Songs you use when auditioning gear

@newbee touches on this above.

The TL;DNR version.

When I am evaluating gear, I want to, initially at least, use recordings with the least possible amount of studio effects and manipulation. I want the instruments to be as purely recorded as possible, in order to be able to determine the overall accuracy of the gear. For me, this (at least at the beginning) leaves out the vast majority of mainstream studio recordings.

The vast majority of audiophiles and melophiles know what acoustic violins, pianos, percussion, woodwinds, etc sound like in person, in an acoustic space. So, when we hear a recording of them, we have a real world referent to compare it against, and determine if the gear is reproducing the instruments faithfully. This provides a baseline of sorts.

But with all those well respected recordings (some mentioned here):and others, like Steely Dan, Dire Straits, Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, etc, how are we supposed to know: what effects were employed in the studio (how many overdubs, delay, echo, panning, phasing, etc, etc)? We don’t know what effects the guitarist was using on the guitar, what settings were used on organ or electric piano, or the EQ setting on the vocalist, etc.

The result is, we have no idea what the instruments actually sounded like at the time of the recording, so we have no idea if the system is reproducing them accurately. I am not saying the recording won’t sound good, just that we can’t tell of the gear is accurate.

Even before I was a fan of classical music, I still understood that classical recordings were the best for evaluating gear. Simply because there are substantially less unknowns between what was originally recorded, and what is being reproduced. Acoustic jazz is a very close 2nd choice.

All those attributes we want to evaluate (timbre, attack/decay, detail imaging and soundstage, transparency, etc, are much easier to determine if the recording was made with minimal manipulation at the time of the recording, and afterwards in the studio.

There is a qualitative difference between the sort of imaging and soundstage on mainstream studio recordings, which is pretty much created by the engineer. In other words, if you hear a musician sounding like they are coming from the left of the vocalist, it is because the engineer panned them to be there.

And the type of imaging and soundstage on a classical recording, which is created by the MICing methods used by the recording engineer. If a violinist sounds like they are coming from the left of the cellist, it is because that is where they were at the tome of the recording. These types of recordings are designed to capture the live musical event, the sound of the acoustic space they are playing in, the position of the musicians in the acoustic space, and all other spatial cues of the acoustic space.

@jastralfu 

that’s an interesting perspective.  I don’t listen to much classical but I have been diving into all types of Jazz though.  Any suggestions for well recorded Jazz titles?

Even before I became a classical fan, I would still use classical recordings for evaluation purposes. Again, because I knew that the vast majority of classical recordings, are recorded with the least manipulation between the recording process, and the recording that us consumers are able to purchase. 

But, the thing that convinced me that classical recordings were superior for evaluating gear, is an experience I had in a high end store years ago, in my early days of high end gear.

They were demoing some high end gear for a customer, playing the usual stuff (Aja, Sire Straits, Fleetwood Mac, etc), and it was sounding really good. 

Then they put on some modern chamber music, Bartok I believe. And my jaw hit the floor. Not from the music itself (I was still not a classical fan at the time), but from the qualitative difference between the soundstage and imaging of the classical, and the other recordings. 

As well as the other recordings were creating a soundstage and image, it was nothing like the classical recording.

At no time during the playback of the rock recordings, did I ever get the feeling as if I could get up off the listening couch, and walk into the soundstage among the musicians. At no time could I "hear the walls" of the studio were those bands were recording. At no time could I hear the space around the musicians. 

I could go into the type of mic'ing techniques used in classical recordings as to why they have such a 3d soundstage, but this post is already getting too long.

 

 

 

Since I previously talked about what I look for in a good recording, and why; here are a few examples.

These first few are mid to late 20th and 21st century classical, and tend to be atonal, angular, and kind of "thorny" sounding, so musically, YMMV. But the recordings have a soundstage that you can easily imagine, you can walk into among the musicians. 

Ernst Krenek - Static and Ecstatic (there is also a fairly recent digital recording of this piece by the Cleveland Chamber orchestra, that is also great). 

 

Charles Wuorinen and Donald Martino

 

 

Einar Torfi Einarsson - Quanta

But I could list almost anything on the Kairos classical label. Everything I've bought on Kairos has been great sounding. Quite avant-garde stuff.

Here are some great recordings on the ECM jazz label. 

ECM has always been known for their great sounding jazz recordings, from their dead quiet vinyl, to their current releases on CD.

Expect to hear each musician occupying their own space in the acoustic space, and the air around them.

Some people say ECM's 80's output had too much echo on percussion. 

The nice thing is, that since they've always had the reputation among audio enthusiasts of good sound, their albums tended to be collected by people who took care of them, so finding good sounding copies in used stores is not that tough. 

Gallery - S/T / wonderful chamber-jazz, with open 3d soundstage.

 

Azimuth with ralph Towner - Depart

Great ensemble playing, with the wonderful wordless vocals by Norma Winstone.

 

Craig Taborn - Daylight Ghosts