Reference music tracks for subjective evaluation of speakers and headphones

[OK1]

I, purely by accident, rather than premeditation and extensive review, became the owner of a CCA CRA pair of IEMs. Also known as the CCA CRA v2 or silent retune, amongst other informal monikers.

It completely changed everything I know about headphones. But what shocked me the most was its ability to resolve so many aspects of the music I was listening to, and this resolution, made different tracks on an album, sound so different, and different sources e.g instruments or voices on the same music track, sound so uniquely different. So different that I'm just not hearing the difference, but it's almost as if I can touch each element and "feel" its texture. The separation of every element in the music, for tracks that were very well produced, is out of this world. So much music that I have heard over the most recent decade, in some cases is phenomenal like 3D, and I came to a conclusion that the kind of music one listens to can be a bonus or a limiting factor in hearing clearly, how resolving a speaker or headphone is.

I'll try and highlight in subsequent posts, as I discover through listening, tracks on streaming media, e.g Spotify - the free subscription, which stood out as really dynamic either macro dynamic or micro dynamic, or both, and have such detailed content that represent the best most resolving musical experiences - as I listen to the CCA CRA

If I have the time and energy, maybe this will lead to a publicly accessible Spotify playlist.

 

[pablolie]

I do have a personal playlist - a mix of FLAC and Spotify, which serves a purpose in itself. But it's *mine*, and everybody should have theirs. I find test tracks designed to supposedly highlight audiophile values incredibly annoying, and can't recall them ever making an impression on me. Name every "reference track" album put together and I'll hit the snooze button honestly. I have music that caters to my personal preference and is very well recorded. That's what I use. Listening to music you don't like to check if you like or don't like the new equipment you got... seems both unenjoyable and uninformative.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Descriptions such as you have given us have occurred when background noise has been reduced, or when a new transducer has been introduced that has notably lower distortion or (in some cases) a treble lift.

Live with the new IEMs awhile, and you might find out that your brain adapts, and the music that you now say sounds "so uniquely different" will sound normal. It happens.

Jim

 

[OK1]

Kanye West - The College Dropout.

So easy to think headphones or IEM's are a bit bright or harsh, but that can have nothing to do with the IEM, as it could be all coming from the music. On this album, the contrast between the smoothness of Kanye's voice on most tracks, and every other sound source in the mix, is such a relief. Very natural sounding, unhyped lead vocals on Kanye's voice.

Jesus Walks, one of the album tracks - solid bass drum that goes down to 50hz. massive track.

Consistently the thing that hits me the most is - in my opinion, I think every headphone should do what this CCA CRA, has opened up to me. Consistently coherent and intelligible vocals, and that includes rapped vocals. Amazed - so easy to hear every word - I've never experienced that before - being able to hear sung or spoken diction which such clarity. Credit to both the tracks on the album and the headphone I'm listening through. So if this headphone enables me to hear diction clearly, it implies that on any songs where this diction is no longer as clear, it's not the headphone, it's the song that has an issue.

The vocals on Slow Jams and Workout plan, are NOT as clear as the other songs on this album, never noticed that before, but it's so easy to hear this now.

This one is uncanny - listening to Kanye's vocals on Through the Wire, I heard the constriction on his vocal delivery - like someone who was not speaking with open mouth, before it dawned on me - this was Kanye with wires in his mouth in reality. Vivid.

Being able to appreciate the production values - warm, without that modern treble hype on many other albums is wonderful, laid back, easy listen, very few things creating harshness, so now if I hear harshness - on any music - its the source, not the headphones. Cos this album is definitely NOT harsh. I can listen to this on repeat, for hours without any semblance of ear fatigue.

Last Call is so smooth. So smooth. So cool to hear Kanye's history @ that point in time. So smooth the sound. How do I express this, when you go from hearing to feeling, something I call the "texture" of the music. The delay on "Rockafella" near the end of the song. Wow. One advantage of IEM's - no room acoustics to deal with.

Smooth, rough, pricky, sharp, piercing, deep near, far, wide, narrow, music is now more felt than heard. If the track warrants this, well produced, it can be immersive

Smooth - non fatiguing on pretty much every tracks on this album - Smooth, easy listen - yet clear, with a few exceptions highlighted above.

 

[kemmler3D]

Having spent a lot of time using music to evaluate different speakers and headphones for my past job, here is my advice:

If you are trying to judge something, use the music you've listened to the most and know the sound of the best. This is the only way you can even remotely hope to pick out small differences without quick switching.

When I didn't just use sweeps or pink noise instead of music, I ended up using tracks that would emphasize flaws rather than present an enjoyable experience, because I wasn't looking for something ephemeral, I was trying to establish the limits of a given system quickly. This gave me more of a checklist approach than a "hmm, how do I feel about this song right now?" approach.

There are a few threads already on ASR with "reference quality music", but I do have a couple playlists oriented that way, despite my advice:

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2xTFwDoFEJKzPSDxfvX49y?si=61facee9297a4bd0 - I collected a bunch of songs that professional reviewers name-checked in speaker or headphone reviews.

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/51i03cepqtFmVfr5zbocrw?si=b363e0b6f2e04885 - a handful of songs that I personally think show off good equipment via convincing stereo image, impressive bass, or just general good mixing.

 

[Golftee99]

It’s a great feeling when you stumbled upon a more resolving gears or recordings that allow you to pickup new shades and depth of voices and instruments. A little off topic but I was a premium Spotify member for many years (maybe even back to when it first came on the market). I always thought streaming music was inferior to my CD/SACD playback but I put up with it for the convenience in finding new music. I have switched to Apple Music streaming and found out that I was wrong!

 

[Titurel]

Having spent a lot of time using music to evaluate different speakers and headphones for my past job, here is my advice:

If you are trying to judge something, use the music you've listened to the most and know the sound of the best. This is the only way you can even remotely hope to pick out small differences without quick switching.

A handful of thumbs up on this! I use a limited number of tracks (maybe 6) which I know intimately. And I know what I expect to hear in each one of them, like details or inner voices buried deep in the mix (or soundstage). I also agree with the sentiment that dramatic, explosive, audiophile demo tracks are pretty useless for serious evaluation. For me, a smooth scale in the 2 octaves below middle C (about 262 Hz) is important. This region need not be absolutely flat, just even.

 

[kemmler3D]

A handful of thumbs up on this! I use a limited number of tracks (maybe 6) which I know intimately. And I know what I expect to hear in each one of them, like details or inner voices buried deep in the mix (or soundstage). I also agree with the sentiment that dramatic, explosive, audiophile demo tracks are pretty useless for serious evaluation. For me, a smooth scale in the 2 octaves below middle C (about 262 Hz) is important. This region need not be absolutely flat, just even.

Yup, I have a similar list. Arguably they all have flaws that would reveal distortion, SPL limits, frequency roll-offs, etc. - that kind of thing immediately. Only a couple were chosen for small details or anything like that.

 

[OK1]

Having spent a lot of time using music to evaluate different speakers and headphones for my past job, here is my advice:

If you are trying to judge something, use the music you've listened to the most and know the sound of the best. This is the only way you can even remotely hope to pick out small differences without quick switching.

When I didn't just use sweeps or pink noise instead of music, I ended up using tracks that would emphasize flaws rather than present an enjoyable experience, because I wasn't looking for something ephemeral, I was trying to establish the limits of a given system quickly. This gave me more of a checklist approach than a "hmm, how do I feel about this song right now?" approach.

There are a few threads already on ASR with "reference quality music", but I do have a couple playlists oriented that way, despite my advice:

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2xTFwDoFEJKzPSDxfvX49y?si=61facee9297a4bd0 - I collected a bunch of songs that professional reviewers name-checked in speaker or headphone reviews.

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/51i03cepqtFmVfr5zbocrw?si=b363e0b6f2e04885 - a handful of songs that I personally think show off good equipment via convincing stereo image, impressive bass, or just general good mixing.

Thanks. Excellent.

About a decade ago, I listened to two albums, one was by the Black Eyed Peas, on Spotify and a CD I bought at a boot sale. At that time Spotify was definitely inferior, with compromised bass. I have not checked in recent times. Would be interesting to repeat that comparison.

The bane of streamed audio are these "remasters", which completely change the perspective of songs one knows well. Who asked them to remaster music, one has been listening to for 40+ years like MIchael Jackson's Bad. Seriously - who demanded this? One reason, I'll aim to restart collecting some CD's again. So my reference music is assuredly compressed.

I think Spotify, the free subscription is still somewhat OK, but when I compared with Tidal, the lowest quality on Tidal, was markedly better than the Spotify free subscription. Unfortunately Tidal is no longer available for "free", to the best of my knowledge - replaced by a "limited trial".

 

[OK1]

It’s a great feeling when you stumbled upon a more resolving gears or recordings that allow you to pickup new shades and depth of voices and instruments. A little off topic but I was a premium Spotify member for many years (maybe even back to when it first came on the market). I always thought streaming music was inferior to my CD/SACD playback but I put up with it for the convenience in finding new music. I have switched to Apple Music streaming and found out that I was wrong!

Not that I have ever listened to the Premium Spotify, others who subscribe, tell me it sounds great.

 

[OK1]

This next test was even more revealing. I plugged the CCA CRA's into my Yamaha CP 33 stage piano's headphone outputs, using a 1/4 inch to 1/8th inch adapter.

1. The volume was louder on the left ear - think this is because the cable from the headphone has connectors for microphone, which are not available on the adapter. Am wondering are the cables for the non-microphone version of the CRA different from the cables for the microphone version?

2. Immediately I plugged them in, the noise from these headphone outputs of the CP 33 were immediately apparent. I have never heard that on any other headphones. Never, I have the AKG K 702 which definitely does not show up this noise anywhere near as prominently - I never notice the noise on these headphones. That is some major difference. Pretty startling, cos when listening to all kinds of audio via the Tempotec Sonata BHD and the CCA CRA, no background noise whatsoever - none. Never. Very revealing. While playing the piano, the noise is masked, but the moment one stops playing the noise is immediately audible.

3. The frequency response of that piano is so startly revealed, all the flaws and limitations of the piano samples, gaps in the dynamics from one level to another. I have never heard that piano sound so terrible, but this is the CCA showing me the truth. The piano on that keyboard is no longer up to scratch, not surprised, cos that's a musical instrument I have owned for over 10 years, and bought when the instrument was about to be discontinued. Bright yes, yes very bright, but that's nothing to do with the headphones, that instrument as manufactured is bright. I always had a hint, when using other headphones, but with the CCA - it's clear like night and day.

So speaking of sources, if one has a musical instrument, which typically one plays regularly over many years, that is another good reference, a sound one knows intimately, but in this case - the strengths and weaknesses of the piano's samples(sound), was so transparently revealed.

One more thing, probably better appreciated by listening to non-produced audio, which has not been compressed, limited, mastered in any way, is the revelation of dynamics, the huge difference between soft and loud. Listening on my CCA CRA to the CP 33's, was mind blowing, from a dynamics perspective. Listening to finished commercial music, does not expose us to such a huge dynamic range, that shows off, the headphone accuracy, over a much wider dynamic range, than is usual in most commercial music.

 

[OK1]

Graceland - Paul Simon. Both from listening as well as looking at my analyzer, lots of full frequency music - bass and especially bass drum with fundamentals down in the 40 to 50hz - deep bass if not subbass, and high frequency content percussion and harmonics of the melodic instruments, well into the 12Khz region. the 1st track on the album was a bit mediocre, in comparison, but Graceland the song - picks things up.

On a previous headphone, I was somewhat disappointed with this album, but the CCA CRA, displays the excellent production standards on this album. Made me recheck, Was this album remastered? No this is the original CD. I have an original copy somewhere, but I may buy another one. This is in a class of its own, the album. Lots of stereo, superbly arranged and mixed. With lots of depth and a 3D perspective. Great listening. The CCA CRA really does justice to this song, separating the instruments very well, and making them so clear, and distinct. Vocals remain amazingly intelligible, as with any well produced music heard on the CCA CRA. Awesome - this is music.

 

[OK1]

Beyonce 4. Modern Pop music, with tons of synthesizers and things that go smack or chak.

What the CCA CRA delivers for me is the lack of "blur", things start and stop properly. I'm thinking impulse response - it should be possible to describe for an IEM, via an impulse response, the "accuracy" in the same way one can measure this for a speaker. Where reverb is applied its so easy to discern and also hear how much has been applied. Same thing, tons of panned sources - easy to pinpoint what is where, very well produced album - super clear vocals. Clarity like I have never heard on this album, before. So clear. Listening on free Spotify, wondering, how would the original on CD sound? Pretty sure it would be even more impressive. Beyonce's voice is always mixed on her albums in a cleverly understated manner - present but never overwhelming. Listening to this is amazing. Obviously an album recorded digitally. Very clean sound. Super clean. Clinical.

 

[OK1]

Randy Crawford - Street Life - old school clarity, with her vocal coming from somewhere in the distance - not upfront vocals like we are accustomed to today. Superb mixing, fantastic song.

I think after this, I cannot imagine what else I need to listen to - the CCA CRA provides a most engaging accurate translation of whatever is sent through it. In my opinion highly transparent.

I have to accept the CCA CRA is good enough. Highly recommended.

 

[privilege15]

You could always try the program material that Floyd Toole used for speaker blind tests.

 

[OK1]

You could always try the program material that Floyd Toole used for speaker blind tests.
View attachment 377565

Great idea, good start. Thanks. Thrilled to see Fast Track in there - Tracy Chapman. Definitely one of my current references of really well produced music. The music just jumps out of the speakers at you. And also dynamic. Her eponymous album is an awesome aural delight. I once owned the CD original - a prized possession, should still be somewhere in my archives. May buy another copy.

 

[OK1]

Legend by Adam Blackstone - sadly I have to add this here, not as an example of excellent production, but one which can introduce confusion. On my previous less resolving headphones - a JVC Gummy (IEM type thing), it sounds great, and engaging. It had been one of my listening references, but when subjected to the better "lens" of the CCA CRA, I am sorry, and hate to use such adjectives, it is not an excellently produced piece of art, in my hearing. Must call it as I hear it.

Sounds OK ish, but clearly compared to some of the other better references, most of the album is NOT up to scratch. A lot of it is over compressed and covered in some kind of veil. Like the victim of the loudness wars., A lot of promise, but on close examination, this is NOT a reference album, except to demonstrate what over compression sounds like - FLAT. I have to be honest. Nice music but destroyed in the mix and mastering process.

Great expectations, everything just sounds sub par, like smearing vaseline on a camera lens. I am aware that in video and still imagery, filters are used for effect, to blur extreme sharpness, but not to the extent that details are lost. Here someone or some people have smeared indistinctness all over the album. Some may call this a style, but it is not one I appreciate.

What's interesting is that I absolutely was thrilled by this album about two or three months ago - a client asked me to mix a track for him, and this was his reference that he had been listening to. It may take me a while to get back to him to let him know the truth, i.e I can no longer listen to this album as a mix and mastering reference of excellence.

Makes me wonder - how did no one at the record company spot the things I am observing, and find undesirable about the entire album.

 

[OK1]

Amy Winehouse - Back to Black. A really important album, one of the 1st that taught me about deliberate distortion, that sounds good. The dynamic range is so deliberately compromised, most likely more from the mix stage. Crunch is the word. Here its a recognisable style, and complements the music - ages it, kinda like listening to vinyl with the snap crackle and pop, and simulating the reduced dynamic range of vinyl.

Some tracks are more distorted/compressed than others, but the same ethos is all over the album. Squashed. A good example of where compression/distortion/saturation is applied enough to give the tracks their own unique vibe, but not enough to tip things over the scale where it sounds unacceptable. 100% certain those horns do NOT sound that way in real life. Definitely NOT.

Modern "over" compression done sympathetically and artistically. Probably the best example of this on the album is the title track "Back to Black".

Strictly speaking, this album is NOT a good example of music that needs a lot of resolution, cos it's not that dynamic, so rather than macrodynamics, within the limited dynamic range, one needs a highly resolving highly dynamic transducer which can extract as much of the microdynamics as possible, from whatever is there, - conveying both the limited macrodynamics as well as the microdynamics.

Just listen to "Love is a losing Game" and her voice is so compressed.

Amazing artistry - and such a unique art form, in spite of the compromised dynamic range. It draws you into listening to the music. The CCA CRA has become my 10th wonder of the modern world., so easily able to reveal everything that is in an audio track. If it's there - it is there, if it's not it is not. Very little colour of its own added to what one is listening to.

 

[OK1]

In the same way speakers are measured, challenged to really think - what measurements will give a good indication of the sonic quality of a headphone/IEM if they were available?

1. Frequency response
2. Distortion
3. Impulse response ?
4. Waterfall? to see how elements of the audio are reflected within the headphone itself, in the enclosure or nozzles.
5. Variance between Left and Right - i.e reflective of manufacturing quality control
6. Dynamic Range

 

[privilege15]

In the same way speakers are measured, challenged to really think - what measurements will give a good indication of the sonic quality of a headphone/IEM if they were available?

1. Frequency response
2. Distortion
3. Impulse response ?
4. Waterfall? to see how elements of the audio are reflected within the headphone itself, in the enclosure or nozzles.
5. Variance between Left and Right - i.e reflective of manufacturing quality control
6. Dynamic Range

I think you would gain a great benefit from reading Floyd Toole's book "Sound Reproduction. The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms". The answer to your question is also in that book. It's frequency response (the smoother the better) and speaker directivity. While frequency can be corrected via EQ, the directivity cannot.