2. analog
  3. 1236947666

Are our 'test' records adequate?

Most of us have some favourite records with which to check the health of our systems, or to assess a new component within our systems.
These records are often carried with us whenever we wish to assess a completely foreign system in a different environment. I have my favourite ‘test’ records, some of which I continue to use even after 30 years. I know them (or parts of them), so intimately that I feel confident in my ability to assess a component or complete system after just one listen.
I know other audiophiles who have specialised their ‘test’ records to such an extent that they have different discs to evaluate for Voice, Bass, Large Orchestral, Chamber, Piano, Strings, Drums, Jazz, Rock.
Almost invariably, these vinyl discs are superbly recorded and sound stunning, not just on very fine systems, but also on average systems.
Of course, because each of us knows his own discs so intimately, it is possible to assess the 'omissions'in a foreign system by memory, often to the puzzlement of those to whom the discs are not so well known and to whom the sound had been thoroughly satisfying and impressive?
But I have begun to wonder recently, if this is in fact the most reliable method of evaluating components and systems?
I am sure most of us have heard records on our systems which are almost unlistenable or certainly unpleasant and we have simply placed these discs in the 'never to played' shelf of our storage unit?
But perhaps some of these records might be more revealing than our fabulously recorded 'test' material?
For some time I have been disturbed by two records in my collection, which despite their fame, have sounded poorly (in various parts) despite improvements to my turntable, speakers, amplifiers and cartridges.

Harvest by Neil Young on Reprise (7599-27239-1) has some nicely recorded tracks (Out On The Weekend, Harvest, Heart Of Gold) as well as 2 tracks (Alabama, Words), which have confounded me with their leaness, lack of real bass, vocal distortion and complete lack of depth. The album was recorded at four different venues with three different Producers and those two tracks share the same Producers and venues.
After mounting a Continuum Copperhead arm as well as a DaVinci 12" Grandezza on my Raven AC-3 and carefully setting arm/cartridge geometries with the supplied Wally Tractor and Feikert disc protractor, I was actually able to listen to these tracks without flinching, and could now clearly ascertain the 'out-of-key' harmonies of Stephen Stills together with the clearly over-dubbed lead guitar boosted above the general sound level on the right channel and the completely flat soundstage.

Respighi Pines of Rome (Reiner on the Classic Records re-issue of the RCA LSC-2436) had always brought my wife storming down the hallway at the 'screeching' Finale whilst I scrambled for the volume control to save my bleeding ears.
Again with the two stellar arms and strict geometry, the 117 musicians could not hide the shrill, thin and overloaded recording levels of the horns (particularly the trumpets).
But the wife stayed away and my volume level remained unchanged.

My wonderfully recorded 'test' records had sounded just fine with my previous Hadcock arm but it's only now, when two 'horror' discs can be appreciated, that I truly believe my system 'sings'.
Perhaps we could re-listen to some 'horror' discs in our collection and, with some adjustments to our set-up, make them, if not enjoyable, at least listenable?
128x128halcro
mapman's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
mapman
15,679 posts
 
"am sure most of us have heard records on our systems which are almost unlistenable or certainly unpleasant and we have simply placed these discs in the 'never to played' shelf of our storage unit?"

One of my goals in upgrading is to minimize disks that fall into this category. If a system makes the lesser recordings sound presentable, then there is a good chance the recordings that already sound good will sound even better.

I've found this strategy works better in that these kinds of improvements are less subjective...you know them when you hear them whereas tweaking using the current best sounding recording (to you on your current system) can often become a more subjective exercise in which inherently really good sound happens to appeal to you.

Assuming a recording itself is not damaged or defective, I've discovered that when a recording actually sounds "bad" or fatiguing, as opposed to enjoyable to listen to, it is often due to shortcoming in the playback system. There are few if any cases I can think of currently where even a lesser recording is not enjoyable to listen to assuming an enjoyable performance to start with.

BTW, I agree also that "Pines of Rome" well recorded is an extremely challenging piece for systems to make listenable I have found over the years, hence a good "test" piece. Its a piece that has a lot of complex things going on in the high end that it seems lesser systems can not sort out well, with strident sounding results.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
uru975
684 posts
 
It was just one record, Chopin's second piano concerto by Charles Rosen, that has gotten me to upgrade a fair amount to get it to where it was listenable. The opening orchestra was just awful until a number of changes were made. Is it a test record? No, but it is one I really enjoy and have worked to make it listenable.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Halcro: That depend, " adequate " to what? what are you trying to test? how deep is your music ( live event ) know-how/experiences? and your priorities? do you know the limits of the audio system? do you already heard other home audio systems that are better aand lot better than yours? which are your references? do you have an estrategy/method to make the testing work?. IMHO I think that these and many other questions are important to have our each one answer.

Of course that when you are a real expert about it is extremely easy ( almost automatic ) to make the right tests to achieve conclusions about.

I choose my test LP tracks for normal or audiophile recordings where my ears and music/sound experiences tell me that the sound is near the " real " sound of that instrument or notes/harmonics in live event but recorded through a micro.
Each one of us have a different estrategy. I choose some of those LP tracks to fix ( first ) the frequency extremes, normally ( not always ) when those frequency extremes are on target ( special de bass range ) the tonal balance is on target with a " real " midrange response.

I'm very sensitive to those frequency extremes and I always look for it. A great midrange with a low frequency extremes performance don't makes any sense to me, the music is not only midrange but alot lot more than that.

What to look for?, well first that an ( example ) alto sax sounds like an alto sax or that a cello souns like a cello and not like a doublebass, so timbre accuracy is critical. Second, transients all over the frequency range but very special on the hig frequency instrument response. Third, definition/precision here too specially at both frequency extremes: that the bas-low bass sounds are defined/tight and with no overhang where I can discern between bass notes and on highs ( cimbals or the like ) that I can hear with almost there clarity how/where the sticks hit and the harmonics decay. All these steps normally take me to achieve a neutral tonal balance that IMHO is a must to have in almost any home audio system.

There are other steps during my evaluations in my home system but maybe I need a book to write about, things are not so easy like I write here, many of these steps have an intimate relationship between them but what I posted could help to understand how I make my quality performance evaluations in any audio system.

Obviously the set-up is in " pristine " condition ( no doubt about ): nothing less nothing more.
When my conlcusions are that everythig is " dancing " in the right way I can enjoy every single LP I heard/hear including those " dificult " ones.

Halcro, you start to enjoying when you put those great tonearms and when you was sure that the set-up was right on target, with that job you asure ( at least ) that the whole analog rig distortions goes lower so now the LPs ( everyone ) sounds with less distortions, more clarity, more transparency, more neutral and with a new " life ".

That " dificult " LPs that now you are enjoying are telling you that your " job " was first rate: congratulations!!!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Halcro: I forgot: Yes, IMHO mines are " adequate ".

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,289 posts
 
" tweaking using the current best sounding recording (to you on your current system) can often become a more subjective exercise in which inherently really good sound happens to appeal to you."
An excellent point Mapman. The danger here is that one could 'tune' one's system to emphasise those aspects which appeal on favourite records.....and this, as you correctly observe, becomes a subjective exercise whereas 'tuning' one's system to reduce the distortion levels on poor sounding discs (as Raul points out), is an exercise allowing more objectivity?
More to discover