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

[CDMC]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Mickey Heart Temple Caves. A huge (10 foot plus) drum in the low 30hz range.

 

[dasdoing]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Mickey Heart Temple Caves. A huge (10 foot plus) drum in the low 30hz range.

nice one, must be the deepest natural sound there is. I searched for pipe organs producing audible sound in that range but it all seams to be a big myth (the frequencies are there anywhere, but only overtones audible)

 

[HooStat]

I tend to use Lyle Lovett's "Road to Ensenada" for two reasons. There are some vocal inflections and imperfections that I like to see if I can hear. And he uses what I think are bass pedals and hits a series of low notes of different frequencies. If you can get all of the bass pedal notes to sound the same in terms of volume, then your bass is dialed in properly (I have yet to succeed at this).

 

[win]

If you want an excursion into absurd amounts of dynamic range, check out Mahlers 1st symphony, movement 3 (funeral March).

it begins with a solo double bass playing frere Jacques, and it is wayyyyy too quiet. You can typically hear the player breathing louder than the instrument plays.

If you have qobuz: https://open.qobuz.com/track/63451395

 

[Sal1950]

nice one, must be the deepest natural sound there is. I searched for pipe organs producing audible sound in that range but it all seams to be a big myth (the frequencies are there anywhere, but only overtones audible)

I'm not sure how deep they really go but pick yourself up a copy of Michael Murray - An Organ Blaster Sampler. Recorded digitally by Telarc and released in 1991 from various big pipes around the country. Again I don't know what the deepest notes are but they've really gotten the drivers pumping on both my sets of HSU subwoofers over the years.
Also the very early Telarc, Michael Murray - The Great Organ at Methuen - Bach
This organ has 2 32 foot pipes I believe and should offer a fundamental of 16hz.
If you got a VERY good sub you may want to put a towel under your a-ss if you play it very loud. LOL

 

[dasdoing]

I'm not sure how deep they really go but pick yourself up a copy of Michael Murray - An Organ Blaster Sampler. Recorded digitally by Telarc and released in 1991 from various big pipes around the country. Again I don't know what the deepest notes are but they've really gotten the drivers pumping on both my sets of HSU subwoofers over the years.
Also the very early Telarc, Michael Murray - The Great Organ at Methuen - Bach
This organ has 2 32 foot pipes I believe and should offer a fundamental of 16hz.
If you got a VERY good sub you may want to put a towel under your a-ss if you play it very loud. LOL

this guy made this video especificly to show 32 foot pipe. The deep frequencies are there, but below the G the overtones are much louder. I checked this with a spectrum analyser and the G curiously has the most output below 30Hz. personaly, when I hear more overtones then the base frequency the note sound like the loudest frequency. The G actualy has no clear frequency peak to identify it's "dominant tone". It sure has a lot of energy.
So my point is, that the pipe-organ has no clear bass notes below 70Hz-ish (it's more of a "rumble"), very contrary to that huge drum that our friend posted above

 

[Asinus]

Harman posted recently Tidal and Spotify playlists with the reference tracks they use:

https://artoflistening.harman.com/professional-reference-songs

 

[Bob from Florida]

Here is a favorite of mine for system evaluation. Lots of detail and tight bass plus dynamics. I have it on LP - don't know how the CD version compares.

 

[Pavano]

Harman posted recently Tidal and Spotify playlists with the reference tracks they use:

https://artoflistening.harman.com/professional-reference-songs

including Hurt by Cash, this digital distortion nightmare…

 

[echopraxia]

Has the Harman test track list not been made into a Tidal playlist yet? Just curious, otherwise hopefully I can pick out the right versions of each song manually.

I‘m interested in the Harman songs solely because standardization in a sense is the only way we can compare tests from multiple people on the internet and be able to reasonably compare notes.

The truth is that probably every single one of us here can point out a few fantastic test songs that are unique. But unique is the problem: it makes comparing different tests almost impossible if they share no test tracks.

I do think of course everyone should test their own songs when comparing speakers to buy. I’m speaking purely in terms of listening tests (blind or sighted) done as a review that's posted online.

 

[dasdoing]

Has the Harman test track list not been made into a Tidal playlist yet? Just curious, otherwise hopefully I can pick out the right versions of each song manually.

I‘m interested in the Harman songs solely because standardization in a sense is the only way we can compare tests from multiple people on the internet and be able to reasonably compare notes.

The truth is that probably every single one of us here can point out a few fantastic test songs that are unique. But unique is the problem: it makes comparing different tests almost impossible if they share no test tracks.

I do think of course everyone should test their own songs when comparing speakers to buy. I’m speaking purely in terms of listening tests (blind or sighted) done as a review that's posted online.

their list is very limited, though. it's basicly "easy listening"/"elevator music" only. there should be all types of music.

 

[echopraxia]

their list is very limited, though. it's basicly "easy listening" only. there should be all types of music.

I have no particular disagreement here. I’m just saying that we do need standardize for at least some tracks, one way or another, if blind tests are to remain comparable to one another. And for those tracks we standardize, it makes sense for them to be somewhat easy to listen to.

 

[dasdoing]

I have no particular disagreement here. I’m just saying that we do need standardize for at least some tracks, one way or another, if blind tests are to remain comparable to one another. And for those tracks we standardize, it makes sense for them to be somewhat easy to listen to.

I totaly understand you point. But the consequence is that you create an "expert bias". you wont find a "hip-hop expert" in the team for example.
one possible solution would be to have "special expert teams". you wont need a team for every genre. you could have "bass-heavie-music", "distorded guitars", "world music" and so on

 

[mhardy6647]

It's a pretty banal collection of audiophile "music" recordings.

 

[massimo1974]

It's a pretty banal collection of audiophile "music" recordings.

Please don’t count Johnny Cash in

 

[Harmonie]

this guy made this video especificly to show 32 foot pipe. The deep frequencies are there, but below the G the overtones are much louder. I checked this with a spectrum analyser and the G curiously has the most output below 30Hz. personaly, when I hear more overtones then the base frequency the note sound like the loudest frequency. The G actualy has no clear frequency peak to identify it's "dominant tone". It sure has a lot of energy.
So my point is, that the pipe-organ has no clear bass notes below 70Hz-ish (it's more of a "rumble"), very contrary to that huge drum that our friend posted above

Try this CD first 2 tracks Pictures At An Exhibition on organ Guillou
https://www.discogs.com/Mussorgsky-...-Three-Dances-From-Petrouchka/release/7871264

Recorded earlier (1989) and goes well beyond 30Hz >> in the 16 to 20Hz region ...
I can't hear the first notes ...

 

[mhardy6647]

Please don’t count Johnny Cash in

Good point indeed, and no, I sure don't!
I think my use of the (admittedly rather idiomatic) adjective pretty gets me off the hook for thowing The Man in Black under the banal bus!

 

[Asinus]

I have to admit none on the tracks on Harman's list will incite ASMR, but to be fair they do mention that each helps to discover flaws faster rather than having them for being particularly enjoyable. There is a note that "Fast car" helps to catch IMD and "I can see clearly now" is used to test buzz and rattle. If only they had explained the rationale behind each track.

If I want to know how good is a system, from an entirely subjective point of view I find AIX Records tracks enjoyable and I'd say technically flawless, Mark Waldrep knows his stuff. Jim the Julio Jazz Quintet's "Lifestyle" has one of the most realistic recordings of a trumpet I have ever heard; The Latin Jazz Trio "Mujaka" is my go-to to check treble. Zephyr Voices Unbound "It was a Lover and his Lass" will let you know if a house curve is making vocals "sparkle". John McEuen and Jimmy Ibbotson's "Acoustic Traveler" captures every little detail on the strings being plucked.

Christian Thielman's Carmina Burana "Tanz" in 5.1 is a pretty good "boink" test for a subwoofer, while Kunzel's (2001) 5.1 recording of 1812 Overture will test your system handling of dynamic range.

 

[dasdoing]

I have to admit none on the tracks on Harman's list will incite ASMR, but to be fair they do mention that each helps to discover flaws faster rather than having them for being particularly enjoyable. There is a note that "Fast car" helps to catch IMD and "I can see clearly now" is used to test buzz and rattle. If only they had explained the rationale behind each track.

Well, isn't the reason for Harman listening tests to discover what subjectively sounds good? IMD, buzz and rattle and so far will apear on meassurements

 

[Asinus]

Well, isn't the reason for Harman listening tests to discover what subjectively sounds good? IMD, buzz and rattle and so far will apear on meassurements

As I understand the reason is to find out which speakers are preferred regardless of the content as opposed to find something to make a speaker shine. The aim is to find contrast between the speakers in blind tests so the subjects can decide what they prefer consistently and efficiently (that is, spending the least amount of time possible switching between DUTs).

For instance a short clip of "Bird on a wire" is also used in the "How to listen" app to train your ear, and in those 30 seconds or so you have sounds covering basically the whole spectrum but at different time instants, so when a freq. band has some gain/attenuation either digitally or physically-induced it is easier to tell the difference when switching back and forth between scenarios. If you get a chance give the app a try with that track and other of your preference and chances are you can breeze through the 3-band tests with any song, but at 5 or 7 bands things get trickier to nail consistently unless your track has similar characteristics.

I cannot tell for sure but all engineers have met a problem that the regular testing and measurements didn't catch until certain conditions are met, and then you have to incorporate those into your tests so I think there is a bit of that going in this list.