Why do audiophile equipment reviews use such obscure music to evaluate hardware?

Stereophile... The Absolute Sound... pretty much every audiophile publication is guilty of this. As a reader, how are you adding value by telling me how a system sounds with some obscure recording (almost always something from Classical music). I like Classical music, but the chances that I'll own anything used in these tests is pretty much zero.

Why don't reviewers test with recordings that virtually any music lover would likely own?

Also, I almost never see a reviewer summarize a component by saying, "If you like funk, alt country and ska this component is right for you. If you're into hip hop, piano concerto's or "xyz" you should look elsewhere."

This would actually be helpful. Instead, it almost seems like they're purposefully obscure so you don't really know if you'll like something. What gives?

 

Like what? Tom Petty, The Cure, Grateful Dead, Talking Heads, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, James, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Real Estate, Slowdive, Band of Horses, Indigo Girls, Jack White, Ryan Adams, Elliott Smith, Okkervil River?

 

Not quite understanding your premise.

Are you suggesting all Classical music is obscure or are you saying the pieces chosen are obscure within the realm of Classical.

In any case, many consider music having an acoustic reference standard (as in not amplified music) more indicative in the evaluation of a loudspeaker's abilities than music that requires the use of electronics in order to be performed.

 

I audition gear with Jandek, Merzbow and Prurient.

 

Well, I think it's pretty simple. Reviewers use music that they are really familiar with (and probably, music that they really like). I've more or less stopped reading equipment reviews but in the past I'd often find a mix of music that I was unfamiliar with and at least some that I knew.

 

It seems like everyone's using the new Daft Punk in reviews.

 

I own and listen to a fair amount of classical music so even if I don't own a copy of what the reviewer has used for the review I generally have an idea what it is.

 

I read Jandek as Jack Daniels. Merzbow as Merlot. I need a nap.

 

The reason is that if equipments are good they really don´t care what music they play, all should be good. Can´t imagine I would buy anything that was supposed to be good only with certain music, or trust that statement.

 

I don't quite understand, either.
Almost every site, for every component that I've researched, states that there are speakers, headphones, cartridges, etc. that vary in which music genre they excel. For example, I've read countless articles that will claim Senns excel with acoustic music and Grados are better with more aggressive rock, etc.
Of course, it is all up to your ears no matter what genre of music is being played.

 

Those recordings wouldn't be a real "test". The music most people 'dig' is both bandwidth and dynamically limited. Acoustic music of wide dynamic range and varied instrumentation is simply a great challenge, a better "test."

 

+1.

I'll quite often search for music used in reviews, just to hear it and see if it appeals to me. I stopped buying Stereopile back in the mid 90's, but I'll read the occasional online review.

jeff

 

Not me. And none of the reviews at Tone Audio.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Using esoteric demonstration music serves nobody because 99.9% of readers will have no reference point.

I exclusively use "real world" music and try to do a 50/50 split between older and newer recordings.

 

In my country every audio review would have to include Louie Louie and The Happy Organ.

 

Only the hummed version of the happy organ should be used.

 

I have some accordion music I really would like to see in the tests, will most likely happen, not.

 

Yeah more Beatles. On Rainbo

 

Money! $$$$$
It's all bought and paid for.

 

I do not understand why it even matters at all. You cannot 'hear' the music they used anyway. Only they can. And then HOW they describe it should (and is) enough to allow one to get an idea of 'how it sounds'. throught visual discription.
If they say it has more detail.. Or slam or whatever.. Really you are relying on the descriptors, and not the actual music.

 

Esoteric music distinguishes the hoity-toity audiophile from the mid-fi crowd.

 

It doesn't bother me what they use or what they say. I just like looking at the cool stuff with all the pictures and such. If something is in my price range I take my cassette deck or my own records and have a go at it. If I can't do that, then I'll listen to what they have and see if I can enjoy it. For example, I don't have an appreciation for classical music, but equipment like the VTL stuff just sounds good (with good source material) no mater what genre of music is playing.

BTW, I get the magazines for the pictures and other silly stuff like record reviews.

M~

 

I'll take the other side of the argument.

First of all you presume that there's such a thing that "recordings that virtually any music lover would likely own" -- I'm a music lover, you're a music lover; that doesn't necessarily mean we listen to the same music at all.

Second, I actually buy the conventional theory behind the value of using classical music, especially if it's minimally miked classical recordings made in a concert hall, in subjective audio test listening and it's this -- with pop music cut in a studio there's a tremendous amount of at-the-desk and post production manipulation of the sound that's done. There's no way for a listener to know or even guess at what the music is "supposed" to sound like, what it sounded like live in the room, how well the equipment captures spatial cues in a pan potted multi mono recording etc. There's nothing that seems sillier to me than people opining about the "accuracy" of a piece of audio gear based on their listening to a heavily produced pop record at whose recording they weren't present. With a minimal miked classical recording made in a venue it's possible to make a much better guess at what the music is supposed to sound like, maybe we've even been in the venue in question, and we can hear things like spatial cues quite clearly so we can evaluate things like soundstage presentation, timbral naturalness , etc. Plus, orchestral recordings tend to contain far greater dynamic swings that pop recordings, so with a single piece of music it's easier to hear how equipment handles soft parts, loud parts, the need to swing between 'em, etc. You still don't know about "accuracy" or "neutrality," but it's possible to make better guesses in my experience about how things are "supposed" to sound. Doesn't mean that's all one might use or listen to (in fact looking now over a recent Stereophile review I saw mention of such "esoteric" acts as Dire Straights, Sarah Vaughan and the Red Hot Chili Peppers); but valuable nevertheless.

Third, if a piece of equipment can do everything from a pianissimo oboe part to a forte orchestral crescendo full of both bass drum and triangle well, it's probably going to also cruise through funk, alt-country and ska. Personally, I'm never sure what a person means when they say something like, "this component does rock well," even worse, when someone starts talking about PRAT, I want to tear my hair out. I'd much rather hear about how well it does specific things -- noise levels, dynamics, frequency balance, frequency extension, can it handle busy crescendos without collapsing, etc. If I know that I'll have a pretty good sense of how it'll sound playing AC/DC.

 

In mine it would require ultra-lo fidelity playback of "Happy" and the Chicken Dance.

I mean, who doesn't own a copy of Xenakis' Electro-Acoustic Music, gimme a break!

 

Honesty is so refreshing!

Most people claim they get the magazines "for the articles". Oh wait, different magazines.