🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Reilly <andrew@gurney.reilly.home> wrote in message news:<SvY9a.30477$Xh1.85588@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:51:58 +1100, The Gadget Shop wrote:
> > Age article today on suggested TV/DVD/Audio auditioning techniques...
> > people agree?
> 
> Seems mostly reasonable.  Not sure about being able to imagine what the
> singer's wearing, but still...
> 
> I'd just add that for music tests, the more instruments (generally) the
> better a system has to be to still resolve all or most of the
> instruments.  So symphonic orchestral music can be a good test.  Often
> has good dynamics too (i.e., has quiet movements between the loud ones),
> compared to pop music, which is usually uniformly loud.
> 
> Unacompanied vocals are a good test too, once you've set the volume to
> match real life: humans seem to be particularly sensitive to how other
> human voices are supposed to sound.  Spoken (as opposed to sung) is good
> too, if you can find it, for the same reason.
> 
> All IMO, of course.  I don't think that there's much in the way of hard
> and fast rules here.

I'd agree with all that.  I also found that some small group acoustic
stuff (jazz combos, small chamber groups, acoustic "unplugged" rock
groups, etc) are often good to establish the ability of a speaker to
stage well - it's easier to distinguish the difference in placement in
a small setting than with big orchestral stuff, and often modern
electronic/dance/rock stuff doesn't have that definition in the
recording, anyway.
> 
> Since you would be shopping for yourself, it would make sense for your
> test material to contain stuff that you like...

I agree - I was put off one particular amplifier because of it's
handling of one of my favourite CDs.  If I didn't like the sound of it
on the CD that spends the most time in my system...

Cheers,
Steve