ƒXƒ^ƒŠƒ“ƒOŒ»ê‚ð–K‚Ë‚é

www-phileweb-com.translate.goog

It’s a new label that’s part of Sony Music that’s supposed to be mixed without any compressors or limiters.

The Phileweb article has a bit of audiophile aura by saying that the mixing is done with a custom speaker setup at the studio:

Upon entering the studio, you can see a simple speaker consisting of a 20cm diameter Fostex full-range speaker with a horn-type super tweeter. At first glance it looks like a normal 2-way configuration, but it is actually Ito's amazing back-loaded horn speaker integrated into the building. The horn is connected from the wooden cabinet to the floor, and is made of thick concrete, 4.3m long. It bends and crawls under the floor. The exit is on the floor.

But a different article about the company talks about the lead person's Genelec’s and Magico’s.

第7回 音楽プロデューサーレコーディングエンジニア武藤 敏樹　(Toshiki Muto）氏　 – 株式会社スタジオイクイプメント

www.studioequipment.co.jp

Looking at track 1 on disc 1 of this album, I get LRA of 22.8 LU which is pretty good! @pkane 's Deltawave complains of 16 samples of clipping. This may be due to the DSD to PCM conversion algorithms as my understanding is that it's possible to have "all 1's" for your DSD recordings and not clip?

I tested Track 4 from and the LRA 18.5 LU, although the true peak seems higher for a lower integrated integrated LUFS, so it seems like it should have a bigger dynamic range. Part of it may be that LUFS/LU is psychoacoustic so the high dynamic range in the taiko drums may translate into a lower LU for the LRA. Deltawave complains about 3781 samples of clipping.

Taking this track, running it through TASCAM's DSD to PCM software and then running the same test on the WAV gets me a much lower LRA? It looks like there is a lead-in when converting in the TASCAM software (look at the 0 sec mark).

In terms of the music, my initial impression of the Taiko album is that the bass impacts don’t hit that hard. I suspect it’s the lack of compression which means I have to turn up the volume more. I have my subs crossed over at 50 Hz and I don’t see a lot of signal going to the subs.

In terms of the jazz SACD, it’s well recorded although it’s hard to know if it’s any different from a standard audiophile recording. It’s a clean recording but I could say that about a lot of recordings.

I am not sure how good the LRA values are compared to other high dynamic range recordings.

 

[dualazmak]

Many of the tracks listed here repeatedly aren’t necessarily good at revealing weaknesses in my opinion. Rather, the likes of Chapman, Patricia barber, Clapton unplugged etc. were audiophile glitter image tracks and were popular at hifi exhibitions. The idea that these flattering “test tracks” could be “revealing” was a schtick played by the audio companies to make you think that the glitter image sound was an attribute of the system. Later an entire “audiophile” music production industry would emerge from these proclivities with labels like Stockfisch exhibiting artistically bankrupt artists such as Allan Taylor and Sarah K.

In my opinion there are no single test tracks that can reveal a speakers weaknesses. It requires listening across a gamut of titles. If anything a simple but honestly recorded piano sonata is probably the best bet but likely wont get anyone’s juices flowing for that exact same reason. It will be unflattering on most equipment and simply sound like a piano on very good equipment.

I essentially agree with you.

By the way, have you visited my post #205 and the links thereof? I also have my independent thread on such consistent "Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist" for your reference and interest.

My consistent "Playlist" consists of 60 tracks of excellent-recording-quality music selected from various genres, and all the reference tracks have been analyzed by ADOBE Audition's 3D Time(X-axis)-Fq(Y-axis)-Gain(color) representation and shared.

In case if you would like to listen-to and utilize intact tracks of my such "Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist" (full track list here), please simply PM contact me writing your wish.

 

[cavedriver]

Many of the tracks listed here repeatedly aren’t necessarily good at revealing weaknesses in my opinion. Rather, the likes of Chapman, Patricia barber, Clapton unplugged etc. were audiophile glitter image tracks and were popular at hifi exhibitions. The idea that these flattering “test tracks” could be “revealing” was a schtick played by the audio companies to make you think that the glitter image sound was an attribute of the system. Later an entire “audiophile” music production industry would emerge from these proclivities with labels like Stockfisch exhibiting artistically bankrupt artists such as Allan Taylor and Sarah K.

In my opinion there are no single test tracks that can reveal a speakers weaknesses. It requires listening across a gamut of titles. If anything a simple but honestly recorded piano sonata is probably the best bet but likely wont get anyone’s juices flowing for that exact same reason. It will be unflattering on most equipment and simply sound like a piano on very good equipment.

unfortunately this does not bear up under the testing done at Harmann and documented extensively on this site (see post #1, this thread ). Generally complicated tracks with significant content at a wide range of frequencies seems to be the fastest way to evaluate speakers (when limiting the choice to actual music and not pink noise as recently mentioned). Based on blind listener testing it was shown that these more complicated samples were the best. I think that the Chapman track ranked highly in that testing although I've heard other similarly complicated tracks as among the favorites of people that evaluate speakers for a living. Surely no one track is going to do it all of course, but with these more complicated tracks I've seen people use <5 tracks to get to a pretty astute assessment of a given speaker, and maybe only branching into other tracks if they want to confirm a particular suspicion or potential weakness (or strength) of a speaker. But maybe even more than the tracks, you need a controlled environment, especially a way to A/B the speakers with a reference since the sound memory time is apparently short (as in minutes).

 

[krabapple]

unfortunately this does not bear up under the testing done at Harmann and documented extensively on this site (see post #1, this thread ). Generally complicated tracks with significant content at a wide range of frequencies seems to be the fastest way to evaluate speakers (when limiting the choice to actual music and not pink noise as recently mentioned). Based on blind listener testing it was shown that these more complicated samples were the best.

I doubt 'complicated' was a criterion at all.

· Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car", Tracy Chapman
· Jennifer Warnes, "Bird on a Wire", Famous Blue Rain Coat
· James Taylor "That's Why I'm Here", “That’s Why I’m Here”
· Steely Dan “Cousin Dupree”, “ Two Against Nature”
· Paula Cole, “Tiger”,” This Fire”
· “Toy Soldier March”, Reference Recording

These are not 'complicated' works of music by any standard definition.