Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_itwf7a2 wrote

Reply to comment by dongas420 in Name only one track to evaluate headphones with and provide three reasons why this is the one! by thor_Alf

[deleted]

2

djentlemetal t1_itx8y2s wrote

Totally agreed with this. There's way too much going on.

1

AnOldMoth t1_itxcmvn wrote

It's actually pretty well-mixed and everything fits into the frequencies well, but yes, it's very busy.

But BECAUSE it's well-mixed and busy, it's a good measure for it. My Ananda have no issues keeping everything well-defined and separate, and it sounds great. Meanwhile, if I throw my HD6XX in to listen to it, it's suddenly a muddy mess with no definition (Though that's kind of that headphone in general).

1

[deleted] t1_itxsnlr wrote

[deleted]

1

AnOldMoth t1_itxv5lr wrote

It depends on what you're trying to test your transducers for.

Though well-mixed or not wouldn't really affect your source gear, I can't think of any modern amp or DAC that would be affected by genre. Digital signals are well-within the limits of accurate reproduction of any device that wasn't made like garbage.

1

dongas420 t1_itwtzvf wrote

The standard definition would be "the ability to render small-scale volume gradations." What I actually listen for is how clearly a headphone/IEM can reproduce the S and the K in this track. With something with poor microdynamics, at least one of those will get drowned out due to unevenness in said gradations. The midrange and upper bass also influence microdynamics, though, so I use a separate piano track for those and focus on the initial attack.

Also, it's precisely because the track is so busy that it's an effective stress test for gear. Generic Jazz Track in Audiophile CD Compilation #26 is comparatively poor for testing sound quality because it's undemanding and sounds good on everything, being slow-paced, relatively simplistic, and midrange-centric.

−2