Which Is More Important for Demos -- Quality or Familiarity?

[watchnerd]

Which is more important for demos using recordings:

Great quality, or familiarity?

I have some great recordings that I don't listen to very often because I'm not fond of the performance. So I'm not as familiar with the recording.

Conversely, I have some recordings I listen to a lot because I like the performance, but the recording quality is average. However, I'm very familiar with the recordings, over many years and listening environments.

Which make for the better demo recordings?

 

[Cbdb2]

I like to use very familiar music, with varying quality. Some songs sound great on everything and are good for selling gear (the stuff you hear at audio shows). A good place to start, if these sound bad your done. But the stuff that can be more revealing is the poorer quality recordings, the dense stuff, so much going on it sounds mushy. This is the real test for a system. The goal is to make every recording sound good. I also put a few clips in to test specific things like low end extension, or reverb tails. And also a few types of music, full orchestra, string quartet, wall of sound rock, vocal with piano etc. So 15 sec of each on a "mixed tape" so the whole thing is not too long and you can listen to it multiple times.

 

[SIY]

Which is more important for demos using recordings:

Great quality, or familiarity?

I have some great recordings that I don't listen to very often because I'm not fond of the performance. So I'm not as familiar with the recording.

Conversely, I have some recordings I listen to a lot because I like the performance, but the recording quality is average. However, I'm very familiar with the recordings, over many years and listening environments.

Which make for the better demo recordings?

Why is it an either-or?

 

[watchnerd]

Why is it an either-or?

Because my favorite tunes aren't my best recorded ones.

And in a time-limited-demo-session because of Covid, I only have so much time.

The audition I did yesterday was originally time-bounded at 45 min because they could only have so many customers in the store at once.

 

[SIY]

Because my favorite tunes aren't my best recorded ones.

Don't you have familiarity with tunes that aren't your very favorites, but ones you enjoy and have heard a lot? It strikes me that you've placed too strong a restriction.

 

[watchnerd]

I like to use very familiar music, with varying quality. Some songs sound great on everything and are good for selling gear (the stuff you hear at audio shows). A good place to start, if these sound bad your done. But the stuff that can be more revealing is the poorer quality recordings, the dense stuff, so much going on it sounds mushy. This is the real test for a system. The goal is to make every recording sound good. I also put a few clips in to test specific things like low end extension, or reverb tails. And also a few types of music, full orchestra, string quartet, wall of sound rock, vocal with piano etc. So 15 sec of each on a "mixed tape" so the whole thing is not too long and you can listen to it multiple times.

I stay away from "audio show" demo tracks because they always sound good to me on even average gear, so I feel like I don't learn anything. I also typically don't enjoy listening to the music very much, which sort of ruins things for me.

Dense / complex stuff -- I use those a lot, but they tracks I use aren't necessarily my most sonically pristine version, but the performance I like best.

Example:

Reiner's Living Stereo "Scheherazade" is one of my go to tracks for orchestral complexity, but while the old recording is pretty good, modern versions are better. But I prefer that performance.

 

[watchnerd]

Don't you have familiarity with tunes that aren't your very favorites, but ones you enjoy and have heard a lot? It strikes me that you've placed too strong a restriction.

Sure -- I put those in the "familiar, but not best recorded" bucket.

See Reiner example above.

 

[fløyen]

vive la différence

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Since I have no idea of what any particular recording should 'sound like', absent me recording it myself, I would have to go with quality. Its pretty easy to make a decision between 'good recording / bad recording' by the first 30 seconds or so of listening. Of course what 'sounds good / bad' on my system might be totally different on what 'sounds good / bad' on somebody else's system. Its all so subjective - we don't need no fucking graphs and charts.

 

[Bear123]

A potential flaw I see in using mainly music you are extremely familiar with is that you have gotten used to how it sounded on whatever speakers you have. If they are highly colored speakers such as B&W, and you became accustomed to the highly colored sound, you might think the highly familiar song sounds "worse" on a better, more neutral speaker that plays the music with higher fidelity.

So perhaps an A/B comparison using a genre you like but songs you don't necessarily expect to sound as you have been accustomed on your existing gear?

Just a counter point to consider.

 

[watchnerd]

Since I have no idea of what any particular recording should 'sound like'

Example:

I have no idea what Reiner's "Scherazade" is supposed to sound like.

However, having listened to it for decades in all manner of situations (various home stereos, cars, headphones, those clock+iPhone docks in hotels), I have a track record of what it has sounded like, to me, over time, which provides me with a subjective baseline.

And I can compare that subjective baseline with whatever I'm currently listening to.

Of course, audio memory is highly flawed.

 

[watchnerd]

So perhaps an A/B comparison using a genre you like but songs you don't necessarily expect to sound as you have been accustomed on your existing gear?

Pretty hard to do an A/B comparison to the gear one has at home if you're at a dealer or a show, though.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Example:

I have no idea what Reiner's "Scherazade" is supposed to sound like.

However, having listened to it for decades in all manner of situations (various home stereos, cars, headphones, those clock+iPhone docks in hotels), I have a track record of what it has sounded like, to me, over time, which provides me with a subjective baseline.

And I can compare that subjective baseline with whatever I'm currently listening to.

Of course, audio memory is highly flawed.

It is of course possible that in the many times you've heard this recording all of them weren't what Fritz heard from the podium! Just saying because......

At any rate, this recording is one of my standard demo recordings, not because its a great recording, although its pretty good, but because its a pretty incredible performance (the last movement was done in one take if rumors are to believed).

 

[watchnerd]

So 15 sec of each on a "mixed tape" so the whole thing is not too long and you can listen to it multiple times.

Is this hypothetical, or do you actually demo stuff with 15 second clips of different songs?

I never have listened to segments quite that short. 1-2 min at the shorter end is more typical for me.

 

[watchnerd]

It is of course possible that in the many times you've heard this recording all of them weren't what Fritz heard from the podium! Just saying because......

At any rate, this recording is one of my standard demo recordings, not because its a great recording, although its pretty good, but because its a pretty incredible performance (the last movement was done in one take if rumors are to believed).

I'm confident none of the times have I heard what Fritz heard at the podium.

And, yes, I agree it's a "pretty good" recording and an incredible performance.

But if I was optimizing for pure recording quality alone, I wouldn't pick it.

 

[Helicopter]

You can't use a bad recording. It will be hard to know what kind of emotions the gear can help you find if you don't love the performance.

I would use the 'pretty good recording of a great performance' if none of your recordings ace both attributes.

 

[Count Arthur]

I have a fairly broad taste in music and some of the rock, punk and indie stuff like, just isn't very well recorded/mixed/mastered; likely recorded at low cost studios on a tight budget.

When I went to listen to a selection of speakers at a dealers a while back, I took a fair selection of music, all of which I was familiar with. Some I thought sounded great on my existing set-up, other recordings that were a bit ropey and some that was pretty unpleasant sounding, in particular some recordings that were a bit thin and bright sounding.

I wanted to see if any of the speakers could sound great with the better recordings, while still making the best of a bad job with the lower quality stuff.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

And I can compare that subjective baseline with whatever I'm currently listening to.

Of course, audio memory is highly flawed.

That of course is true. BUT what if every speaker/system you heard it on previously was hopelessly flawed? Ignore me, I'm just sturring up shit....because....

 

[watchnerd]

You can't use a bad recording. It will be hard to know what kind of emotions the gear can help you find if you don't love the performance.

I would use the 'pretty good recording of a great performance' if none of your recordings ace both attributes.

I get a bit torn on this when I listen to some old recordings where "lo fi" is part of the art.

Example:

Albert King's "Born Under a Bad Sign" is a messy, grungy recording. But the song is a mean, dirty song, so it's appropriate.

There is nothing cerebral about listening to it as a demo track, but I can tell if a speaker can groove or not by seeing if my toes tap.

 

[watchnerd]

That of course is true. BUT what if every speaker/system you heard it on previously was hopelessly flawed? Ignore me, I'm just sturring up shit....because....

I *guess* if I spent my whole life listening to transistor radios I might think it sounded wrong, instead of awesome, on a good system.