[lastdodobird]

...songs that you're familiar with (all-time favorites) that aren't terribly produced, but don't have pristine production values?

or

...audiophile-grade tracks that you have rarely heard (like Chesky stuff that you borrowed from a friend or something)?

I'd think that the perfect answer would be a balance of both... but what is more important if you would have to choose tracks for testing out audio equipment that you're going to use?

 

[Ashirgo]

Ony some well known songs, especially if you want to compare pieces of equipment. It is essential to listen to beloved pieces, then you are sure that they will catch your attention and as you already know them well, you will be focused on some other things than melody, lyrics or realisation.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Both.

 

[lastdodobird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Both.

...

...

yeah, i said this on my opening post.

i also asked what is more important if pressed for a choice b/w the two.

 

[holyharry]

It depends on how "deep" you want to go into audiophile territory. If you want to really push the boat out and build a killer system, and play with the dark arts of sound reproduction, then I would suggest getting a few audiophile tracks that you like, and spending a lot of time listening to them and familiarising yourself with them. Studios like Chesky record tracks with phenomenal detail and presence - you can lose yourself in subtle nuances.

If, on the other hand, your aim is simply to build a decent sound system, and then forget about it and enjoy the music, I'd stick with your favourites.

 

[xaval]

Test tracks for what?
for me the idea is about how good the music sounds and how much joy I have with it.

For this purpose it only makes sense to me to use music that I enjoy listening to. As time goes by so it does for the music I can be more into at any one time.

The concept of audiophile tracks is just marketing junk that companies and some people want to sell to us as if it's a measure of anything objective. It can get objective to some point, obviously... but enjoying music is so subjective that language support is almost funny!

If it weren't for the "test track" concept crap we would spend far more time listening and enjoying music - or posting about it lol - and trying to talk about how much quality or quantity of bass, soundstage, naturalness (this one always brings a smile to me) and what not.

 

[holyharry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaval /img/forum/go_quote.gif Test tracks for what?

To demo new gear before buying it, I presume.

 

[lastdodobird]

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyharry /img/forum/go_quote.gif To demo new gear before buying it, I presume.

yeah sorry about that. i thought it was understood that that was the purpose

 

[apatN]

Songs you know. In that case you know how they sound on other equipment.

 

[BigTony]

I usually take some albums recorded 'live' as they tend to have a bit of everything. Of course the band need to be great, and well mastered, so i've often used Zappa's 'Broadway the Hardway'.

 

[JadeEast]

Here is an essay that supports the use of varied music that you are unfamiliar with. (although with a specific methodology and goal in mind)

 

[krmathis]

Familiar songs!
Cause imo you need a reference point to know if something sound really amazing or not.

 

[xkRoWx]

Favourite tunes, as reference point. And don't forget to add in some binaural recordings to really test the soundstage, headstage, imaging and separation.

Mehhhhhh..

 

[csommers]

I would say whatever you listen to the most, as you should be able to notice subtleties, as opposed to say some high-end recorded stuff you've never heard before so you have nothing to base it upon

 

[Ashirgo]

Moreover, avoid some "perfect" recordings, such things are likely to sound perfectly on any system (Norah Jones, for instance).