Reference music tracks for subjective evaluation of speakers and headphones

[kemmler3D]

I'm not sure what you mean by real. Physically present or played back samples or played back actual performance? If the room in which the playback occurs does not impart a significant reverberant signature at odds with the recording's, I doubt most people could tell the difference.

I mean someone in a room playing an actual piano, vs. digital piano or a recording. I don't know if most people can tell the difference or not, but somehow I feel I can always tell when a real instrument is playing out the window (or around the corner) vs. a recording. Cues other than dynamics wouldn't really survive the trip in a definitive way, so I am left to conclude it's dynamics.

I've play several hundred pianos over the years and I wouldn't take the bet if the playback system was capable and the room neutral to dead (and the street more than 4 lanes wide).

This is a bit of a tautology depending on what you mean by "capable" - if it's capable of the dynamics of a real piano and you happen to have a very dynamic recording, I wouldn't take the bet either.

If betting, I wouldn't throw any clues away.

I just mean that you're losing a lot of information, especially directional, out the window and (say) 10m+ away.

So, yes a compressor can make recordings sound good when the players can't do it themselves, or it can make a recording more listenable in the real world, which is what I believe you meant.

Yes, exactly, and depending on the mics / recording it might also be a virtual requirement.

A performer with control of their instrument (or voice) could lay down track after track and have them all fit in the same dynamic envelope (range) and yet have the takes easily differentiated because of differences in the dynamic contours (cres. & dim.) and how they lay on the musical line, and many other controllable musical parameters - tuning, timbre, articulation, etc.

Yes, but almost no recordings have the same dynamic range as any live piano performance. It's generally something like 100dB dynamic range raw, no?

 

[Anton S]

...

Yes, but almost no recordings have the same dynamic range as any live piano performance. It's generally something like 100dB dynamic range raw, no?

Hence, the use of multi-band dynamic range exanders by some listeners.

 

[kemmler3D]

Hence, the use of multi-band dynamic range exanders by some listeners.

Using an expander on a full mix will always give you more dynamic range, but it will almost never exactly reverse the dynamic compression applied to the recording in the first place, so you're also getting some artifacts along with your extra dynamic range.

But since it sounds like you do this, how do you like it, how does it sound, and do you ever notice anything odd / off about it?

 

[Peluvius]

It has been mentioned a few times already but I will add my vote to use music you are familiar with and listen for differences. I try to use music I know was well recorded, Chesky has some great tracks. Different tracks for acoustic different characteristics. Just a little lovin; Shelby Lynne / Fast Car; Tracey Chapman / Spanish Harlem; Rebecca Pidgeon / Lose yourself to dance; Daft Punk & Pharrell Williams.

Just make sure it was well recorded, you would be surprised at how poorly mastered many tracks are.

 

[Titurel]

I mean someone in a room playing an actual piano, vs. digital piano or a recording. I don't know if most people can tell the difference or not, but somehow I feel I can always tell when a real instrument is playing out the window (or around the corner) vs. a recording. Cues other than dynamics wouldn't really survive the trip in a definitive way, so I am left to conclude it's dynamics.

I'd say conflicting reverberant signatures would be the bigger give away. BTW, I have some Fazioli piano samples that when played through a capable (i.e, having both sufficient dynamic and frequency range) would be difficult to sleuth out absent visual cues. I'm now wondering whether the impedance mismatch represented by the room volume, window frame, and the outside air might further muddy the waters. (No disrespect to the lengendary Blues Artist)

Yes, but almost no recordings have the same dynamic range as any live piano performance. It's generally something like 100dB dynamic range raw, no?

That's really depends on the piece of music: 80db clear of the room's noise level would be a pretty bombastic piece. Imagine putting a player at the piano bench in a concert hall with 25db of residual noise, then lay on a 100db performance of top of him. Under that regime, the survival time for concert pianists (and anyone else within the immediate blast radius) would be pretty short. I admit I have some pretty dynamic piano recording in my collection (Oscar Peterson's hardly a shrinking violet), and not one of them even nudges a 100db dynamic range.

Of course, if you take sound level readings an inch above the strings, you might get some astounding readings, but (and that's a very big but) you're then not listening to the piano, which is the entire instrument, strings, harp, case, the space around it, plus the player in his musty tailcoat.. (The complexity of its sound is one of the big problems getting convincing piano samples.) I'd heard that violinist and teacher Josef Gingold was fond of pointing at the bridge of the violin and saying "It's not supposed to sound good, here." The piano's not that different, just a whole lot bigger.

 

[Anton S]

Using an expander on a full mix will always give you more dynamic range, but it will almost never exactly reverse the dynamic compression applied to the recording in the first place, so you're also getting some artifacts along with your extra dynamic range.

But since it sounds like you do this, how do you like it, how does it sound, and do you ever notice anything odd / off about it?

The amount of compression that was applied at the production end always determines how close I can come to fully expanding the mix on playback, but I can generally add 30% to 40% more range than what was provided by the source without any audible artifacts - or at least audible to my ear - and every bit helps to at least reduce the "canned" music impression. Splitting the signal up into multiple bands and operating on each independently helps, as does the separate impact restoration circuit to put an edge back on sharp transients, such as the crack of a stick on the rim of a tom or snare.

I can introduce audible effects if I get too frisky with either, but I've learned to say away from those limits, and, as I stated, every bit helps.

 

[OK1]

I just heard again Mother's Song - on the Be Good album by Gregory Porter. Remarkable dynamic track. I really liked how this track stood out in its production qualities, from other songs on the album, to me. Not a bad album overall, and there are other well produced tracks, but this one caused me to pay attention to the sonics, of the track. A good listening device, really helps distinguish the more polished more emotive recordings. I'm now listening on a KZ ZVX (2024 revision - i.e bought mine in mid 2024 and understand that the driver was changed, from the OG), having retired the CCA CRA. The ZVX is clearly superior to the CRA. Caveat, I do use a bit of EQ, to tame the ZVX's worst offences, which are not many. But definitely EQ helps.

I must add Bling Bling from the same album. The musicianship of some of the bandsmen on Gregory's music is simply just what music is all about. The musicianship is noteworthy, and while I would have preferred this track to be even more dynamic(cos I think to fit it all in, some compression has obviously been applied), the challenge is, a highly resolving headphone or speaker, makes this that bit more obvious. I'd prefer things to poke out a bit more, dynamics wise, just my preference.!!

God Bless The Child - same album - just his voice, nothing else.

Yeah with good presentation from the headphones/IEMs, I want to listen to this album - over and over and over again, to hear every track and every solo. Volume adjustment per track does help to obtain the best from each track.

I may have to list every track on this album as a good reference, cos by adjusting volume, just a bit, per track, optimizes its presentation. With the ZVX, I'm making changes as small as 0.4dB, from one track to the next. A very good album, a very good album.

 

[OK1]

The Stanley Clarke Band, featuring Hiromi, Ruslan and others. Added the tracks in image below to my shortlist of references for critical listening. Tons of elements that need a clearly highly resolving transducer, with low distortion, to reveal properly, also lots of things in stereo, coming at you from all over the stereo field.

 

[izeek]

summer madness-kool and the gang
witchita lineman-also kool and the gang

 

[dualazmak]

Just for your reference and interests....
- An Attempt Sharing Reference Quality Music Playlist: at least a portion and/or whole track being analyzed by 3D color spectrum of Adobe Audition
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...by-3d-color-spectrum-of-adobe-audition.47103/

- Updated, the latest, Audio Sampler Playlist as of October 20, 2022
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...sover-and-multichannel-dac.12489/post-1356792
(You would please be aware of the bottom two paragraphs of this post, especially regarding the 5.8 GB ZIP file.)

- Music for Testing Treble (High Frequency) Sound
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...or-testing-treble-high-frequency-sound.50690/

And, if it fits for your music preference...
- Lute Music and Other Early Music: Stunning Recordings We Love
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...arly-music-stunning-recordings-we-love.21247/

By the way, only if you would be interested in my latest audio setup...
- The latest system setup of my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active audio rig, including updated startup/ignition sequences and shutdown sequences: as of June 26, 2024
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/multi-channel-multi-amplifier-audio-system-using-software-crossover-and-multichannel-dac.12489/post-2021965

 

[dualazmak]

Let me add one more, please...
A nice smooth-jazz album for bass (low Fq) and higher Fq tonality check and tuning
- https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...spectrum-of-adobe-audition.47103/post-1929109

Spoiler

A nice smooth-jazz album for bass (low Fq) and higher Fq tonality check and tuning

Just for all of your possible reference and interests...

As I have shared here on my project thread in September 2022, I have (almost?) all the CDs of Peter White (smooth jazz, acoustic/electric guitar player), and I incorporated a few of his wonderful tracks in my "Audio Reference Reference/Sampler Playlist".

I assume, as "a whole CD album", Peter White's "CONFIDENTIAL" released on March 23, 2004 would be very nice reference/sampler for not only bass (low Fq) tuning but also the total tanality balance over the whole 16 Hz - 22.05 kHz CD format frequency and dynamic range.

You can hear the entire album on YouTube in rather good sound quality, even though I know nothing about sound compression in YouTube clips and your YouTube listening internet environment and your audio gears;
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kQxYlSsNL89etmxdvOEFprKf8xWYrEmQY

Just for our possible reference, yesterday I quickly analyzed two tracks of the ripped CD album using Adobe Audition 3.0.1's 3D(Gain/Fq/Time) color spectrum and FFT frequency spectrum.

First, track-06 "Lost Without Your Love";

In the FFT frequency spectrum of the whole 3:35 track, you can clearly observe (and hear) the distinct high-level low Fq sound peaks throughout the track where we have well separated low Fq peaks at 35, 39, 44, 52, 58, 69, 78, 87, 97 and 103 Hz!

I believe you (we) need excellent L&R subwoofers and woofers, both have nice transient behavior with precise time/phase alignment with each other, and nicely tuned DSP-based multichannel multi-amplifier setup dedicatedly and directly driving subwoofers and woofers; furthermore, the amplifiers driving these SP drivers need to have excellent damping factors.

Here, the distortion in woofers caused by overlapped lower subwoofer-zone transient sound should be minimized by appropriate filters in DSP configuration (and built-in filters in active subwoofers).

Four the total tonality tuning of this wonderful track, I assume independent flexible gain tuning for subwoofers, woofers, midranges, tweeters and supertweeters would be needed in DSP domain and analog domain (e.g. ref here).

Second, track-08 "Swept Away";

You would please note, in 0:40 - 0.45 portion, we have "meaningful" very low Fq sound over 16 Hz - 27 Hz even though the gain is not so high. I can clearly hear and feel (by my whole body) the 16 - 27 Hz sound by using the big and heavy L&R subwoofers YAMAHA YST-SW1000 (ref. here).

Details of the latest setup of my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active stereo audio system can be found here here.

 

[OK1]

Yesterday I ran into a whole new experience.

Song - No Sanctuary Here
Album - Roadhouses and Automobiles
Artist - Chris Jones

Link to song on Spotify below

I discovered this song, via a youtube video which recorded this track, played through a set of pretty decent DIY speakers in a room, but the recording was awash with reverb from the room, which was a bit small, with walls too close to the speakers. So I searched for the song on Spotify, and in spite of the fact that I am using the free lowest quality Spotify, something about this song absolutely took my breath away.

The stereo image, the clarity and extended frequency, and naturalness, the spacial placement - the perception of certain elements close, and others distant, the panning - stereo field., the naturalness - yes I have repeated this adjective. The song stood out, so much that I had to go and research the production, liner notes, on discogs.com, and it took me to the production team and studio responsible. This was recorded in Germany, in a studio with very exacting standards, and by a label with deep roots in very high end quality recordings - i.e all the way to SACD. It stood out, and gave me a new watermark for how good a digital recording and production can be.

I'm listening to the 1st track on the song - Roadhouses and Automobiles, and this has the same ethos, and this track does the opposite, I want to hear this on a powerful sound system in a well designed room, to get the full body impact, of what a modern highly resolving speaker system can do to audio. I love the sound on my IEM - KZ ZVX, but no IEM can bring the power, i.e the feel. I think we have some undiscovered sonic sensors that are outside of our ears., which is why IEM's and speakers are their own thing.

Sadly Chris is no more with us, but this level of artistry is fascinating, excellent vocal recordings. Fantastic recordings, that have preserved this man's life, he is still alive, through his music and moreso through the quality of the recordings.

One thing this album does for me is help me get the insertion depth of my earpieces just right. Too deep, and the spaciousness and "being there" diminishes - gets narrow, and sounds boomy. Too shallow, it sounds trebly and distant, and somewhere in between is just right. And I can also adjust my volume until combination of volume and insertion depth gives me the best virtual realistic placement. Reminds me of adjusting speakers in a real room, to get the most effective placement.

This album enables me to set the right placement for my IEMs, and thereafter, I can listen to anything else.

I think its also a great album for demonstrating the quality of a track. Why - it's obviously compressed and limited, but done sympathetically to preserve as much of the dynamics and transients as possible. The studio has notes on their web site, which documents their approach, i.e explaining a bit of how this was achieved, not just for this record, but for much of the kind of super clear music, that they handle at this studio. The label and studio are an extension of each other. Definitely worth a listen. The tracks mentioned here, and the entire album.

 

[OK1]

Joe Sample - Spellbound. This was one of the 1st, if not the 1st Compact Disks, I bought, in the early 90's or late 80's.It introduces me to Joe Sample on piano. At the time I had only a CD Player, and would listen on some oh so cheap earbuds. Memories. Seven Years of Good Luck - the 1st track on the album, has an amazing bass player, captured really well and the track is so well recorded and mastered with tons of dynamics. The transients on that bass guitar - real snap. Then I realise that the bass drum and bass guitar as so in sync, they hit together, like it's one instrument. Makes you appreciate the timing of really skilled musicians.

With inferior gear, this album sounds bright and Joe's pianos seem so trebly, but now I listen via ARTTI T10 Planar Magnetic IEM's (which are a pretty significant sonic upgrade to the KZ ZVX's I had come to love, in much more balanced frequency response, and a huge improvement in dynamic response - the hits and thumps jump out at you so much more - more life like), for the 1st time ever, this album now sounds balanced, with the deep and high frequencies balancing each other out, and the tracks sound complete. The piano is still bright, but it's now a piano, cos I can hear the whole frequency of the instrument. Nice album, melodic music that's not become so abstract that most people will not enjoy it. Pop influenced Jazz.

 

[OK1]

Lucky Star, Madonna, and the remix. Holiday is the song we all know, but Lucky Star is so far ahead of everything else on the Madonna eponymous album, it might as well have come from a different era, the sonics rivals many pop songs today, and most likely exceeds them. Extremely impressive accomplishment from 1983, phenomenal clarity. Sounds digital, but I wonder, did she have access to such technology in 1983? Amazing.

 

[OK1]

This is Me, from The Greatest Showman. Why? While the song does not have what I'd call a hugely dynamic set of instruments, the volume changes significantly throughout the song, going from pretty sparse, to very loud, and back to quiet again, a few times. Lots of ensemble voices, and the lead vocal is not big, reminds me of Michael Jackson, whose songs sometimes have this tiny voice in the center, but the vocals are not the focus, yet they are, with the lead vocal presented smaller than the instruments. Pretty clever mix thinking.. Needs a highly resolving headphone to separate ALL the elements. A very busy song. It does have percussive elements. I think this song will be a huge challenge for anything but the very best reproducing speakers or headphones, it needs something that can accurately track every transient, and avoiding any compression of the dynamics, to tease out as much microdynamics that's in the song, as is possible. I also think this will test the DAC also. Like the quiet vocal segments of Adele's songs, the quiet lead vocal draws the listener into the music - like you leaning forward to hear better, and also pay attention, so when the louder parts hit you, they sound loud. Very clever arrangement.

 

[ferrellms]

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.

Current pop is terrific for speaker auditioning (if not for listening..). Subterranean and complex bass at high volume, crazy enhanced imaging, searing highs! Electronica as well. Much more challenging and revealing than the old school audiophile stuff. Blue Raincoat? Nah. Orbital!

 

[OK1]

One by-product of these reference tracks, has been their ability to not just demonstrate to me, which IEM is better at revealing the content of the song/track/audio. but also to show me the impact of any tweaks, made to the IEM.

My list of "tweaks", aspects that I focus on, to configure each IEM as best as possible, is at the link below.

IEM's - Where do diminishing returns start - cost wise? $10, $15, $20, $30, $50, $200, etc, etc

Just don't get Truthear Hexa, it will force you to look at the $200+ range for a substantial upgrade:p Fortunately at this time, I do not have the disposable money to spend on such. I am in a pretty happy place now. Just thinking through the journey, I have been through. 1. Dongles - 3 fake...

audiosciencereview.com

I would add to these tweaks, anything that can preserve our hearing, such as sleep, rest, recreation, exercise and diet., and of course avoid listening too loud. And I would add that I have found the AutoEQ.app web site and tool, as a good method to EQ IEM's, if you have a good measurement of your IEM, in the database.

Probably the most important learning has been that the IEM is just one component in a chain. Just one. So no matter how good the IEM is, it could still benefit from being setup properly.

And there is a bit of a circle of improvement going on here, kind of like the contra to what some call the circle of confusion in audio.

The more we are able to identify reference tracks that demand the very best speakers/headphones/IEM's to reproduce them, the better we can identify the better reproduction devices, and the better we can set these up, to then go back and do a better job of identifying even better reference tracks. So it is a circle. Not an endless circle, cos at some point in time, budget or lack of knowledge (as we reach the limits of what we know), will limit the quality of what listening device we have access to, and how far we can go to set it up properly. Finally we also have a limit in the quality of our hearing. Beyond a certain point, assuming we had the budget, time and knowledge, the improvement in audio may become negligible, cos our ears can no longer hear the difference objectively.

The whole point of this thread was to be able to compare listening devices. I've gone from a CCA CRA, which I loved and truly appreciated over and above whatever I had been listening to before, and moved on to a KZ ZVX, which was definitely more resolving, and at the limit of my budget now have an ARTTI T10. I had to move on from the CRA and the ZVX, because due to inconsistencies in manufacturing, due to silent revisions, I could not be sure that the measurements of these models on AutoEQ matched my copies of these IEMs. So every effort to improve their sound quality was guess work, cos I did not know where I was starting from.

With the ARTTI T10, which has much better manufacturing consistency, and I can trust the measurements in AutoEQ, with equalisation by AutoEQ as the icing on the cake, I've finally arrived at a point where I can do no more, within by current budget. I have the best IEM within those that I have bought.

Now all that's left after all that is said and done, is now to just enjoy the music. No more referencing, or need for reference tracks, until such a time as I get some other listening device. Referencing is merely for comparison and improvement, and that is now done. If I find anything truly outstanding, I'll post it here. But it's getting harder to find, cos with the better setup on the ARTTI T10, everything just sounds so much better. I find this surprising, cos I thought the end result of a better IEM would be to distinguish tracks, which it does, but it also helps me hear more of what was in the audio, to begin with.

Now everything sounds better, even when I can clearly hear the flaws in some of the audio or performance. Youtube, Spotify, etc, all sounds better, clearer, so the search for reference music has done its job and some more. Just made listening to anything far more engaging and enjoyable, without hyping anything. also makes listening so much better by being able to lower the level at which I listen., protecting my hearing.