Best Songs to Test Speakers

[MUSICRAFT]

Lisa Gerrard - Devotion (The Silver Tree)

Thanks

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[manicm]

Do not only test with the best sounding recording, choose an album that's going to challenge the system. When I want to test for harshness or sibilance I always come back to David Bowie's Scary Monsters. That will sniff out any chinks in a system in no time at all.

 

[Vladimir]

Do not only test with the best sounding recording, choose an album that's going to challenge the system. When I want to test for harshness or sibilance I always come back to David Bowie's Scary Monsters. That will sniff out any chinks in a system in no time at all.

I wouldn't test today's system with old records that are ADD, AAD or AAA. I would strictly go for good production, non-compressed, DDD with most instruments, vocals and always try dense classical music passages with orchestral tutti.

The danger in going A is you might prescribe flaws on the system that initially came from the wow, flutter, noise and lack of resolution in your test material compared to today's standards. Also bare in mind the best magnetic tape for studio recording is 13bit resolution at best.

The biggest mistake (which I also made for years) is people using Miles Davis - Kind of blue for testing fidelity. That recording is rubbish compared to todays standards. With a better resolving system you litterally hear the magnetic tape deteriorating as it plays. It is a popular album and most of us know it by heart but that doesn't mean it is a suitable reference for fidelity. It was recorded in 1959! The clean sounding remasters have so many filters through them to push down noise levels, you can imagine how much fine detail got lost there. Using a 1959 black and white movie as a reference for todays HD flat screen shopping is not a good idea IMO.

My point is, I prefer for the musical material to challenge the system, not the quality of the recording. I want that out of the way just like I want a clear lense to look at the stars.

 

[Glacialpath]

In my opinion any kind of heavy metal is a great way to test speakers. Especially Death Metal. It's genrally the most dence music of any genre with all that distortion and speed the music is played at. Listen to some on a small system if you don't know any death metal then on the speakers you are interested in or have see how clear the music is. Of course it won't be that clear like some clasical or pop but that the idea.

I can recomend some if you are interested.

 

[Vladimir]

In my opinion any kind of heavy metal is a great way to test speakers. Especially Death Metal. It's genrally the most dence music of any genre with all that distortion and speed the music is played at. Listen to some on a small system if you don't know any death metal then on the speakers you are interested in or have see how clear the music is. Of course it won't be that clear like some clasical or pop but that the idea.

I can recomend some if you are interested.

Please do. Thanks. :beer:

 

[nopiano]

Do not only test with the best sounding recording, choose an album that's going to challenge the system. When I want to test for harshness or sibilance I always come back to David Bowie's Scary Monsters. That will sniff out any chinks in a system in no time at all.

I wouldn't test today's system with old records that are ADD, AAD or AAA. I would strictly go for good production, non-compressed, DDD with most instruments, vocals and always try dense classical music passages with orchestral tutti.

The danger in going A is you might prescribe flaws on the system that initially came from the wow, flutter, noise and lack of resolution in your test material compared to today's standards. Also bare in mind the best magnetic tape for studio recording is 13bit resolution at best.

The biggest mistake (which I also made for years) is people using Miles Davis - Kind of blue for testing fidelity. That recording is rubbish compared to todays standards. With a better resolving system you litterally hear the magnetic tape deteriorating as it plays. It is a popular album and most of us know it by heart but that doesn't mean it is a suitable reference for fidelity. It was recorded in 1959! The clean sounding remasters have so many filters through them to push down noise levels, you can imagine how much fine detail got lost there. Using a 1959 black and white movie as a reference for todays HD flat screen shopping is not a good idea IMO.

My point is, I prefer for the musical material to challenge the system, not the quality of the recording. I want that out of the way just like I want a clear lense to look at the stars.

I have to agree with manicm on this. It is always worth trying something scrawny sounding from the past. I have a few CBS favourites like Simon and Garfunkel that are ideal. Unless you only own recent all digital hires stuff and I certainly don't this seems to me an essential test. I guess it is similar to the way WHF use low Rex downloads when testing DACs as well as better resolution tracks.

 

[davedotco]

I have, for no obvious reason, been playing all the songs on my Nano in alphabetical order during my gym sessions. Today I was on 'L'.

Third or fourth song up was 'Love will tear us apart', tha original album version, followed immediately by the live version. These are both on the collectors Edition of 'Closer'.

To this day the live version still sends goosebumps up and down my spine. The pace, energy and shear passion of the track cuts right through you, quite awsome.

Assuming it was recorded in the union 'concert hall' in Malet street I may well have been present, but you know what they say about the punk era, if you can remember what you are doing, you wern't doing it right.

I often comment that I think one of the best ways to evaluate a system is to see how well it connects you to the music, In much the same way I have used a couple of Brubeck tracks that have studio and live versions on the Legacy version of "Time Out'.

Of course in both cases these are different performances, and completely different sound wise, but concentrate on the 'feel' of the performances, try it and see if it works for you.

 

[Reijer]

Choose music you know! If I may suggest:

Agnes Obel with The Curse.

http://youtu.be/6h9XUYj96ho

 

[Neptune_Twilight]

I have found that complicated tracks (with a lot going on?) that I've thought were just bad recordings tend to end up being great as the quality of speakers improve - I would try a some music you find muddled as often decent speakers unravel the mess whereas tracks you already like & think are well recorded often sound no better with higher quality speakers - Just my 10p worth.

 

[manicm]

My point is, I prefer for the musical material to challenge the system, not the quality of the recording. I want that out of the way just like I want a clear lense to look at the stars.

It may not have been obvious, but that was my point. Scary Monsters, my 1999 remaster anyway, is a brilliant recording. But Bowie's lisps, and vocal emphasis on consonants on this album will reveal any weaknesses in a system ruthlessly. If you want to test high-frequency refinement look no further.

 

[BigH]

Do not only test with the best sounding recording, choose an album that's going to challenge the system. When I want to test for harshness or sibilance I always come back to David Bowie's Scary Monsters. That will sniff out any chinks in a system in no time at all.

I wouldn't test today's system with old records that are ADD, AAD or AAA. I would strictly go for good production, non-compressed, DDD with most instruments, vocals and always try dense classical music passages with orchestral tutti.

The danger in going A is you might prescribe flaws on the system that initially came from the wow, flutter, noise and lack of resolution in your test material compared to today's standards. Also bare in mind the best magnetic tape for studio recording is 13bit resolution at best.

The biggest mistake (which I also made for years) is people using Miles Davis - Kind of blue for testing fidelity. That recording is rubbish compared to todays standards. With a better resolving system you litterally hear the magnetic tape deteriorating as it plays. It is a popular album and most of us know it by heart but that doesn't mean it is a suitable reference for fidelity. It was recorded in 1959! The clean sounding remasters have so many filters through them to push down noise levels, you can imagine how much fine detail got lost there. Using a 1959 black and white movie as a reference for todays HD flat screen shopping is not a good idea IMO.

My point is, I prefer for the musical material to challenge the system, not the quality of the recording. I want that out of the way just like I want a clear lense to look at the stars.

I don't agree with that, if most of your music is old recordings what is the point of using modern ones and for me jazz it is mostly 50s and early 60s, rock is mostly 70s. Also I find the slightly off recordings or albums are a better test of a system than perfect ones. On my system I can still enjoy 1956 recordings like Tenor Madness and Saxophone Collosus in mono. Yes KOB is not the best recording, the tape was running too slow on several tracks.

 

[Vladimir]

An amazing album with excellent production and mastering, which is no surprise considering the main artist Alan Parsons is a famous studio engineer (recorded Pink Floyd's DSOTM at Abbey Road Studios).

A simply must have disk in every audiophile collection. Songs Sirius and MammaGamma will open your chacra highway tolls to audio nirvana.

Modern system test

Vintage system test

 

[Regisss]

An amazing album with excellent production and mastering, which is no surprise considering the main artist Alan Parsons is a famous studio engineer (recorded Pink Floyd's DSOTM at Abbey Road Studios).

A simply must have disk in every audiophile collection. Songs Sirius and MammaGamma will open your chacra highway tolls to audio nirvana.

Maybe you can advice where to by such album in hi res format (flac, studio master files)?

 

[Vladimir]

Maybe you can advice where to by such album in hi res format (flac, studio master files)?

I have a 1987 ARISTA version (258 718) released in W. Germany and Holland. Was looking for a 2008 Japan pressing but couldn't find one here. I would like to get the BVCM-34458 released on SHM-CD Super High Material CD.

Only Hi-Res that I know of is Classic Records / HDAD 2011. Pricey though!

Amazon and ebay have a good selection and resonable prices. I got mine years ago from a CD shop.

 

[pyrrhon]

Best song I dont know but some I like :

-The National : This is the last time

-Bar Kokbha : Sother

-A perfect Circle : A stranger

-Death cab for cutie : I will possess your heart

 

[CnoEvil]

An amazing album with excellent production and mastering, which is no surprise considering the main artist Alan Parsons is a famous studio engineer (recorded Pink Floyd's DSOTM at Abbey Road Studios).

A simply must have disk in every audiophile collection. Songs Sirius and MammaGamma will open your chacra highway tolls to audio nirvana.

Modern system test

Vintage system test

Good choice.

 

[ID.]

Maybe you can advice where to by such album in hi res format (flac, studio master files)?

I have a 1987 ARISTA version (258 718) released in W. Germany and Holland. Was looking for a 2008 Japan pressing but couldn't find one here. I would like to get the BVCM-34458 released on SHM-CD Super High Material CD.

Only Hi-Res that I know of is Classic Records / HDAD 2011. Pricey though!

Amazon and ebay have a good selection and resonable prices. I got mine years ago from a CD shop.

Not easily available in Japan either any more. I have a few SHM-SACDs. They sound good, but I have nothing to compare them to as I only own the SACD version. I bought the SHM-CD version of Bjork's Debut, and it sounded cleaner and more detailed, but I never compared them extensively or did blind testing so there's a very good chance that it was just placebo effect due to the fact that I expected to hear a difference knowing that I was listening to the SHM-CD version. Either way, I hardly listen to CDs and just take a digital feed from my iPod or Mac Mini most of the time.

 

[Vladimir]

If there is any audible advantage to SHM it would be as reduced reading error from the CD transport, but I have no idea if I would hear it. I simply like Japanese CD technology like XRCD and such, because I'm a nerd.

 

[ID.]

Even when it has no effect on the sound quality I like it when the disc feels like it's of a higher quality. Heavier. Not so sharp on the edges which seems to be the general difference between paying slightly more for the Japanese pressing rather than the cheaper imported pressing. That and occasionally bonus tracks on the Japan edition.

My CD player is slot loading and you can actually tell the extra thickness on the SHM SACDs as it passes through the felt or whatever the material it has to keep dust out.

 

[Vladimir]

I have some Russian and Bulgarian CDs (pirated copies) that flop like foil and some didn't work new out of the jewel case. Useless even as coffee and drinks coasters (they stick on the hot bottom and have a hole in the middle). Those that did work, didn't work very well at the end of the CD (final songs on the disc perifery where biggest flop is). Most simply stopped working full stop just from sitting unused in their boxes.

When I bought proper original discs as a teen (in the 90s) it was like french kissing Jessica Alba.

 

[Glacialpath]

I think I put this earlier in the thread but for anyone new reading the thread I still think a dense Heavy Metal/ Death Metal album will put any Hi-Fi through it's paces.

Death Cult Armageddon by Dimu Borgir (full 40 piece orchestra with full on Black Metal Band)

Demigod by Behemoth (Very technical full on Death Metal)

In Their Darkened Shrines by Nile (Dense technical Death Metal with Egyption theams running through the songs)

Slipknot by Slipknot (Chaotic Metal with 9 band members. Drummer, 2 Percussionists, 2 Guitars, Bass, DJ, Sampler guy, Singer)

Heartwork By Carcass (Death Metal with very dense guitar sound, quite layered, muddy mix till it's on a good set up.)

Slaughter OF The Soul by At The Gates (Much like the Carcass album, dense and muddy mix.

I know these albums sound grym but if you first listen to them on an average system to hear how dense they are. Then put them on a know good system to see how they should sound. When you put them on your system you'll know if you have a good set up.

 

[steve_1979]

It's been mentioned before but it's worth saying again. A sine wave sweep is a very useful tool when comparing speakers.

Clicky

 

[Vladimir]

Jacintha - Here's to Ben: A Vocal Tribute to Ben Webster

Sample: Georgia on my mind

Burmester - CD III (sampler).

01 - Melissa Walker - A time for Love
02 - Nicolo Paganini by Gil Shaham und Goran Sollscher - Sonata Concertata
03 - John Lee Hooker - Early one morning
04 - Bennie Wallace - It's The Talk of the Town
05 - Gioacchino Rossini - Sonata I G-Dur
06 - Hans Theessink - The Planet
07 - Nikolai Rimskey Korsakov - Allegro Molto
08 - Hans Jьrgen Schonoor - Orgelwerke von Back
09 - Hugh Masekela - Stimela
10 - Yim Hok Man - Poem of Chinese Drums

 

[Xonne]

My favorite album to listen to by far. I'm normally into alot harder rock, but his is such a well recorded album and if u havent heard it i strongly suggest you try and give this a listen. There are no "weak" songs. I have never heard others talk about this album, so if theres someone out there that shares my opinion, give me a poke.

 

[Reijer]

Maybe mentioned earlier: Alison Kraus, Paper Airplane. Agnes Obel, Avantine or The Curse. Gare du Nord, Thirtysomentin'. Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake, Love Never Felt So Good. Or any kind of music you know from heart.