[akart]

Hi Everyone,
 
I hope this is the right sub-forum to post this in. If not, please let me know and I can post it on the right board.
 
What do you think is a representative set of music CDs that would test out an amp's capabilities (bass, treble, mids, soundstage, instrument separation) etc.? I think the people at 6moons also use a specific set of CDs on all their tests ...
 
Thanks,
akart

 

[BK_856er]

Can't go wrong with the HDTracks Open Your Ears compilation.
 
Apart from that, I would say simply music that you are familiar with.
 
BK

 

[akart]

Thanks for the info. I was actually looking at Reference Recordings. They apparently sell a format called HDCD - it is backward compatible with a CD - which means even normal CD players can play them, but it benefits when using a CD player with a special HDCD decoder - like the Music Hall 35.2. Those are 24bit/176.4kHz recordings! Mind blowing.
 
You can get a couple of sample tracks at:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Complimentary-241764-HRx-Downloads-Courtesy-Reference-Recordings
 
Please note that these are 256MB per track, or about 4 mins!
 
This review at 6moons swears that the 24bit/176.4kHz make a huge difference with the right DAC:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/m2tech/hiface_2.html
 
Enjoy!

 

[akart]

This is also very interesting (From Wikipedia):
 
In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.^[35] However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.^[36] The authors suggested that different mixes for the two formats might be causing perceived differences, and commented:
 

"Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.^[37][38]

This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.^[39] Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study.^{[40]  "}

 

[McPanse]

^ Good post.
 
HDtracks has a free five-song 96/24 sampler. Good mix of classical, vocal and blues. Don't know whether 96/24 makes a difference, but they're solid, reference-grade recordings.