Music Used In Equipment Reviews

[MylesBAstor]

Chris/Tunes brought this to mind with comment in another thread and didn't want to go too far off topic.

People often complained years ago that many reviewers TAS used albums for reviewing that were all unobtanium. Mercury, RCA. Decca. Only a few people had access to these excellent reviewing tools. So what good did that do for the reader if they wanted to cross check listening notes. But I am curious. Do people still compare their listening notes with what is found in equipment reviews?

So what makes for good reviewing material? Mixes of genres? Scales? Recordings that have a big upside? What else?

PS. That's why I try and limit my examples using tape since most people don't have reel-to-reel machines. But I listen to more tape during the review process to get a feeling of a component's sonic virtues than appears in the review.

[fcrowder]

In my particular case, there are a number of considerations: 1) my familiarity with the software and how often I have been able to hear it on other equipment, 2) whether the software is well enough recorded and pressed to display subtle differences in equipment, and 3) to a much lesser extent, availability. For me the very best of today's electronics have extremely high resolution, vanishingly low noise, truthful tonality and with the right software, an ability to populate the soundscape with three dimensional images. The software used for review must be capable with the right equipment of doing these things. For this reason, I tend to gravitate toward very early Decca and EMI SAX classical pressings. A case in point is the first label Decca pressing of Ansermet doing Mother Goose (SXL 2062, if I remember correctly).

[Johnny Vinyl]

I'll make it short and sweet. Please get away from the overabundance of classical and jazz.

[Alrainbow]

I would think it matters as to what kind of devise is being tested
next if speakers or an amp various inputs meaning tape
and digital. Paramount is all music that person knows very well
music that is both soft and hard. Quite and loud with impact.
I say both analog and digital cause they sometimes have virtues others don't have. Analog has a relaxed less tense sound but still fast and dynamic
not much digital has this and the dac is very important in delivering it as long as the track has it. So for me I don't care what music they use as long as it hits all notes needed to evail
correctly.

[Steve Lefkowicz]

I know I've brought this up before, but I use both LP and Digital, and simply whatever I feel like listening to at the time. I get as much info from an average or even poor recording, in terms of how well a piece allows for the track to be listenable and enjoyable. "Challenging" recordings (for example, The Lounge Lizards first LP) are very telling of a systems abilities. I stick to musical genres that i most happy listening to.

[jonathanb]

"Challenging" recordings (for example, The Lounge Lizards first LP) are very telling of a systems abilities.

What is it that is so "challenging" about the Lounge Lizards first album?

[Per Sundell]

I use digital if I review equipment in the magazines listening room.
At home always analog unless I review digital equipment. (About once every five years ... )
Always use a mix of records. 😀 But it is mostly alt-pop or electronica.

[Rob]

Chris/Tunes brought this to mind with comment in another thread and didn't want to go too far off topic.

People often complained years ago that many reviewers TAS used albums for reviewing that were all unobtanium. Mercury, RCA. Decca. Only a few people had access to these excellent reviewing tools. So what good did that do for the reader if they wanted to cross check listening notes. But I am curious. Do people still compare their listening notes with what is found in equipment reviews?

So what makes for good reviewing material? Mixes of genres? Scales? Recordings that have a big upside? What else?

PS. That's why I try and limit my examples using tape since most people don't have reel-to-reel machines. But I listen to more tape during the review process to get a feeling of a component's sonic virtues than appears in the review.

Myles, keep doing it your way. I can read an equipment review and isolate the writer's preference for certain music, recordings etc. what's more important is that the writer is using music they're most familiar with rather than the whys. I don't follow equipment reviews much anymore, if I were to nit pick, I guess Id wish for reviews like HP's using uncompressed music composed for a full symphony orchestra with wide swinging dynamics and recorded in an unamplified acoustic. baring that, good ol' R&R works and should be included to give readers a broader slice of what the hardware under review is like.

[Johnny Vinyl]

The vast majority of audiophiles, regardless of their financial commitment, are NOT primarily Classical and Jazz listeners. Yet many, if not most, reviewers fail to recognize this fact and wax poetic about music none of us ever ever heard. I want to know what the review piece sounds like with music genres most of us listen to. They also don't need to be "audiophile" pressings. Surprise me by playing Janis Ian or Gordon Lightfoot or America or XTC, etc, etc. This we can identify with and might lead to inquiries to consider the product for ourselves.

[jazdoc]

The best music is material the reviewer knows well and is widely available.

[Alrainbow]

You go JONNY. Lol. I am with you. In part some reviewers seem to have give importance in musical knowledge
funny I am a retard at that but as long as there pics are known well and they give examples why they are important that's good. To me classical and don't bash me for this. Is not a good example as it's mic s are from a distance this leaves out up close cues that for my small brain leave out immense details that I feel are needed.
It's female and male vocals , horns and percussion in that order . Now if it's a dac both red book and hi Rez a must and if it plays dsd its absolute and honesty in how good it plays it is of most importance. So many dacs play dsd without its dsd ability to be great dsd.
I can think of two dacs reviewed that did not play dsd well but got praised.

[Alrainbow]

Lounge lizards is very nice. Deep low end and on just tidal red book yields nice clean sounds. Just turned my amps on they need s good 30 mins to settle down they shout at first. Thanks for the post

[Steve Lefkowicz]

The original LP is way better than any digital release I've heard of it, but is also tougher to gt right.

[Steve Lefkowicz]

What is it that is so "challenging" about the Lounge Lizards first album?

Is can be pretty harsh and a tough listen on some systems. I played it on a bunch of systems at the Newport show a few years ago and it ranged from "we can't stop listening this is awesome" to "run from the room screaming, fingernails on a chalkboard would be better" for lack of any better technical terms! It takes a very musically involving system to play it well. Systems that are too analytical just don't play it well.

[jonathanb]

Ah, I get it now. And I can surmise that my system must be musically involving as the LP sounded awesome this afternoon!

[Steve Lefkowicz]

Ah, I get it now. And I can surmise that my system must be musically involving as the LP sounded awesome this afternoon!

Sounds about right to me! But I'm sure you can see where not every high end system can do that.