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
Tuboo,

Good stuff.

I agree with the process outlined as an effective way to really differentiate and select a good playback system
We then compound our mistake by raising these recordings to reference status (pace prof. Johnson), and seek this ‘correct’ presentation from every system we later evaluate; and if it isn’t there, we are likely to dismiss that system as incorrect.
Some very perceptive reflections Tuboo.
Thanks
thanks for reply.
it intrigued me in 1994 the moment i read this piece and it still inspires me in 2009.
the more you read this piece the more it dawns on you.
Mr Quortrup is quite a special figure.
i'm a great advocate of this protocol but there is no single 'law' to apply for enjoying the music.
nevertheless this single quote was like an audiophile bomb to me when i first read it:

The more accurate system is the one which reproduces more differences – more contrast between the various program sources.

and it still is, i can't escape to it.
Very interesting, Turboo. Thank you for posting that.

The more widely used method, listening to a few reference recordings and comparing the sound to a retained memory of what something should sound like, can be useful for *analyzing* a system's or component's ability to reproduce a specific trait. For instance, at last year's RMAF we were interested in the capabilities of two particular components. Based on their designs, we had predicted that both might have difficulty reproducing fast, complex yet delicate harmonics. We therefore brought along one LP which contains a lot of such material.

One of the components performed as we expected, failing miserably. The other surprised us, happily, and might be a candidate for our system in the future.

Having passed that test, the next logical step would be to extensively A/B the second component in our system using Quortrup's protocol.

We recently had a visit from another A'goner. After playing several of his favorite/reference LP's we subjected him to a variety of music that he'd ever listened to before. I didn't let him take my LP's, but he did make some notes. :-) Perhaps he'll find similar or identical recordings and compare the degree of differences in his system vs. ours.

Good stuff...