[chickenmoon]

A step towards consistency. I looked briefly into it but most "free" music is designed for video production and in the end not free at all.

I think Bandcamp is the best source for free music and not Slater's google link, some amazing/outstanding free stuff to be found there.

 

[vladstef]

Well, a lot of us (when testing gear) already listen to frequency sweeps, test tracks, and tons of tracks that are basically just beeps and boops. Do we enjoy listening to them? No, but we do it for the science of it.

I'm not saying "let's force everyone to listen to German death metal or Australian aboriginal didgeridoo music". But I don't think listening to a 30-second track of female vocals (whose express purpose is to test female vocals for reviews) is going to be some kind of torture. Obviously, no one will be forced to use the standardized tracks, and no one is saying the standardized tracks can't be used IN ADDITION TO your normal "my favorite music" test tracks - the point is that the standardized tracks will be available to all.

I mean, there's an industry standard IEM holder for producing frequency graphs for IEMs. But not everyone chooses to use it. It just makes it harder for people to trust the FR graphs when they were produced on the non-standardized equipment (and more reliable when comparing graphs that WERE). Make sense?

Are you proposing that NO standard is better than SOME standard?

I see how my comment about music choices was actually idealistic and went further than what you proposed - a careful selection of music that covers important aspects of sound reproduction could probably be created in a way that suits most people and at least isn't a torture for others.
On the other hand, I said that standardization is always good just that I can't see it happening here because of all of the other variables which are more significant than music choices when it comes to reviews (keeping in mind that most reviewers actually do have a broad selection of songs that they use for different testings). My opinion isn't set in stone, if this ever happens and works I'll support it, just can't see a realistic way that this can be implemented while having any impact on the consistency of reviews.

 

[chickenmoon]

I see how my comment about music choices was actually idealistic and went further than what you proposed - a careful selection of music that covers important aspects of sound reproduction could probably be created in a way that suits most people and at least isn't a torture for others.
On the other hand, I said that standardization is always good just that I can't see it happening here because of all of the other variables which are more significant than music choices when it comes to reviews (keeping in mind that most reviewers actually do have a broad selection of songs that they use for different testings). My opinion isn't set in stone, if this ever happens and works I'll support it, just can't see a realistic way that this can be implemented while having any impact on the consistency of reviews.

Certainly not broad enough in my book as I never find reviews with tracks, artists or even genres I listen to.

 

[mbwilson111]

Certainly not broad enough in my book as I never find reviews with tracks, artists or even genres I listen to.

Sometimes I find new music that I like by trying some of the tracks that reviewers mention

 

[CoiL]

I've been thinking about this for a while, especially based on recent comments by members about reviews themselves, the music used, etc.

I think what would benefit the Head-Fi community greatly is a standardized selection of music (say 14-20 songs). This list can be used by ALL reviewers, to review everything from amps to headphones.

Songs from multiple genres, a male vocal, a female vocals, an orchestral, etc.

And NOT just a list of commercial songs like (The Beatles Let It Be, etc). Because some people may have the original while others the remastered, some would have a lossless while others would only have lossy. They would have to be either royalty-free (of which there's plenty of), original songs composed by HF members, or commercial songs that have been granted license to be used only for non-resale/non-broadcast equipment reviews only.

The advantage of this standardized list is that different people can read what a reviewer or member comment says and listen for the same thing (such as "the pluck of the guitar string blah blah" or "the instruments had good separation and I felt like I was a few feet in front of blah").

It is the best way to create a level and apples-to-apples comparison. If myself and @Nymphonomaniac are listening to the same exact version of a song (both flac etc) on the same IEM (with the same tips), the same source (say an iPhone 7 or xduoo X3), and he hears higher treble frequencies than me, then the reason must be due to his hearing (age, etc) or maybe QC variations. But the point is that when scientists are setting up experiments, as many variables are made constant and standard as possible so that the experiment can be as controlled as possible. This is already done, for example, via standardized measurement parameters for testing the frequency response of IEMs and headphone drivers.

This same basic idea has been brought up before, but from the context of when a reviewer lists what songs they used in their review, YOU get a hold of the same songs so you can hear what they heard. But again, the problem with this is that their copy of X may have been ripped from CD to flac, where I am listening to it on Spotify or YouTube (so it's not truly "the same song". Using my royalty-free music idea, and making all of the songs available for download directly from Head-Fi (as a zip file containing all songs in both flac and 320k MP3 for example) guarantees that I can listen to the same exact song a reviewer listened to in his review.

As far as where to find royalty-free music, here's plenty: https://www.google.com/search?q=royalty+free+music

We would just need to agree on a standardized list of songs that are able to showcase different areas of the frequencies, different features of sound (such as sibilance and soundstage), etc.

Ideas? Comments?

I thought about that long time ago (not trying to brag), just that HOW can we create such list?
1. We need jury to choose songs among from most respected reviewers suggestions, from head-fi, from different areas (amp builders, LP fans, tube fans, SS fans etc) ?
2. We need also votes from head-fi users over that list ?
3. Head-fi needs to set rule of using that list for reviewers and reviews in order to publish reviews in head-fi ?
4. How to legalize all those songs for all head-fi users/readers? Maybe not use full song or "glicth" it somewhere to "ruin" its usage for other purposes?
5. Where to store them? Head-fi server?
6. ....certainly I`ve have not though about all other issues?

 

[KipNix]

I use memory foam and man....it sound different for sure but its another proof about how they can sound mature, musical, detailed and ALWAYS good!

+1 They seal really well and I think some who don't like them aren't using them correctly. YMMV.

 

[KipNix]

Regarding Slater's good idea about a listening library:
In a perfect world where everyone is using the same source and hearing the same sounds at the same volume,it would work. But this sure isn't a perfect world, and where one person would find "a good overall bass", another would say, "booming bass, don't like it". Etc, etc, etc. Then along would come the complaints: "Why are we using Track X by ABC, when Track C by DEF would better represent bass/mids/treble", etc.

 

[DBaldock9]

I thought about that long time ago (not trying to brag), just that HOW can we create such list?
1. We need jury to choose songs among from most respected reviewers suggestions, from head-fi, from different areas (amp builders, LP fans, tube fans, SS fans etc) ?
2. We need also votes from head-fi users over that list ?
3. Head-fi needs to set rule of using that list for reviewers and reviews in order to publish reviews in head-fi ?
4. How to legalize all those songs for all head-fi users/readers? Maybe not use full song or "glicth" it somewhere to "ruin" its usage for other purposes?
5. Where to store them? Head-fi server?
6. ....certainly I`ve have not though about all other issues?

#4 - Would someone at Head-Fi have to get permission or a license from the copyright owners, to upload and provide / share any copyrighted music, being used as part of a test suite?

 

[groucho69]

Well, a lot of us (when testing gear) already listen to frequency sweeps, test tracks, and tons of tracks that are basically just beeps and boops. Do we enjoy listening to them? No, but we do it for the science of it.

 

[Slater]

I thought about that long time ago (not trying to brag), just that HOW can we create such list?
1. We need jury to choose songs among from most respected reviewers suggestions, from head-fi, from different areas (amp builders, LP fans, tube fans, SS fans etc) ?
2. We need also votes from head-fi users over that list ?
3. Head-fi needs to set rule of using that list for reviewers and reviews in order to publish reviews in head-fi ?
4. How to legalize all those songs for all head-fi users/readers? Maybe not use full song or "glicth" it somewhere to "ruin" its usage for other purposes?
5. Where to store them? Head-fi server?
6. ....certainly I`ve have not though about all other issues?

Yes, all of the issues you raise above will need to be done.

I have contacted Jude for guidance regarding this idea. We'll see what he says. I met him for the 1st time at the Ohio CanJam, and he is a great guy. I'm sure he'll do whatever he can to get behind this if he thinks it's feasible, as it can only improve things further on HF.

 

[Slater]

Regarding Slater's good idea about a listening library:
In a perfect world where everyone is using the same source and hearing the same sounds at the same volume,it would work. But this sure isn't a perfect world, and where one person would find "a good overall bass", another would say, "booming bass, don't like it". Etc, etc, etc. Then along would come the complaints: "Why are we using Track X by ABC, when Track C by DEF would better represent bass/mids/treble", etc.

Well, I'm not saying everyone will agree. But it's better than just giving up and assuming "Oh well, we won't be able to please everyone, so let's not even bother".

There's an old saying "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Otherwise, we wouldn't have the automobile, iPhone, and Oreo cookies. Most people like and/or use those things (but not everyone in the world). The ones that don't - well, that's their prerogative and they're perfectly allowed to never to drive a car, eat an Oreo cookie, or use an iPhone.

Again, reviewers are free to use whatever songs they want. No one would be putting a gun to anyone's head saying YOU HAVE USE THESE TEST TRACKS OR YOU MUST LEAVE THE HUMAN RACE.

I mean, the basic idea of this is no different than the generally accepted 2 or 3 sources we recommend all the time to people for testing the phase of their headphones. It's not the only ways to do it, but it certainly is nice when standard things are readily available to everyone.

Basically, the "average person" is what we're shooting for:

 

[loomisjohnson]

guys:
monoprice has released two iems under the guise mp 20 and mp 30, which look an awful lot like the estimable bosshifi b3 and b3s--some body willing to take one for the team?

 

[Slater]

guys:
monoprice has released two iems under the guise mp 20 and mp 30, which look an awful lot like the estimable bosshifi b3 and b3s--some body willing to take one for the team?

MP30 has tuning nozzles, which neither BossHifi doesn't have.

Sounds cool though. Great prices as well!

 

[groucho69]

Well, I'm not saying everyone will agree. But it's better than just giving up and assuming "Oh well, we won't be able to please everyone, so let's not even bother".

There's an old saying "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Otherwise, we wouldn't have the automobile, iPhone, and Oreo cookies. Most people like and/or use those things (but not everyone in the world). The ones that don't - well, that's their prerogative and they're perfectly allowed to never to drive a car, eat an Oreo cookie, or use an iPhone.

Again, reviewers are free to use whatever songs they want. No one would be putting a gun to anyone's head saying YOU HAVE USE THESE TEST TRACKS OR YOU MUST LEAVE THE HUMAN RACE.

I mean, the basic idea of this is no different than the generally accepted 2 or 3 sources we recommend all the time to people for testing the phase of their headphones. It's not the only ways to do it, but it certainly is nice when standard things are readily available to everyone.

Basically, the "average person" is what we're shooting for:

I believe it was Mao Zedong who added just shoot the rest.

 

[Slater]

I believe it was Mao Zedong who added just shoot the rest.

Haha, I'd be like: