Your reference sounds

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I could be wrong but I think the listening room and the microphone(s) used for the recording are the weak link. I've played acoustic guitar since I was 15. I'm not great but good enough to accompany my singing. I've done coffee house folk singing and other low paid playing for an audience. I've listened to a lot of other players unamplified. I've never heard a recording of an acoustic guitar, including models I'm very familiar with, that sounds like the same guitar unamplified. Again, I could be wrong.

 

[Kuma]

Technical measurements. My ears are aging and I understand the deception of marketing.

 

[xanalog]

Once, I bought a $500 center speaker from a 'reputable' name brand, who uses the same drivers in their other speakers.
It was so bad sounding that by the time the measurements confirmed how bad; it was too late to return them for a refund.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I have taken a similar approach in using familiar test tracks although that can also be difficult if you have developed your familiarity based on a colored reproduction.

Very true. To counter that, I don't actually listen to the music so much as particular parts of the music. The level of "twang" in a bass string intro, the level of sibilance in a voice. For the most part these are short bits of recordings that, if they are off from my target one way or the other, I notice it and it bothers me.

I am sure I am way more accurate in this than I was in my pre-measurement days, but some of the tracks are left over from then.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I've never heard a recording of an acoustic guitar, including models I'm very familiar with, that sounds like the same guitar unamplified. Again, I could be wrong.

Nothing shatters the illusion of reality for recorded acoustical guitar like an actual guitar in the listening room. So you're not wrong.

 

[DWPress]

Very true. To counter that, I don't actually listen to the music so much as particular parts of the music.

Yes, the point of the magic playlist - we know different speakers will voice differently in different rooms but our familiarity with the challenging bits of the music allows us to make informed judgement on clarity, distortion, tonal balance etc. If it's deficient (not different) by comparison of how we've heard it before then something is off.

 

[Chrispy]

Thinking live music should probably be the number one on the list....

 

[Peluvius]

Thinking live music should probably be the number one on the list....

Good call, a few comments to this effect. I have added this option thank you.

 

[respice finem]

Good call, a few comments to this effect. I have added this option thank you.

Thanks, I updated my vote. Live acoustic music to be precise.

 

[Axo1989]

Thinking live music should probably be the number one on the list....

Thanks, I updated my vote. Live acoustic music to be precise.

I agree with adding it to the list, but I don't have much of a need/desire to listen to it (live acoustic music) so it isn't such a useful reference personally. So I went with technical measurements. Not just FR of course, but also dynamics, and listening space characteristics like decay times and so on.

 

[Mart68]

I voted technical measurements but only since it's the best fit.

Always surprised to see so many think the reference is live acoustic music, given there's so many variables and changes in between listening to someone playing a guitar in your room and a recording of them playing a guitar in your room.

Plus so much music is not acoustic instruments.

Rarely encountering a professional recording that sounds bad is my indicator of 'good'. If that happens often, then the system is not 'good.' (Excessively 'loud' mastering excepted).

Also if the same obvious colouration is plastered across all recordings (hello Klipsch et al) then the system is not good - although some don't seem to mind that it's not for me.

I hate headphones and never use them.

 

[dualazmak]

By just looking/reading the thread title "Your reference sounds", I thought, by mistake, you are asking about "reference music playlist" suitable for checking sound quality of our audio system.

Only if you would have any interest on possible example of "reference/sampler music playlist" consists of various music genres, my thread here would be of your reference, I assume.
- An Attempt Sharing Reference Quality Music Playlist: at least a portion and/or whole track being analyzed by 3D color spectrum of Adobe Audition

 

[respice finem]

Always surprised to see so many think the reference is live acoustic music, given there's so many variables and changes in between listening to someone playing a guitar in your room and a recording of them playing a guitar in your room.

Plus so much music is not acoustic instruments.

But, if acoustic music doesn't count (?) what is the reference for "right" sound? Pleasure alone? I don't think so.
Granted, acoustic music isn't perfect in rooms either, but it is as good as it gets in a given room. With true and not phantom sources or "synthetic" sources.

If there is no reference at all, all audio debates are "piffle", as "anything goes".

 

[Mart68]

But, if acoustic music doesn't count (?) what is the reference for "right" sound?

I really don't think there is one - although I'm open to having my position changed on that.

 

[respice finem]

If so, the whole science around it hardly makes sense, and pleasure rules?
If there is no "right", there also is no "wrong". Hard to accept for me as an objectivist, despite all undeniable "real life" imperfections.
But maye you're right, and we are all just killing time here...

 

[Mart68]

If so, the whole science around it hardly makes sense, and pleasure rules?
If there is no "right, there also is no "wrong". Hard to accept for me as an objectivist, despite all undeniable "real life" imperfections.
But maye you're right, and we are all just killing time here...

The science can be deployed to increase 'pleasure' so I don't think we're entirely just killing time.

 

[respice finem]

Hopefully.

 

[Peluvius]

But, if acoustic music doesn't count (?) what is the reference for "right" sound? Pleasure alone? I don't think so.
Granted, acoustic music isn't perfect in rooms either, but it is as good as it gets in a given room. With true and not phantom sources or "synthetic" sources.

If there is no reference at all, all audio debates are "piffle", as "anything goes".

If the objective is "accurate", I would argue referencing the original sound will always be relevant to some extent. But what weighting do you give it? The challenge in using live acoustic music as a reference is the significant impact the acoustics of the location where it was experienced, you will not replicate that. From the OP, my interest is in what other use as a reference, what is the "North Star" for you. I think it can be more than one thing.

If so, the whole science around it hardly makes sense, and pleasure rules?
If there is no "right", there also is no "wrong". Hard to accept for me as an objectivist, despite all undeniable "real life" imperfections.
But maye you're right, and we are all just killing time here...

One of the pleasures I get from this hobby is the progress towards accurate. I do not listen to a piece of music and think "I need to change what that sounds like", I usually just listen less to stuff I don't like. I think the "right" and "wrong" is a personal choice, not a necessary path.

 

[respice finem]

If I had to choose one, it would be measurements, so this gets the highest weighting. The rest is relevant, but secondary.

 

[kemmler3D]

Similar to @Pareto Pragmatic and @DWPress I'll use a playlist of songs with specific "canary in coalmine" sounds that reveal problems with speakers. Some show problems with frequency response, and there are certain tracks with weak or challenging mixes in the midrange that I use to judge distortion.

Headphones are maybe just OK as a personal reference for frequency response, but as a mental backstop for what low distortion sounds like, I think they can be very helpful. For example, It's rare to hear 20-40hz bass with low/no distortion from speakers, headphones are an easier way to experience that.

Other than that, I judge based on having spent a lot of time listening to speakers with known flat frequency response, and also speakers with big flaws.

Just walking up to a speaker and judging it, in an unknown room, with unknown music playing is pretty hard. Ideally you can eliminate at least one variable by using your own music.

Otherwise you have to sit there for a long time thinking about whether each frequency range sounds balanced with the others, all the while wondering what this recording is SUPPOSED to sound like.