Evaluation of Audio Components under Stress | Music recordings

[NorthSky]

Not every music was created equal, and not everyone like the same music genre.
When I read a review of a particular audio component...amplifier, loudspeaker, CD player, receiver, turntable, DAC, cartridge, speaker wire, analog stereo interconnect, USB cable, AC power conditioner, surround sound processor, Blu-ray player, phono preamplifier, integrated amplifier, tonearm, etc., etc., etc., ...it is important to me to know the music recordings used during the audio component under analysis and level of stress. Meaning which exact music version (because there are many and they vary), and what kind of abuse...volume level.

Plus of course all the other audio components used in the chain during evaluation...synergy or not.

Not all audio reviewers do that, even still today. And yesterday it was almost mainly absent.
Lol, that don't mean much @ all if we cannot relate to what music is playing during our audio readings.

Audio reviewers come in all forms and circumstances. And not everyone is listening to quality audiophile music recordings. Some listen to CDs that have no dynamic range, others to hi-res audio files that are no more hi-res than MP3, others to LPs full of flaws including a hole that is not even in the middle of the record.

So it's important to describe the music recordings used during audio evaluation. That's one very important thing, among several more. My favorite audio reviewers are the ones who mention the exact music selections used in their audio assessments, components under analysis.

Lol, some music recordings on all music medium should never be used to review serious audio.
Like I said, some pros know their music, others don't. How do you determine someone using an inferior music recording to evaluate an audio component? ...From research.
_________

* This is a short essay: The audio Internet is like a scripture engraved on granite.
Some stuff they simply don't teach you @ university or law school.
What to do? Do it ourselves. ...Not easy to be all on the same wavelength, not easy @ all.
And that is all for this short essay.

 

[fas42]

Bob, my experience is that some music that seems completely pointless for testing gear, in a normal situation, in fact ends up being extremely valuable for listening for certain qualities. I got a 3 CD pack of pure meditation music, the sort of thing you hear in a crystal and incense shop, from an op shop sale - it was exactly like the usual; yet, it turned out to be incredibly useful: the long drawn out tones are harmonically rich, and roughness in the playback screams at you; there is tremendously depth and space encoded in the sounds, and a poor system completely fails to project this; and, there are tiny incidental sounds added at points, almost inaudible tinkles and runs of a certain sound effect; completely missing if the system doesn't convey low level detail well.

I've found these recordings quite enthralling to listen to, they're almost like richly textured symphonies - very subtle compared to the "real thing", but musically very satisfying ...

 

[NorthSky]

Frank, one of this thread's main purpose is what music recordings are best to evaluate audio gear and speakers...and not just demo stuff but the entire repertoire.
Example; a high-end speaker designer or very high power amplifier designer...are they using stuff like Frank Sinatra music or are they really putting the gear into sixth gear and challenge the audio with real life stress from big classical orchestral works...stuff that is most demanding and quite rewarding?
...Like from Reference Recordings record label by Professor Keith O. Johnson.

 

[fas42]

Bob, a variety of material is best for evaluation, IME - so, what is one trying to assess is the first question, and the right recording to give a quick answer for that question should be chosen. Frank Sinatra is excellent material, because it allows one to measure whether the system can handle big band instrumentation, quite retaining the qualities of the human voice - IOW, if you use such, then wind up the volume to give the "big" sound presentation - is the system competent or not doing this?

I tend to start by seeing what the SPL limits are, as in, how loud can it go with complex material before the system starts to fall to pieces - driving rock music is good for this, rather than symphonic pieces, because the constancy of the average level maintains the "stress" on the system, one can precisely dial in the point where the setup is being asked to produce more than it can competently deliver - you then have a boundary of capability, which you then take into account when looking at other areas.

 

[NorthSky]

Say you go to an audio show, and you have couple music albums you like; your genre of music...Hardcore Heavy Metal to the extreme, with terrible yelling vocals, violent lines (kill, kill, kill) and electronic drums and synthesizers and crying distorted electric guitars that sound best @ high impact volumes for the true punk rockers...120dB + ...I think that you can forget all about it...unless there's a booth selling Cerwing Vegal speakers with Marshall drivers.

Even the regular audio reviewers never use demanding music stuff like that...that'll be the day.

Read audio analog reviewers and what albums they use...The Beatles, Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac, Leonard Cohen and Nancy Sinatra.

But if you go to the high caliber audio reviewers side from the Heavy Metal music genre, Punk Rock, Acid Rock, Electronica Down Beat Dance music...then yeah, they put the audio gear to the test, and they blow some drivers and crossovers too.

But the sophisticated ultra high end 'expensibullous' orbital audio gear; they use Diana Krall, Carly Simon, Miles Davis, Petula Clark, classical chamber music, jazz, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Neil Armstrong, Neil Diamond, Louis Armstrong, Tony Bennett, Kd Lang, Dire Straits, J.J. Cale and other mello music. ...Some Yello too.
Sure, vocals are nice to test accuracy, but some ultra high fidelity audiophiles they also like Opera singing and accompanied by a full band...a 95-member orchestra and 75-member choir. ...You know...

Like there are different gear for different music genre. What kind of audio gear is good for Prince music...funky gear?
Small monitors seem just right for small acoustic jazz ensembles, blues, classical chamber...duo, triplet, quartet, ...folk music.
And the big full range speakers (7-feet tall), the usual well known suspects...are the designers stressing them good with adequate music material?
Certainly not Heavy Metal, but some classical orchestral works and organ music you read some from some audio reviewers.

I believe some quality music recording genres have more synergy with some systems than others. I know many people who believe that if a speaker is good @ one genre it is good @ all other reproduced music genres. ...I just don't buy that. And it also depends of the amp(s) you use, and if you add a sub or two.

Question: For the music genre people listen to on average, are they buying too much gear? ...And vice versa?
We buy speakers and amps to match our room's dimension. And with it there are music bands that are perfectly @ ease in those dimensions.

Another audio truth; are we using the adequate volume level for each music recording we listen to? ...I bet not...most audiophiles listen lower, and youngsters higher.

And I didn't even mention the full cinema audio gear...

 

[fas42]

I believe some quality music recording genres have more synergy with some systems than others. I know many people who believe that if a speaker is good @ one genre it is good @ all other reproduced music genres. ...I just don't buy that. And it also depends of the amp(s) you use, and if you add a sub or two.

...

Another audio truth; are we using the adequate volume level for each music recording we listen to? ...I bet not...most audiophiles listen lower, and youngsters higher.

And I didn't even mention the full cinema audio gear...

Unfortunately, Bob, I'm one of those who believe a system working well can handle any genre thrown at it, ... forget about sub's, unless they're extremely well done - otherwise they will just mess up the low end, the system becomes hopelessly unbalanced, and wrong ... volume level shouldn't matter, either cranked or whisper quiet, it should still just register as music, and not be uncomfortable, or boring ...

 

[NorthSky]

For Music listening, we can live without subs. Except for the meanest of the meanest music genre; Harsh Heavy Hard (HHH) Core RAP/PUNK/METAL/SEX is the BASS.

And, I wouldn't like playing Classical Orchestral works with close to 100 musicians playing the most intense compositions of them all...Bruckner and gang.
...On small mini two-way monitors, for your computer...with a 3" size woofer. ...Better for natural recordings like birds and spiders and aquariums with small fishes doing bubble sounds and easy listening (soft pop like Barry Manilow and Adele and Diana Crawl and Carl Perkins).

But go ahead, feed them 3" woofer drivers with your best shot, be my guest, and blow them all up.

 

[fas42]

Actually, I'm now up to 5" mid/woofers, Bob - and they can take 200W ... so, I don't have any worries about them being able to deafen me . From experience to date, I have no doubt, provided I stiffen the carcases that these units will be able to pummel me into a limp rag - but the amp's not in a fit state to do that yet. As is, with a fixed volume, it can be difficult to hear what someone is saying if I put some high energy material on ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hasn't some research shown that simpler music results in better and more consistent discernment among listeners. Jazz trios, female vocals with simple accompaniment, chamber music with just a few instruments, other acoustic music with only a few musicians that sort of thing. Many audiophiles think complex large orchestral works are better for evaluation. Pink noise works quite well too. FR faults pop out clearly comparing pink noise.

 

[NorthSky]

Hasn't some research shown that simpler music results in better and more consistent discernment among listeners. Jazz trios, female vocals with simple accompaniment, chamber music with just a few instruments, other acoustic music with only a few musicians that sort of thing. Many audiophiles think complex large orchestral works are better for evaluation. Pink noise works quite well too. FR faults pop out clearly comparing pink noise.

That's what I mean by stressing/taxing an audition of an audio component, loudspeaker...by the full Classical Orchestral works; if a speaker designer can design such a speaker, and in the appropriate room's size, and powered by the right power amp; then I believe that such a speaker and amp would be able to do almost anything; Electronica with heavy synthesizers, Heavy Metal Rock, RAP, Punk, Funk, Hard Core Bass Demo stuff, Jazz, Blues, Soul, Rhythm & Blues, Bayou, Bluegrass, Classical Opera, Chorals, Chamber, World International, Calypso, Hawaiian, Cuban, Brazilian, Samba, Tango, Gypsy, Reggae, Folk, Rock, Classic Rock, Progressive Rock, Psychedelic, Alternative, New Age, Motown, Disco, Iggy Pop, Judas Priest, Metallica, Country, Acid Jazz, Pop, Easy Listening, Ballads, Charleston, Avant Garde, Dream Sequential, Tangerine Dream, Soft Machine, ...all music genres, and from all over the world...India, Russia, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Alaska, China, Japan, USA, France, UK, Iceland, Ireland, Greenland, Scotland, Italy, Spain, Africa, Venezuela, Vietnam, ...everywhere, anywhere, anytime.

So far the best speakers and amps for Classical Orchestral works are concert halls and open air...near the water (lake, ocean) or a forest tree line up the mountains (interior or coast)

Everything else they make speakers and amps for, no sweat. That's what I think, my opinion.

* Pink Floyd live in large open venues...stadiums...with speakers all around and above...right on. And the Rolling Stones and all (Zeppelin, AC/DC, Alice Cooper, Yes, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis, ...) in arenas, forums, skating rings, large auditoriums, ...all loud and clear.
...And in studios too and reproduced in our homes.

And the smaller the bands the usually easier to reproduce with faith. ...Almost live, with minimum miking, or directly into the tape recording machine...analog or digital. ...Or acoustic live feeding few mikes...three-channel front soundtage. ...And Classical multichannel mixes (3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1 & 6.0 - Chesky style).

This, an open discussion, with stressing the audio components with the music as the direction home, and not a Bob Dylan's song with No Direction Home.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Personally, I think music for evaluation is a very hit or miss proposition, especially sighted. Sure, we all do use it because we have nothing better at our disposal. We are not all Amir's, though he also listens. But, there is no magic formula. Yes, a diversity of the types of music you typically listen to would make sense. So, if you do not regularly listen to hard rock at ear shattering levels, why use it?

I am never satisfied with comparisons at dealerships. They are never carefully level matched for one thing. But, if you know of a dealer who does that, you have got a real gem, a rare one. I have never encountered one. It is pointless to do any comparisons without level matching, which is tough to do accurately without test tones and measurements in advance.

And, if you are not doing close side by side comparisons, ideally to a reference, what is it that you are doing? You may unwittingly have become a true believer in the golden ears club, with infinitely persistent acoustic memory, which can tell you unfailingly that what you are hearing right now is "right/wrong" compared to something else you heard hours, days, weeks, months or years ago. More power to you, but you should not be here. There is another completely different forum elsewhere for that.

I try to use only recordings that I am familiar with that I think are exceptionally well recorded. That leaves Sinatra out, much as I think he was fabulous and much as I enjoy the music. Simpler music, like piano, can be very good. I do not like vocals because I do not intimately know exactly what Diana Krall or Jonas Kaufmann, for example, sounds like live and unamplified. I may hear syllabance or other obvious characteristics, but sometimes, that might actually be more accurate. More "pleasing" is not necessarily the right answer. I am fine with orchestral music, also because spatial cues are very important to me, and that is mainly what I listen to. And, I am pretty good at picking out and focusing on individual instruments in the tapestry. I like to think that frequent live concert attendance is a great help. But, you lose it if you do not use it, regularly.

It might be a good idea to avoid music you love that carries you away. Using it repeatedly for audition might burn you out on it. And, you might start to blather, subjectivist style, about the bigger goosebumps you got while listening to component X, which might have been from the music's emotional high in biased, transitory, non-repeatable fashion, not the sonic differences you should have been focusing on. Music and our emotional response to it can be a distraction from the business at hand, which is evaluating the sound of some component. And, even if we are consciously aware of the possible influence of bias, that bias works though our subconscious, which might be beyond the control of our conscious mind. Be prepared.

With equipment today, less so with speakers as always, equipment sonic differences have become smaller and smaller. The problem this causes in evaluations with music is that there may be only brief moments, seconds, in a recording that clearly and audibly highlight what the differences are. They might not be clear most of the time. They might sound 90% the same even with different equipment. It is hard to know in advance what those precious seconds are going to be or where they are in a recorded passage lasting many minutes during a specific equipment comparison. It might take awhile in any evaluation to narrow your listening down to those specific musical passages where a clear difference was heard. Change the equipment being compared and those revealing musical passages might change in favor of other passages on the same track in the recording. This is also one of the issues in many testing protocols, like ABX: discovery of the really revealing, brief musical passages to focus on. Of course, if everything sounds totally different all or most of the time with a new component, it becomes relatively easy. That happens rarely in my experience.

I can see the myriad problems reviewers have, assuming they are honest and thorough in their evaluations. I think I understand why some insist that "long term listening" is the way to go. But, I think just listening to a new component over days, weeks or months without constant comparison to a reference will tell you very little that is new or different than what you already know. It might help you confirm that difference more positively with a wider range of music or to come up with the language necessary to describe it, if you are writing a review.

There is also the meaningless, "I heard things I had not heard before on this recording" cliche. Maybe so, but did you go back and check to see if maybe it was there all along? Maybe your ear/brain's attention mechanism was just not focused on it the first time. Or, maybe those new and different sounds are being overemphasized.

The choice of which recorded music to play is somewhat important, but it is really not the main issue.

 

[fas42]

Hasn't some research shown that simpler music results in better and more consistent discernment among listeners.

My approach is different from most - I deliberately attempt to provoke the system into misbehaving, to quickly pick where its weaknesses are; I then have a handle on how it's going to behave in an overall sense - simpler music may not stretch a setup sufficiently, you still don't know how competent it is.

Why do this? Because, as an example, as soon as a system which does well on simpler music is asked to handle something like a grand orchestral climax, at decent volume, it may fall to pieces - it's permanently lame, and will never satisfy in the long run.

 

[NorthSky]

I try to use only recordings that I am familiar with that I think are exceptionally well recorded. That leaves Sinatra out, much as I think he was fabulous and much as I enjoy the music. Simpler music, like piano, can be very good. I do not like vocals because I do not intimately know exactly what Diana Krall or Jonas Kaufmann, for example, sounds like live and unamplified. I may hear syllabance or other obvious characteristics, but sometimes, that might actually be more accurate. More "pleasing" is not necessarily the right answer. I am fine with orchestral music, also because spatial cues are very important to me, and that is mainly what I listen to. And, I am pretty good at picking out and focusing on individual instruments in the tapestry. I like to think that frequent live concert attendance is a great help. But, you lose it if you do not use it, regularly..

"Syllabance" is a word? ...Or did you mean 'sibilance' ?

 

[fas42]

I do not like vocals because I do not intimately know exactly what Diana Krall or Jonas Kaufmann, for example, sounds like live and unamplified. I may hear syllabance or other obvious characteristics, but sometimes, that might actually be more accurate. More "pleasing" is not necessarily the right answer..

My experience is completely different. Vocals are excellent, because as humans we know exactly how the voice comes across - if you were to play recordings of people talking, mixed in with live people saying something, you would immediately pick the "ring-ins" - on a normal system, that is.

The interesting thing is that competent playback makes the human voice sound, well, human - it doesn't sound like it's been filtered through a fancy PA rig - the artificial patina that is almost always present is no longer there. The "realness" of vocals when a system works well is an excellent marker - no stress involved , just picking something we all know by heart.

 

[tomelex]

The reason you hear a lot of the same, simple music, at shows is that once more than perhaps 4 or more distinct instruements are recorded, the actual inter modulation distortion increases significantly, and also in a speaker as well, so, you will hear a clear presentation with less instruments playing, its basic audio science. Music sounds different at each volume level, that's fletcher and munson stuff, old hat knowledge. There is "one" right level to listen to a song at, and that's the level the engineer mastered it at, but we never know what it was. That's where the balance he intended you to hear is at. Whatever you listen to, listen for clarity.

Don't confuse I hear more or I hear new things with say an effect of an amplifier that has higher or mostly odd ordered harmonic content, as its the amp you are hearing, not new stuff from the recording. Of course, you can and should hear more music, more real detail, from a more accurate system, ie you hear more of what was originally on the recording. Some serious tube lovers love how some tube gear really embellishes the music, and they say they hear more of it, will they hear more "added" music, lusher, etc. Solid state can do that too.

The only real way is to A/B stuff quickly to decide what you "prefer" and that is about all you can do, since the original recording is just some vague translation of the original event and in the end its what you prefer.

But, in general, the more detail you can hear, for me, the better the overall system, and it is a system (includes room,your ear/brain, listening position blah blah ) that you hear. You can also listen to the attack and decay of sounds, these things can help a better tuned audiophile ear pick a cleaner and quicker sounding system. Bass, oh yeah, tight and firm or flabby....yet some prefer flabby actually...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

The reason you hear a lot of the same, simple music, at shows is that once more than perhaps 4 or more distinct instruements are recorded, the actual inter modulation distortion increases significantly, and also in a speaker as well, so, you will hear a clear presentation with less instruments playing, its basic audio science. Music sounds different at each volume level, that's fletcher and munson stuff, old hat knowledge. There is "one" right level to listen to a song at, and that's the level the engineer mastered it at, but we never know what it was. That's where the balance he intended you to hear is at. Whatever you listen to, listen for clarity.

Don't confuse I hear more or I hear new things with say an effect of an amplifier that has higher or mostly odd ordered harmonic content, as its the amp you are hearing, not new stuff from the recording. Of course, you can and should hear more music, more real detail, from a more accurate system, ie you hear more of what was originally on the recording. Some serious tube lovers love how some tube gear really embellishes the music, and they say they hear more of it, will they hear more "added" music, lusher, etc. Solid state can do that too.

The only real way is to A/B stuff quickly to decide what you "prefer" and that is about all you can do, since the original recording is just some vague translation of the original event and in the end its what you prefer.

But, in general, the more detail you can hear, for me, the better the overall system, and it is a system (includes room,your ear/brain, listening position blah blah ) that you hear. You can also listen to the attack and decay of sounds, these things can help a better tuned audiophile ear pick a cleaner and quicker sounding system. Bass, oh yeah, tight and firm or flabby....yet some prefer flabby actually...

I do not disagree at all. And, though you have said you do not value spatial presentation, to me it is a very important differentiator between systems and components. Though he was far from my idol, HP really introduced that as a major aspect of critical listening decades ago, especially when climbing the ladder to ever higher performing components. Later, he even said it was the most important thing to listen for, though not, of course, the only one. But, I learned from that, and I came to agree. Not everything he said was total subjectivist nonsense.

I think better spatial presentation can be a much clearer, less ambiguous characteristic of reproduced sound. The caveat is you have to use recordings that contain some plausible sense of space. Studio mixes, often panned and artistically engineered from one performer/track originals, generally do not do that well. Classical recordings, though far from all, are generally better. Since I am a classical fan, that is OK with me.

So, if the same recording has a more focused presentation on one component over another, with greater soundstage depth and layering and a better rendering of the apparent size of instruments and the space between them, I tend to prefer it. I think it would be hard for a component to "euphonically" enhance that complex perception of space in a way that makes it seem more plausible to the listener. Aspects of this might be labeled as "more apparent detail" by some, but that probably goes hand in hand with less spatial smearing of the image.

There might be many underlying performance issues involved with this, but the main ones are likely greater time domain accuracy, less distortion and noise so as not to muddle the spatial presentation of the image.

It has been quite awhile since I critically evaluated amps, but I do remember hearing some significant differences between some very good amps in this regard. I remember well with some old Dorian CDs the ability of some amps to better differentiate the direct sound of Julianne Baird's voice from the hall reflections. She stood out more as a point source in the spatial image. The spatial muddle caused by my old system was revealed. And, not only was the sense of hall space increased, but the apparent tonality was improved at the same time by the better apparent separation of direct sound from reflected sound, which was apparent on the then new Krell amp I bought as a result. The hall echo and reverb became more apparent as something separate from her voice on stage. That was ages ago, when I really was just discovering the importance of greater fidelity to the spatial image.

Speaking of tonality, many reviewers and audiophiles go ape over the reproduction of "better tonality". They might say such and such sounded more like a real violin, etc. I don't get that much beyond a certain very limited point, like are there any obvious distortion products. Violins sound slightly different from one another, on different recordings and at different points in the hall. So, how do you know what the true sound of the particular violin on that recording was supposed to be? I think they are really saying it was more pleasing, not necessarily higher fidelity.