recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
forum members think.

I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

On 26 Dec, 17:09, Steve <goldstarst...@gmail . com > wrote:
> I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> forum members think.
>
> I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....

Yes this is sensible on the salesmans part.You wouldn't test a sports
car like a Ferrari with re-treads and 2star fuel would you. Very good
recordings make it a lot easier to hear sonic differences between
components or systems.
Borosteve.

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

borosteve <borosteve@googlemail . com > wrote:

> Steve <goldstarst...@gmail . com > wrote:
> > I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> > forum members think.
> >
> > I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> > with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> > kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> > preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> > For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> > instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> > well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> > soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> > I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> > wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> > garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> > but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....
>
> Yes this is sensible on the salesmans part.You wouldn't test a sports
> car like a Ferrari with re-treads and 2star fuel would you. Very good
> recordings make it a lot easier to hear sonic differences between
> components or systems.
> Borosteve.

Borosteve:
I'm not sure of that analogy.

How about: I'd want to test the Ferrari both on the best roads, and on
the worst roads on which I would be driving. If it is only good on the
best roads then I'm not going to enjoy it on my day-to-day drives on the
less-than-best roads.

Steve:
I'll bet there is something on the old Ben Webster recording that you
want to enjoy. Some of the old recordings have a sense of 'reality' that
modern multi-miked, mixed-down, electronically processed, recordings do
not.

My recommendation would be to tell the salesman to get stuffed, it's
your music you want to enjoy on the system and you'll listen to, and try
out both. It's not about "showing off his system", it's about putting
your music in your room. If he doesn't like it, I'm sure there are other
stores that will give you the customer service you deserve.

Greg

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

> I'll bet there is something on the old Ben Webster recording that you
> want to enjoy. Some of the old recordings have a sense of 'reality' that
> modern multi-miked, mixed-down, electronically processed, recordings do
> not.

That is not the case here although I know exactly what you mean. A lot
of the modern stuff sounds to me "overmastered" and cold. But here the
music is brilliant but the recording is not so hot - I can find other
recordings from the same time or even older that sound much better,
Listening to it on better systems then I have I am suddenly aware of
the limitations of this recording. The gain is very low, the drums are
played with brushes but it is hard to hear it with clarity and there
is a lack of definition, etc. etc.

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

On Dec 29 2007, 11:44 am, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail . com > wrote:

> My recommendation would be to tell the salesman to get stuffed, it's
> your music you want to enjoy on the system and you'll listen to, and try
> out both.

Amen. When I audition equipment, particularly speakers, I burn a CD
with representative tracks of all of the different types of music I
listen to. And the very first track is a transfer of an acoustic 78
(Melchior singing "Inbrunst in Herzen"). If a speaker can't reproduce
that to my satisfaction, the audition is over.

Bill

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

Steve wrote:
> I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> forum members think.
>
> I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....

The ideal circumstance would be to make a copy of one or more of the
salesman's favorite cuts using your rip and burn system. This would give
you a control or sorts, albiet not ABX'd (for those who care).

Then when you go in, you compare the sound of your burn with the salesman's
CD, so when you play your other tracks you have some assurance that there
is no big flaw/difference in your burn...

Other than that, listen to the cuts you will listen to when you go to
audition.

Imho, there are recordings that are "well recorded" but happen to sound
just great on almost any system - and do not reveal important flaws. Otoh
there are recordings that are "well recorded" that do reveal flaws in
various systems rather quickly and abruptly! : )

Bottom line is that what you listen to needs to sound good to you and
play your recordings back in a way that makes you want to sit and listen,
not get up and leave...

- -bear

PS. most of those 50's and 60's jazz recordings are super - especially
the Rudy Van Gelder recordings...fwiw.

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:58 -0800, bear wrote
(in article <flb7r201cdh@news3.newsguy . com >):

> Steve wrote:
>> I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
>> forum members think.
>>
>> I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
>> with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
>> kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
>> preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
>> For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
>> instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
>> well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
>> soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
>> I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
>> wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
>> garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
>> but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....
>
> The ideal circumstance would be to make a copy of one or more of the
> salesman's favorite cuts using your rip and burn system. This would give
> you a control or sorts, albiet not ABX'd (for those who care).
>
> Then when you go in, you compare the sound of your burn with the salesman's
> CD, so when you play your other tracks you have some assurance that there
> is no big flaw/difference in your burn...
>
> Other than that, listen to the cuts you will listen to when you go to
> audition.
>
> Imho, there are recordings that are "well recorded" but happen to sound
> just great on almost any system - and do not reveal important flaws. Otoh
> there are recordings that are "well recorded" that do reveal flaws in
> various systems rather quickly and abruptly! :_)
>
> Bottom line is that what you listen to needs to sound good to you and
> play your recordings back in a way that makes you want to sit and listen,
> not get up and leave...
>
> _-_-bear
>
> PS. most of those 50's and 60's jazz recordings are super - especially
> the Rudy Van Gelder recordings...fwiw.

That's because they were SIMPLE. Van Gelder started out hauling his tape
equipment to clubs and other venues where musicians were playing. He had a
tape recorder and at, first, a single microphone. When stereo came in, it
became a couple of microphones, but the set-up was always minimalist. In the
early 'sixties when he quit his "day job" (I believe he was an optometrist)
and started a studio, he still kept his recording technique simple to the
point of minimalism. This used to get complaints from critics that often
solos (especially piano) didn't have enough presence. This can easily be the
case when one doesn't mike jazz solos separately. It never bothered me
because that's how one would hear the soloists if one were there. Later jazz
recordings became three-channel mono (with a mike for each player in the
trio, quartet, quintet, etc.) which was mixed down to right, left, and
center. This type of jazz recording NEVER came up to the level of Van
Gelder's work. Hell, I'd rather listen to Van Gelder's mono recordings than
some of th three-channel mono jazz recordings that later became the dominant
technique. (again, fwiw).

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:58 -0800, bear wrote
> (in article <flb7r201cdh@news3.newsguy . com >):

> > Steve wrote:
> >> I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> >> forum members think.
> >>
> >> I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> >> with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> >> kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> >> preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> >> For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> >> instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> >> well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> >> soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> >> I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> >> wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> >> garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> >> but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....
> >
> > The ideal circumstance would be to make a copy of one or more of the
> > salesman's favorite cuts using your rip and burn system. This would give
> > you a control or sorts, albiet not ABX'd (for those who care).
> >
> > Then when you go in, you compare the sound of your burn with the salesman's
> > CD, so when you play your other tracks you have some assurance that there
> > is no big flaw/difference in your burn...
> >
> > Other than that, listen to the cuts you will listen to when you go to
> > audition.
> >
> > Imho, there are recordings that are "well recorded" but happen to sound
> > just great on almost any system - and do not reveal important flaws. Otoh
> > there are recordings that are "well recorded" that do reveal flaws in
> > various systems rather quickly and abruptly! :_)
> >
> > Bottom line is that what you listen to needs to sound good to you and
> > play your recordings back in a way that makes you want to sit and listen,
> > not get up and leave...
> >
> > _-_-bear
> >
> > PS. most of those 50's and 60's jazz recordings are super - especially
> > the Rudy Van Gelder recordings...fwiw.

> That's because they were SIMPLE. Van Gelder started out hauling his tape
> equipment to clubs and other venues where musicians were playing. He had a
> tape recorder and at, first, a single microphone. When stereo came in, it
> became a couple of microphones, but the set-up was always minimalist. In the
> early 'sixties when he quit his "day job" (I believe he was an optometrist)
> and started a studio, he still kept his recording technique simple to the
> point of minimalism. This used to get complaints from critics that often
> solos (especially piano) didn't have enough presence. This can easily be the
> case when one doesn't mike jazz solos separately. It never bothered me
> because that's how one would hear the soloists if one were there. Later jazz
> recordings became three-channel mono (with a mike for each player in the
> trio, quartet, quintet, etc.) which was mixed down to right, left, and
> center. This type of jazz recording NEVER came up to the level of Van
> Gelder's work. Hell, I'd rather listen to Van Gelder's mono recordings than
> some of th three-channel mono jazz recordings that later became the dominant
> technique. (again, fwiw).

Some of RVGs remixes/remasterings his jazz catalog
are simply hideous. A great argument for not encouraging artists to revisit their
work.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

On Jan 1, 9:11 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix . com > wrote:
> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:

> > > PS. most of those 50's and 60's jazz recordings are super - especially
> > > the Rudy Van Gelder recordings...fwiw.
> > That's because they were SIMPLE. Van Gelder started out hauling his tape
> > equipment to clubs and other venues where musicians were playing. He had a
> > tape recorder and at, first, a single microphone. When stereo came in, it
> > became a couple of microphones, but the set-up was always minimalist. In the
> > early 'sixties when he quit his "day job" (I believe he was an optometrist)
> > and started a studio, he still kept his recording technique simple to the
> > point of minimalism. This used to get complaints from critics that often
> > solos (especially piano) didn't have enough presence. This can easily be the
> > case when one doesn't mike jazz solos separately. It never bothered me
> > because that's how one would hear the soloists if one were there. Later jazz
> > recordings became three-channel mono (with a mike for each player in the
> > trio, quartet, quintet, etc.) which was mixed down to right, left, and
> > center. This type of jazz recording NEVER came up to the level of Van
> > Gelder's work. Hell, I'd rather listen to Van Gelder's mono recordings than
> > some of th three-channel mono jazz recordings that later became the dominant
> > technique. (again, fwiw).
>
> Some of RVGs remixes/remasterings his jazz catalog
> are simply hideous.  A great argument for not encouraging artists to revisit their
> work.

Sometimes the results are better, so I wouldn't agree with your
statement as a general rule.

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

Steve <goldstarsteve@gmail . com > wrote in news:fku1sc0hql@news4.newsguy . com :

> I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> forum members think.
>
> I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....
>

What is important is that you bring at least one CD or Album that you know
inside and out(in addition to listening to whatever the salespimp is trying
to push down your throat)..if you dont have a point of reference, it doesnt
make any difference how high quality the material is. I always take in the
same albums when I do this sort of thing..Bob Dylan-Nashville Skyline,
Neil Young- Harvest, Wilco-Being There, , Te Deum-(ECM), and the
Trainspotting Soundtrack(I know that one inside and out because I was a DJ
around the time of the film, and "BORN SLIPPY" had to be played at least 20
times a night for all the candyflippers). The Salespimp may play something
that is hyped in a particular frequency band, knowing that the speakers
compensate well for it; so...know your discs and ALWAYS use the same ones..

Re: recordings for listening tests when purchasing system

On Jan 2, 7:12 am, "Tynan Agviðr" <melee20...@mypacks . net > wrote:
> Steve <goldstarst...@gmail . com > wrote innews:fku1sc0hql@news4.newsguy . com :
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently had an interesting experience and I was wondering what the
> > forum members think.
>
> > I was auditioning speakers and amplifiers for a new system and arrived
> > with a cd I had burnt with some favorite recordings, The salesman was
> > kind of shocked that some of the recordings were poor quality and
> > preferred that I use the better recorded ones to show of his system!
> > For example he greatly preferred I use a Diana Krell recording I had
> > instead of an older Ben Webster recording, My initial attitude was,
> > well I am still going to listen to Ben Webster (the recording was
> > soulville) so I want to here how it sounds on the new system. But then
> > I thought, he has a point, if I want to here how good a system is I
> > wouldn't use my Panasonic Discman as a source on the GIGO (garbage in
> > garbage out) principle. But then I can choose which hardware to use
> > but can't (or don't want to) choose music on this basis....
>
> What is important is that you bring at least one CD or Album that you know
> inside and out(in addition to listening to whatever the salespimp is trying  
> to push down your throat)..if you dont have a point of reference, it doesnt
> make any difference  how high quality the material is. I always take in the
> same  albums when I do this sort of thing..Bob Dylan-Nashville Skyline,
> Neil Young- Harvest, Wilco-Being There, , Te Deum-(ECM), and the
> Trainspotting Soundtrack(I know that one inside and out because I was a DJ
> around the time of the film, and "BORN SLIPPY" had to be played at least 20
> times a night for all the candyflippers). The Salespimp may play something
> that is hyped in a particular frequency band, knowing that the speakers
> compensate well for it; so...know your discs and ALWAYS use the same ones..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I burned a disk that I take to all my auditions for the new stereo. I
have a variety of music I like in different styles and combos. I am
amazed at the difference in quality when I here it on better systems
then what I have. For example:

Low Quality
Ben Webster - Soulville (50s I think)
Handels Messiah chorus (Parrot) (this is a digital recording from the
80s!)

High Quality
Mel Thom - Do it again (a 40s recording!)
Doors - When the music is over (a 60s recording I guess)

Superb quality
Dianna Krell - straighten up and fly right (modern digital)

In other words old recordings seem to vary widely....