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

[GK.]

I don't find synthetic/electronic bass very useful for testing because you don't know what the timbre is supposed to sound like.

Being genuinely baffled over the inclusion of those Paula Cole tracks I was thinking the same. That synth bass is utterly excremental and about as musical as my arse about five hours after a breakfast of baked beans and fried onions. It would sound like shite no matter what it is played on.

IMO, this kind of lazy synth bass is borderline retarded. To me it sounds like Timmy Burch from South Park in the background going "ddddeeeerrrrrrrr........ ddddoooooooorrrrhrrhhhhhh...... deeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........ ddddddrrrrrrrroooooooohhhhhhhh.........." into a microphone through a sock. Unfortunately, this crap is pretty much normalized nowadays. You can hear it damn near everywhere. One of the reasons why I'd rather neuter myself than go clubbing.



Now here is some bass. If your speakers can play this loud without distress then you're doing OK:

 

[MRC01]

... That synth bass is utterly excremental and about as musical as my arse about five hours after a breakfast of baked beans and fried onions. It would sound like shite no matter what it is played on.

Along those lines, here's a great album to test bass response: two guys (Meyer & McBride) playing bass violins together. On a system having clean bass response, you can hear that each instrument has a different timbre and differentiate them. One is tighter and edgier, the other is fatter and more resonant. This was mentioned about a year ago in a Jazz thread:

Jazz ♫ Music only | In the now, or recently, or that you love...

Check out Monty Strikes Again by Monty Alexander on Amazon Music https://music.amazon.fr/albums/B00L4400LA?ref=dm_sh_mMGkNLhwuIKrCQ2eSqC7lsnIO

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Serruptic]

yesterday we had a very close thunder here (one or 2 seconds after lightning). I imidietly thought to myself "If only I could have recorded that with my Dayton mic". the following thunder was already far away.
Imo a thunder is perfect since we perfectly know how it should sound. So I went and looked for some files. This is a very nice I found (4.0): https://freesound.org/people/BlueDelta/sounds/446753/

Definitely one of the more recognizable sounds On that note, an artist I like N'to, released an EP with a couple of great EDM tracks and the 4th song is a 4 minute long recording of a thunderstorm rolling in. I thought it was a pretty solid recording, or at least an interesting listen.

 

[gorman]

I have to say that I am left a little perplexed by many messages here. Are people objecting to the methods illustrated in Olive's paper? Because it sure sounds like that and, if that was the case, I'd expect more substantial and documented criticism than "bass sounds like shite in that track".

 

[GK.]

Are people objecting to the methods illustrated in Olive's paper?

My expectations for the test tracks were quite lofty, given the thread title. I'm sure that the entire discography of humanity could deliver at least a couple of technically viable and musically superior substitutes for at least one or two of those cited tracks.

 

[gorman]

My expectations for the test tracks were quite lofty, given the thread title. I'm sure that the entire discography of humanity could deliver at least a couple of technically viable and musically superior substitutes for at least one or two of those cited tracks...

Does it say anywhere that those are the only tracks useful *for the stated purpose*? I don't think so.

 

[GK.]

Does it say anywhere that those are the only tracks useful *for the stated purpose*? I don't think so.

You're the one inferring that a musical critique of the selection is an objection "to the methods illustrated in Olive's paper".

 

[gorman]

You're the one inferring that a musical critique of the selection is an objection "to the methods illustrated in Olive's paper".

And yet...

It would sound like shite no matter what it is played on.

There is this. That, to me, seems to clearly offer that the track choice invalidates the methodology.
But enough back and forth. I made my point, you made yours and probably will further in reply. I'm done.

 

[Titurel]

Does it say anywhere that those are the only tracks useful *for the stated purpose*? I don't think so.

No, but there is strong implication (an appeal to authority, if you will) that tracks of the type and genre mentioned define (or limit) the domain of tracks useful for the stated purpose.

 

[Fidji]

Being genuinely baffled over the inclusion of those Paula Cole tracks I was thinking the same. That synth bass is utterly excremental and about as musical as my arse about five hours after a breakfast of baked beans and fried onions. It would sound like shite no matter what it is played on.

IMO, this kind of lazy synth bass is borderline retarded. To me it sounds like Timmy Burch from South Park in the background going "ddddeeeerrrrrrrr........ ddddoooooooorrrrhrrhhhhhh...... deeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........ ddddddrrrrrrrroooooooohhhhhhhh.........." into a microphone through a sock. Unfortunately, this crap is pretty much normalized nowadays. You can hear it damn near everywhere. One of the reasons why I'd rather neuter myself than go clubbing.



Now here is some bass. If your speakers can play this loud without distress then you're doing OK:

this type of simple and not very demanding music in terms of bass does not go very low, more of an audiophile jazzy midbass heavy. Anything with decent 8in woofer should do OK with this type of music.

For the purpose of testing the <100Hz there synthetic bass is actually better, as it reveals room and timing problems much better, if you know what to listen to. Or the other option is to go all-in and smash some really complex symphonical music, ideally with pipe organ, e.g. Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony. Much more complex and revealing, than all those double basses plucking.