[Computer Lounge]

Sure, I could have created this thread under 'Music', but I'm hoping for answers that are more scientific, and objective to people's taste in music.

What tracks do you use to test the following elements of a headphone/amp/DAC/DAP's performance:

• Separation
• Vocal clarity
• Soundstage
• Imaging
• Bass response (particularly sub-bass response)
  
• Treble
• Upper Trebble
• etc.

Share your wisdom!

// Alex

 

[AudioBear]

Not really a direct answer to your question but the Chesky binaural Ultimate Headphone Demonstration disk is very revealing about a system or a specific set of headphones. http://www.chesky.com/album/ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc-jd361

Afterthought: I guess the first Chesky audio evaluation disk is also pretty interesting. http://www.chesky.com/album/best-chesky-classics-jazz-audiophile-test-disc-vol-3-jd111

 

[castleofargh]

for objective information, measurement will do better. for taste, no matter how scientific you try to be, in the end it's your taste so I would tend to go with whatever track you like and are very familiar with. it would most likely be more significant to you than some random demo CD.
I've had the typical Back organ piece and some little jazz track, and some North African percussion band, and Rebecca Pidgeon or whatever. of course we can work with those, but ultimately I prefer the stuff I'm most used to. habit is my preferred reference.
one of my all time test track when I EQ is November Rain, I jump to a little before 7mn into the track and "work" with that.to me, almost any change in the signature tends to give an edge to one instrument or one voice, or change a sound in a way I now sometimes recognize. so while I don't have a clue what this should sound like, I've been listening to it since I was 15 or 16 and do have a very clear idea of what I want it to sound like and what it will mean for other songs.
now do I believe that song has scientific value? nope. it's just something that works for me. I'm fed up with it, but I know it well and know I can count on it to help. when it comes to EQ this song is the wife I don't have. ^_^

 

[Computer Lounge]

Not really a direct answer to your question but the Chesky binaural Ultimate Headphone Demonstration disk is very revealing about a system or a specific set of headphones. http://www.chesky.com/album/ultimate-headphone-demonstration-disc-jd361

Afterthought: I guess the first Chesky audio evaluation disk is also pretty interesting. http://www.chesky.com/album/best-chesky-classics-jazz-audiophile-test-disc-vol-3-jd111

The first album that you linked looks very promising; it is great to see that some of the industries top names are rating it highly too!
I might start off by purchasing the first album, and if I find it useful I'll check out the second one too - thanks!

for objective information, measurement will do better. for taste, no matter how scientific you try to be, in the end it's your taste so I would tend to go with whatever track you like and are very familiar with. it would most likely be more significant to you than some random demo CD.
I've had the typical Back organ piece and some little jazz track, and some North African percussion band, and Rebecca Pidgeon or whatever. of course we can work with those, but ultimately I prefer the stuff I'm most used to. habit is my preferred reference.
one of my all time test track when I EQ is November Rain, I jump to a little before 7mn into the track and "work" with that.to me, almost any change in the signature tends to give an edge to one instrument or one voice, or change a sound in a way I now sometimes recognize. so while I don't have a clue what this should sound like, I've been listening to it since I was 15 or 16 and do have a very clear idea of what I want it to sound like and what it will mean for other songs.
now do I believe that song has scientific value? nope. it's just something that works for me. I'm fed up with it, but I know it well and know I can count on it to help. when it comes to EQ this song is the wife I don't have. ^_^

If I had the gear to take measurements, I'd prefer to rely on that, but for the time being, I'm going to have to trust in my ears.
Headphone Build a Graph is a great tool, even if I don't have the best understanding of how to read the measurements, but I constantly find myself testing headphones that are not in the list.
I have a few tracks that I refer to to get a feel for a headphone's tonality in particular. Infected Mushroom make incredibly well produced electronic music, and only the very best systems bring out the texture in the samples that they use.
What I don't have is a track to test soundstage between headphones, I'll check out the album that AudioBear linked, there is likely going to be something in there for me.

// Alex

 

[I3eyond]

Anything System of a Down is a great checker for high's/sibilance. Their recordings are so hot it's almost impossible to roll off the harshness, but it's possible.

Dire Straits - Money for Nothing is great for airiness/soundstage.

Good luck!

 

[Computer Lounge]

Anything System of a Down is a great checker for high's/sibilance. Their recordings are so hot it's almost impossible to roll off the harshness, but it's possible.

Dire Straits - Money for Nothing is great for airiness/soundstage.

Good luck!

Thanks for the tips! I really need to listen to more SOD, I can't say I've ever listened to any of their music on high end cans.

// Alex

 

[I3eyond]

Check out Infected Mushroom for bass impact and soundstaging from a completely different genre than you would normally think for soundstage.

 

[Computer Lounge]

Check out Infected Mushroom for bass impact and soundstaging from a completely different genre than you would normally think for soundstage.

Believe it or not, that is already my go to! I got the chance to see them live a couple of years back too - it was incredible!

// Alex

 

[gregorio]

If I had the gear to take measurements, I'd prefer to rely on that, but for the time being, I'm going to have to trust in my ears.

It's got nothing to do with your ears and everything to do with your taste/preference, as Castleofargh attempted to explain. The problem is that you have no reference, if for example: You used Money for Nothing to audition a system, you have no way of knowing if the separation, vocal clarity, imaging, bass response, etc., are accurate because you have no reference of what the separation, imaging etc., is supposed to be. Maybe you hear a wider soundstage, more separation and sub-bass response on one system and conclude therefore that it's a better system but in fact it could be a worse system because you don't know if the soundstage is supposed to be that wide, if it's supposed to have that much separation and that much sub-bass. Your conclusion would be based entirely on your preference for a wider soundstage, more separation and sub-bass, not on how accurately the system is reproducing the recording. So it's got nothing to do with trusting your ears because you obviously can't trust your ears to make a comparison with something they've never heard or don't know if they've ever heard!

I sometimes use Money for Nothing, I almost always use Killer (Seal) for it's separation/imaging, tight bass, etc. In the case of Money for Nothing, I'm just referencing against my personal preferences but in the case of Killer, I'm referencing against what it should sound like, as I've heard the original mix/master in the studio it was created. The other commercial tracks I use are tracks I was involved in making and therefore I know intimately what they should sound like. There's no point in me recommending Killer or any of those other tracks to you though, because you have no idea what they're supposed to sound like, no reference.

As a consumer, there are therefore no tracks that can be recommended to you as reference tracks because you have no reference and therefore no scientific or objective determination is possible, you're stuck with purely your subjective preference. As recommended, you can try to make or get hold of some measurements, thereby arriving at a somewhat more informed/objective determination and of course, if you ever get the chance to hear/study masters in the studio they were created, jump at the chance!

G

 

[Niouke]

In order to hear how deep can the bass go on a system I often use "Anything's possible" from "Zero dB". On a lot of systems the lowest tones of the bassline don't even come out, on other certain frequencies are exaggerated or shifted. As said above it's all relative to the other systems I know and nowhere near a scientific method of measurement.

 

[eddiek997]

For me, I listen to hear instruments - Does that sound like a piano? does that sound like the Cello is there in front of me? Does her voice pierce my ears? Etc, Etc. Soundstage is the last thing I listen for in headphones.

The vast majority of times, its the recording/mixing process that will determine the answer.

Which is why I prefer buying from AIXRECORDS for the physical CD/DVD/Bluray or their download site ITRAX. Read on Dr Waldrep's site about the entire process and you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[gregorio]

[1] In order to hear how deep can the bass go on a system I often use "Anything's possible" from "Zero dB". On a lot of systems the lowest tones of the bassline don't even come out, on other certain frequencies are exaggerated or shifted.
[2] As said above it's all relative to the other systems I know and nowhere near a scientific method of measurement.

[1] Obviously a system incapable of producing any of that deep bass is not a good system but beyond this basic determination of a poor or decent system, we're stuck. Assuming a decent system which can reproduce that low bass, the qualities of that low bass; it's punchiness, balance with the rest of the mix, etc., are unknown. Maybe that low bass is supposed to be barely audible, maybe it's supposed to sound exaggerated/dominant or maybe a particular point in-between? The only reference you have is your personal preference of how much (and other qualities of the low bass) you like.

[2] It's relative first to your personal preference and then to the other systems you know and which of them get closer or further away from your preference. Let's say the low bass is supposed to be barely audible relative to the rest of the mix but you prefer it louder. A particularly good system, which accurately reproduces that bass balance/level, would sound less good to you than an inaccurate system which exaggerates it.

[1] For me, I listen to hear instruments - Does that sound like a piano? ...
[1a] Does her voice pierce my ears? Etc, Etc.
[2] The vast majority of times, its the recording/mixing process that will determine the answer.

1. Again, that doesn't tell us much, as any competent system should make it sound like a piano. Going a step further though, what is that particular piano supposed to sound like? A Bosendorfer sounds different to a Steinway, a Steinway concert grand sounds different to a baby grand, the room in which the piano is played makes a dramatic difference to how it sounds, as does how it's played and defining all of that is how it's recorded, with what and where. So, you have no idea what a particular piano recording is supposed to sound like beyond the basic fact that it is a piano and then your preference of how you think or would like it to sound.
1a. Is her voice supposed to pierce your ears and if so, by how much?

2. That's a bit of a strange statement because ALL the time it's the recording/mixing (and mastering) process that determines all the aspects of the sound.

BTW, Waldrep is very knowledgeable, very skilled at recording and is the most honest (least full of bull*) of anyone I've come across who markets hires products (content or equipment). Occasionally though, what he says is a bit dodgy, as at the end of the day he is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. He's certainly near or at the top of the list of most recommended, particularly for his surround productions.

G

 

[pinnahertz]

BTW, Waldrep is very knowledgeable, very skilled at recording and is the most honest (least full of bull*) of anyone I've come across who markets hires products (content or equipment). Occasionally though, what he says is a bit dodgy, as at the end of the day he is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. He's certainly near or at the top of the list of most recommended, particularly for his surround productions.

Met him, talked. Very good guy, very honest, very frustrated, no doubt from the marketing effort akin to pushing a train up hill. His stuff is some of the best recorded stuff available. The results of pains-taking production, meticulous mic'ing and mixing, and very careful mastering with the goal being to make the release sound represent the live event through the window of artificial reproduction. Some if it actually brings a tear. His surround music defines the genre.

And it sounds just as excellent at 16/44.1.

 

[Oscar-HiFi]

I used to use certain tracks but now I tend to just stick my player on shuffle as I have a huge range of music.

But one of my favourite test albums is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Conversations

It probably isn't the best recording, or mastering, but it's recorded in a room with amazing acoustics and the soundstage and separation is excellent. Highly recommended.