[obstacleofaffliction]

Hello everyone,
Just curious what your reference recording is? Is it a song or two or, like myself, an album?
For many years, the Front Line Assembly album, Echogentic, has been my reference when I test the performance of any alteration made in my system. And if I ever make it to a CanJam, this is what I would judge other equipment with.
Cheers!

 

[geek707]

I'm mostly listening to vocals:
Wuthering Heights-Kate Bush-"The Kick Inside"
Bridget O'Malley-Silly Wizard (Andy M Stewart)- "So Many Parting"

 

[obstacleofaffliction]

I'm mostly listening to vocals:
Wuthering Heights-Kate Bush-"The Kick Inside"
Bridget O'Malley-Silly Wizard (Andy M Stewart)- "So Many Parting"

Sweet choices.

 

[Elegiac]

This is.

 

[BobG55]

This album (always) &, or, the following song (lately) :

 

[bigshot]

I have several... Fiedler's Gaite Parisienne, Donald Fagan's The Nightfly, Elton John's surround mixes, Little Feat Waiting For Columbus, Zappa We're Only In It For The Money, Stones Hot Rocks, Beatles Rubber Soul, Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues II, Telarc Carmen Overtures Slatkin; and to adjust peak bass level, Cabin in the Woods and 1812 overture on Mercury.

I'll also grab a bunch of 1930s jazz and country CDs too. That helps keep the midrange tamed.

To test 5.1 levels I use Beatles "Good Morning" and any multichannel Tomita album.

 

[gregorio]

Just curious what your reference recording is?

This is a particularly tricky question, there’s so many problems with the whole concept of using reference recordings that it’s almost entirely useless and is almost the very last thing that should ever be recommended, except for one very annoying fact: In many situations and almost all consumer situations, testing using a recording as reference is the only option other than not testing at all!

One obvious problem is that the recording is not the reference to start with, the actual reference is whatever system you’re used to hearing it on and/or you liked most. Unless the system you’re used to is a very highly spec’ed mastering studio, your reference is wrong to start with. I’ve had a number of audiophiles in my highly spec’ed studio over the years and without exception they’ve always been shocked by how different their reference recording/s sound. Their opinions are usually along the lines of “it’s too analytical”, “too cold”, “too harsh”, “too detailed”, etc. But it’s none of those things, what it actually is, is a lot more accurate (higher-fidelity)!

Even if there’s nothing you can do about it, it’s worth at least being aware of/considering the above.

To answer your question directly, I use a number of recordings which I know well, chosen to test the performance of a system. So for example I use “Killer” (Seal) because it’s an exceptional production which tests separation, stereo imaging and mid bass “tightness”. I sometimes use John Barry’s “Dancing with Wolves” soundtrack because the orch bass drum is a good test of low bass performance. The other commercial recordings I use are those that I was involved in making, I therefore know exactly how they should sound, and which test other aspects of systems performance. I use two which are particularly revealing/demanding of the high-mid and HF performance (mainly due to the specific percussion) and another that’s particularly demanding of the mid bass to low-mids (it causes distortion on weaker systems). I’ll also use a pink noise test file, as that can reveal resonances and some other issues. Most engineers have significantly different collections of test tracks because again it’s usually centred around recordings they were involved in, so they are highly familiar with how they should sound.

G

 

[castleofargh]

I'm probably a weirdo about this, but I tend to "test"(initial listening) transducers with messy stuff that can easily be pushed too far for my own taste, or can on the contrary sound overly cozy even though they're definitely not if played on a clean calibrated system. Even then, it alerts me of a massively weird frequency response and not much else.

I go for the mess within the mess of one of theses usually:



It's not hard to get some punk or grunge stuff, with distortions everywhere and confused mixing, I just happen to know and like those tracks.

Otherwise, the tracks always used to pretend like I'm getting an idea about the sound:
-Pastime Paradise (all, with intro in particular).
-November Rain (the end around 6:50mn with the guitars having some fun) I can do a pretty good job of EQing with this one alone, just getting the guitars on both sides with a somewhat similar placement and loudness helps me a lot, and the cavernous voice mix thingy also changes a lot with EQ in the right places (could just be force of habit and nothing particular about that track, IDK).




When I started "testing" audio gear, I would go for the usual vocal goddesses and classical stuff you could find on all the demo discs out there. Never helped me. The rare occasions where I could argue it did, were for big room/speaker issues in the low end, but plenty or rap tracks made the issues just as clear.
Great tracks tend to sound nice to me, even from the PA system of a supermarket, so I've stopped using those demos pretty early. It's the stuff that's just a step away from sounding horrible that helped me the most in practice. That, and of course knowing the track very well from a calibrated speaker setup.
I'd love to pretend that Mezzanine, Fast Car and the Toccata told me everything about gears, but beside being hyper used to them, they never revealed anything particular to me, and when they did, other songs did too. I could never use Pidgeon or Krall on the demos, I don't like them for some reason, taste is a strange thing (my nemesis is Celine Dion). So, for women voices I'd go with Winehouse, Sade, or even Tori Amos sometimes. Not sure if it helped me at all, but at least I did like listening to those girls and always felt that it was pretty important to like what we use.

A manual switch and direct comparison has helped me so much more than a particular set of tracks.

 

[Ryokan]

I've listened to Fire of unknown origin since a teen and usually play a few tracks trying out a new iem. It's well produced and clear sounding with great pace.

Wishbone Ash - Argus is another , great sounding with crystal clear vocals and layered instruments - a sense of space and lively flowing rhythms.




Another that's been played countless times. Very dreamy with ethereal vocals and great atmosphere.



Recently I've rediscovered Holst - St Paul's Suite with it's wonderful joyful melodies and contrasts with fast and slow sections.
Other tracks with background noises that are not always obvious but some iem's pick them out clearly - could be they're just tuned to the same frequency?

 

[geek707]

Curious what the 2ed video is.

 

[sander99]

Curious what the 2ed video is.

In the last post before yours?
From the album Mirage by Camel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_(Camel_album)

I had recorded the (vinyl) album on cassette and must have played it at least a hundred times in the 80's.

 

[geek707]

Thanks.

 

[pellidon]

My current list is as follows. Some of the MP3's were ripped years ago with different rates and software.

Rush, A Farewell to Kings FLAC
Pink Floyd, Time MP3
Beatles, Sun King MP3
Ghost, Circe ogg
Santana, Black Magic Woman MP3
Dave Brubeck, Blue Rondo la Turk MP3
Eagles, Hotel California MP3
Slayer, Raining Blood ogg

 

[bigshot]

I used to listen to Camel's Snow Goose album when I was a kid. It went well with weed.

 

[David A Silva]

Old school guy here. My current three favorite albums for testing headphones:
Innervisions - Stevie Wonder
Graceland - Paul Simon
The Nightfly - Donald Fagen
Good full frequency range and soundstage / instrument staging on all three.