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

[MRC01]

Spotify in my area is 320kbit/s, soon to be Red Book quality. Are you sure you can hear the difference? In any case, I'd like to hear the CD before I decide buy it.

Yes. I've DBTed and can hear the difference, with appropriate source material. That's not so surprising, I'm not the only one who can. It's not a big difference, but it can be heard.

 

[dualazmak]

It might be helpful if people put together a public playlist in YouTube (or other service), and shared them here. Then anyone who wanted to use it, could look up the lossless tracks they care about, on their service of choice (i.e. Apple Music).

Yes, I tried my best doing this (YouTube links) in my efforts in building the playlist shared in my post #205 and as summarized here on my project thread. Furthermore, I always included 3D color spectrum (time-Fq_distribution-gain) for each of the music tracks of my playlist giving some objective insights/perspectives on the music tracks.
I wrote there;
I believe this "post series" is the very first attempt within ASR Forum sharing "excellent audio sampler music tracks" in systematic manner having the "spectrum" of the intact track being analyzed.

 

[dasdoing]

World Saxophone Quartet - "the holy men" is a very critical track for instrument positioning. you have 4 saxes all panned into their own space.

I just listened to this on an old laptop and it sounds like pure chaos. it really depends on a good stereo stage to sound like music

 

[cavedriver]

Even though I appreciate each of your single track or single album suggestions for "Critical (Best) Music Tracks for Speaker and Room EQ Testing", now I feel amirm or any of you all on this thread would be better to start new thread entitled for example "Critical (Best) Music Track Playlist for Speaker and Room EQ Testing".

As MRC01 kindly and clearly indicated in his post #255, and as I agreed him in my post #258, we "need different musical sources" which would serve as reference for our audio system and room acoustics; no single music track could work for this.

I believe we need suitable "playlist" for subjective and objective check and tuning of our audio system and room acoustics, and such "playlist" would better to be built under persistent/consistent concept and/or policy.

I interpret the purpose of this thread to find new tracks that presumably one might want to add to their speaker testing playlist. Of course people are welcome to share their whole playlist but someone in Amir's position (or most uf us) that have their own lists already, the key point is finding and evaluating which tracks make the best contribution to their playlists. In short, we're looking at the tracks individually, the playlist is implicit. Now if we, as evaluatings, wanted to work collectively to build a shared speaker tester playlist, I think that would be a noble effort that certainly deserves its own thread.

To that end, I have found one list on Spotify that's decent but Spotify is only 320 kbs/16 bit so not really a reference place for sharing playlists. Likewise youtube as well- accessible by everyone and not high enough quality playback (I don't know how good youtube premium is), but useful if the point is just to give everyone access. The problem of course with youtube is that content is not permanent as artists and record companies constantly have youtube pull down content for copyright violations or whatever. I've tried building lists in there and it's a headache as you have to go and periodically update links to whoever currently has the piece of music shared. There was an amazing early Leonard Cohen live recording on there for a while but it's been pulled down again and thankfully I thought to rip a copy before it disappeared (not audiophile, just great Cohen stuff). There's a trend for current artists to make their music semi-permanently available on youtube by self-publishing but that doesn't work for dead artists and bootlegs.

 

[MediumRare]

I interpret the purpose of this thread to find new tracks that presumably one might want to add to their speaker testing playlist. Of course people are welcome to share their whole playlist but someone in Amir's position (or most uf us) that have their own lists already, the key point is finding and evaluating which tracks make the best contribution to their playlists. In short, we're looking at the tracks individually, the playlist is implicit. Now if we, as evaluatings, wanted to work collectively to build a shared speaker tester playlist, I think that would be a noble effort that certainly deserves its own thread.

To that end, I have found one list on Spotify that's decent but Spotify is only 320 kbs/16 bit so not really a reference place for sharing playlists. Likewise youtube as well- accessible by everyone and not high enough quality playback (I don't know how good youtube premium is), but useful if the point is just to give everyone access. The problem of course with youtube is that content is not permanent as artists and record companies constantly have youtube pull down content for copyright violations or whatever. I've tried building lists in there and it's a headache as you have to go and periodically update links to whoever currently has the piece of music shared. There was an amazing early Leonard Cohen live recording on there for a while but it's been pulled down again and thankfully I thought to rip a copy before it disappeared (not audiophile, just great Cohen stuff). There's a trend for current artists to make their music semi-permanently available on youtube by self-publishing but that doesn't work for dead artists and bootlegs.

I have a Spotify list which I would be happy to share with anyone who DMs me. At 320k bps my opinion is Spotify is adequate to compare speakers for large and even moderate differences. Probably most audio stores are so noisy and poorly set up it will be an excellent tool to decide what to bring home for a final evaluation. For really critical listening for HF transients Red Book is needed; that’s coming to Spotify soon. Certainly, if folks like the tracks they can find higher res versions from other sources.

 

[dualazmak]

The problem of course with youtube is that content is not permanent as artists and record companies constantly have youtube pull down content for copyright violations or whatever.

Yes, I essentially agree with you.

This is one of the main reasons for my hesitation for having/making "my own YouTube playlist" consists of intact tracks of the reference/sampler music tracks I summarized here and here; even though I have tried my best efforts attaching links to existing/alive YouTube clip(s) of the tracks in my specific post series.

Furthermore, I do not know and cannot guarantee the sound quality (format, codec, bit rate, etc.) of the existing YouTube clips; I always attached, therefore, caution/reminder notice on top of each post in my specific post series;
Caution and Reminder:
Even though I refer to YouTube video/audio clip(s) in this post, I cannot guarantee its sound quality since I know little about YouTube's audio codec/compression, and furthermore I know nothing about your internet access environments.

My basic stance and policy in the specific post series is/was that people would find/purchase the intact music tracks by themselves if he/she would be seriously interested in my suggested music tracks. I assume this point would be the same in amirm's very first post on this thread.

(Of course, I have other options of "intact music track sharing" if people would personally contact with me by PM, and I actually did it many times since some of the music tracks I suggested are no more commercially available nor downloadable.)

 

[_thelaughingman]

A classical flute and orchestra composition.

 

[MikeFromNorway]

Anyone on Tidal? A good plattform for a collective playlist?! Both CD q and higher for those that worship 24 bit masters…

 

[pablolie]

Like others here, I find that listening to stuff outside of my own environment is all in all not very useful - it'll make me establish mostly whether I *don't* like something, but that may be for many reasons. In my listening room, I can listen to my established reference first, then I can make a controlled switch and check. I use none of the tracks listed earlier - sure Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car" is a cool song, but I am not sure I care enough about it to listen to it again and again to see if I can establish minute differences (which to me is a very un-enjoyable exercise to begin with these days) - and in my experience, very small differences is all that really exists between competently designed and set-up gear. Last time I obsessed about it was trying to hear differences between a Benchmark AHB2 and a NAD M22, it was silly - just toss a coin.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

I just listened to this on an old laptop and it sounds like pure chaos. it really depends on a good stereo stage to sound like music

Sounds good here.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

DR doesn't really acuratly tell how dynamic a song is. it could have a lot of quiet passages but have loud parts crushed to hell and would have a good reading.
this is real dynamics to me

Yuk for the music … so square and just weird and simplistic use of quiet and loud. Oh well. But then again I like Yello. Oh Yeah-remastered. Different strokes.

 

[dasdoing]

Yuk for the music … so square and just weird and simplistic use of quiet and loud. Oh well. But then again I like Yello. Oh Yeah-remastered. Different strokes.

I agree it's too dynamic....kind of anoying. but a great test for system headroom. can't play this loudly and/or distorsion free on a weak system lol

 

[pablolie]

Unless you listen to music you love, you'll never care enough to really hear what matters to you. I absolutely never get it when people slavishly use the old audiophile cliche songs they actually don't really like. Or the "audiophile test CDs" that contain utterly sterile albeit well recorded performances: I have a Sheffield Labs that is very useful for setting up stuff with basic test tones, but the music tracks are yuck.
I use music *I* love and which *I* believe is well recorded and hence really allows me to immerse myself in it. A fav is Kevin Mahogany's "Never can say goodbye" from the "Pride and Joy" album - amazing voice, acoustic jazz ensemble, and percussion and piano solos that blow *my* mind. And a great recording to boot. And on the other end of the scale I like to use Karl Munchinger's recording of the Canon, analog hiss be d*mned. The build-up is amazing and your system will work *hard*. (PS: Both as FLAC)

 

[Gringoaudio1]

I agree it's too dynamic....kind of anoying. but a great test for system headroom. can't play this loudly and/or distorsion free on a weak system lol

Another few albums that put weak systems to shame are several tracks on Cat Power’s ‘Sun’ album. She produced it herself and I just don’t think she knows what she’s doing in that area. Way too much energy down low for no good reason artistically. Bizarre. And pretty much anything by T-Bone Burnett. Again too much energy where it’s just not important. Kills weak systems for no artistic benefit.

 

[GXAlan]

I agree it's too dynamic....kind of anoying. but a great test for system headroom. can't play this loudly and/or distorsion free on a weak system lol

Flim and BB's is fun -- you should try Funhouse on their other album Big Notes. This was actually a demo disc used by Bose in the days of the "dark room" showcase. It's classic 80's audiophile jazz imho and recorded at 50 kHz if I recall. The SACD release is somewhat of a unicorn. I recall picking up the Big Notes CD at Target in the 80's!

 

[A Cute Earring]

One “test track” I like is Soul Bossa Nova by Quincy Jones, on the Big Band Bossa Nova album. Id be curious to hear if others find the imaging/soundstage effect to be big and satisfying.

 

[Deleted member 58722]

Access Denied - Asian Dub Foundation. If your speakers can handle this at volume, then they're ok.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

I post the list of tracks Harman uses after literally decades of research to detect fidelity of speakers and room Auto Equalizers in another thread but thought it deserves its own thread. I have had the fortunate luck of sitting through a couple of their blind tests and can attest to the efficacy of the tracks used:

---------

AES Paper, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt, and Sean M. Hess

JW - Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire”
TC - Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car”
JW - James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here”


AES Paper, A New Listener Training Software Application
Sean Olive, AES Fellow
Harman International Industries

· 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
· Pink Noise (uncorrelated)


AES Paper, Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow

James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here” from “That’s Why I’m Here,” Sony Records.
Little Feat, “Hangin’ on to the Good Times” from “Let It Roll,” Warner Brothers.
Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car” from “Tracy Chapman,” Elektra/Asylum Records.
Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire” from “Famous Blue Rain Coat,” Attic Records.

And this from a 1992 research at NRC on genre of music and its revealing nature in this regard:

A bit about the science, the suitability of track is a matter of statistics. Colorations in speakers are only revealing if there is significant content/energy in that part of hearing spectrum. Rock music tends to have such rich spectrum. Classical music as a general rule does not. Hence the domination of rock/pop music in the top most critical list.

In both this space and audio compression with which I am intimately familiar with, high fidelity of the music recording is not an aid and if anything a distraction. A "pretty" sounding track sounds pretty on many systems because we are drawn to it by its good substance. Critical test clips on the other hand tend to be uninteresting and force you to pay attention to the task which is to analyze equipment with your ear.

I am probably a very lonesome voice, and I don't know the AES paper, so I don't know their argumentation and I have only heard the first song by Jennifer Warnes.
The song is very well recorded, produced and mixed. The voice is perfect and the drums have wonderful transients, the mids and lower mids are just stunningly warm and wide. without eating away the stereo width.
But that's also the problem I have with "reference tracks": good mixes will sound good in comparison on any system.

IME much more useful for testing purposes are mixes that show characteristics, that are on the edge (reference tracks for the production process fullfill a very different purpose and it is necessary to reference the best available mixes that are matching the needed criteria.

For example, instead of the warm saturated voice, a mix with a sharp and thin voice, that is on the edge on a good system, but falls over the cliff on a system with a weak midrange, or hyped treble, is much more suited to judge the upper midrange.
A bright mix with bright cymbals, that is on the edge, but on a slightly too bright system sounds too thin, is much more suited to judge the balance of the highs.

Or lets take the drums: the toms in that mix will sound great on any system in comparison to other mixes on the same setup. Also much better suited to judge a setup, would be a mix with not so punchy toms with clean transients, so that the toms tend to become buried, if the setup is too muddy.


Yamaha NS-10 are not used, because they sound good. But because they hype the upper midrange and the mud region. A mix sounding good on them, will tend to have a well controlled upper midrange and a well controlled mud region.
A too bright reference mix that does not hurt the ears, and a too dull mix, that does not sound too dull, IMO would be more useful to make judgements, than a perfect mix.
My 2 ct.

 

[GGroch]

But that's also the problem I have with "reference tracks": good mixes will sound good in comparison on any system.

IME much more useful for testing purposes are mixes that show characteristics, that are on the edge (reference tracks for the production process fullfill a very different purpose and it is necessary to reference the best available mixes that are matching the needed criteria.

For example, instead of the warm saturated voice, a mix with a sharp and thin voice, that is on the edge on a good system, but falls over the cliff on a system with a weak midrange, or hyped treble, is much more suited to judge the upper midrange.

You make a great point. During the 80s-90s I sold Hi-Fi equipment and many of the referenced Harman tracks were on my sales play list exactly because they sounded great on almost anything. Certainly if you took the time to A/B products and point them out, accuracy differences can be heard on these tracks. But to the untrained ear in an unfamiliar room, they all sound great.

If I was trying to hear more critical speaker differences I would do as you suggest, and pick tracks I was familiar with but were on the edge of fidelity. I liked comparing speakers with the Fleetwood Mac cuts "Woman of a Thousand Years" and "Future Games" (on the Future Games Album) because they are so midrange centric and layered. On those cuts I can easily identify speakers with crossover and resolution issues at the frequencies most important to me. On poorly designed speakers these cuts usually sound horrible.

I wonder if the sales branch of Harman had any say in their list of recommended reference tracks.

 

[cavedriver]

I post the list of tracks Harman uses after literally decades of research to detect fidelity of speakers and room Auto Equalizers in another thread but thought it deserves its own thread. I have had the fortunate luck of sitting through a couple of their blind tests and can attest to the efficacy of the tracks used:

---------

AES Paper, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt, and Sean M. Hess

JW - Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire”
TC - Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car”
JW - James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here”


AES Paper, A New Listener Training Software Application
Sean Olive, AES Fellow
Harman International Industries

· 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
· Pink Noise (uncorrelated)


AES Paper, Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow

James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here” from “That’s Why I’m Here,” Sony Records.
Little Feat, “Hangin’ on to the Good Times” from “Let It Roll,” Warner Brothers.
Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car” from “Tracy Chapman,” Elektra/Asylum Records.
Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire” from “Famous Blue Rain Coat,” Attic Records.

And this from a 1992 research at NRC on genre of music and its revealing nature in this regard:

A bit about the science, the suitability of track is a matter of statistics. Colorations in speakers are only revealing if there is significant content/energy in that part of hearing spectrum. Rock music tends to have such rich spectrum. Classical music as a general rule does not. Hence the domination of rock/pop music in the top most critical list.

In both this space and audio compression with which I am intimately familiar with, high fidelity of the music recording is not an aid and if anything a distraction. A "pretty" sounding track sounds pretty on many systems because we are drawn to it by its good substance. Critical test clips on the other hand tend to be uninteresting and force you to pay attention to the task which is to analyze equipment with your ear.

Just out of curiosity, what were the "female pop rock" tracks that Harman was using? I don't think I would categorize any of the tracks listed above as "female pop rock". I mean, are we talking Madonna's "Material Girl" or Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball" or something more mellow? I have the impression that dense, messy styles of music win here over stripped down, "simple" music