What is the most difficult type of music for a stereo?

[brubacca]

What type of music makes the stereo work the most? Lets talk about style/genre....

What is the consensus?

[drtrey3]

I would guess well recorded classical or some of the more esoteric noise/ambient stuff coming out. No scratch the classical, while it has great dynamic range, the synths on the ambient go lower than any acoustic instrument I can think of.

Trey

[PGT]

I was going to say a female voice that covers a multi-octave range. Not taxing on the system capacity-wise, but the hardest to reproduce faithfully.

As for taxing a system....industrial music that covers the entire frequency spectrum and does so at a high average amplitude level.

- Sometimes the terseness of my reply can't be blamed on my phone.

[Boomzilla]

Although I agree with PGT & drtrey3 that synth tests the dynamic and frequency ranges of a system better than acoustic music, I think that synth music (alone) usually fails to fully test a system. I also want detail. Detail (for me) is the ability to resolve multiple musical lines that are close together tonally or in loudness level without blending the multiples into one. In other words, the more I can hear a clarinet, flute, and oboe playing discreetly, or the more I can hear individual voices in a massed choir, the better I feel that the system resolves detail.

Unfortunately, there is not a single "type" of music that allows the discrimination of detail. Some jazz that has multiple instruments playing the same line at the same time works. Some classical music that has complex, interwoven melodies works. Some singing that has voices in melody or in unison works. It depends on the recording.

So yes, I have favorite pieces that use synthesizers to plumb the bottom depths and test the dynamic capabilities of the system (just like PGT & drtrey3 suggest). The success of the system at low bass or ultimate dynamic range alone, for me, aren't the ultimate test of the system (I'm confident that BOTH PGT & drtrey3 also agree with this but merely neglected to mention it). If a system can pass those preliminary extension and dynamic-range tests without distortion or roll-off, then my "second level testing" consists of verisimilitude with voice and the "detail" tests that I mentioned previously.

Verisimilitude with voice is a very critical test, for me. If any portion of the vocal range jumps out or sounds recessed (and it hasn't ever previously), then I must assume that the component under test is the cause. Female voices I like for testing include those of Linda Ronstadt, Annie Halsam (Renaissance), Jackie McShea (The Pentangle), Norah Jones, Joni Mitchell, Jennifer Warnes, and "All About Maggie" from YouTube. Male voices that I like for testing include Jerry Reed (because of dynamic range), Kenny Rogers, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Luther Kent, and that kid that sang in the original "The Commitments" movie.

If the singers can't sound "real" then I'm not happy.

Cordially - Boomzilla

[DYohn]

Symphonic music hands down.

[Boomzilla]

In general (and in this specific case), I do agree with DYohn.

[drtrey3]

Boom, good points.

As to Classical, I just do not see classical music, as wonderful as it is, having the extreme bass or treble content due to the acoustic instruments used. What do you figure the lowest bass content is for the bass heavy instruments like a bass violin with the low C extender or the tympani?

Trey

[ottaone]

Difficult? Probably pipe organ music.

[garbulky]

By far - Orchestral music to get "right".
Also surprisingly modern rock and pop music - to sound pleasing. It's poor dynamic range in recordings can really grate on the ears. So the right kind of good speaker is important for stuff like this.

[knucklehead]

Nov 16, 2013 11:10:23 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Symphonic music hands down.

+1

Then everything else.

[DYohn]

Low bass is easy. Heck, any part of the frequency spectrum, by itself, is easy. What's difficult to get right is complexity and clarity across the full frequency spectrum combined with extremes in dynamics. Symphonic music is the best overall example of those qualities.

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2013 11:10:23 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Symphonic music hands down.

Most of the hands down music I've heard is from a slide electric lap steel guitar.

[Deleted]

Music recorded from a grand piano is very challenging for the majority of speakers.

[Boomzilla]

What?? No Sir-Mixalot, 2-Live Crew, or DJ Magic Mike fans? I said BASS!!!

[brubacca]

Interesting replies. I don't listen to much classical music, but I have heard many people say that it is taxing on a system. My recent experience is that Grunge type music also is quite taxing....

When I asked the question I was thinking more in a technical sense. What is making the DAC chips work really hard, what is putting it to the amplifier and what is reaching the limits of what the Pre can do.

[DYohn]

Nov 16, 2013 12:33:34 GMT -5 brubacca said:

Interesting replies. I don't listen to much classical music, but I have heard many people say that it is taxing on a system. My recent experience is that Grunge type music also is quite taxing....

When I asked the question I was thinking more in a technical sense. What is making the DAC chips work really hard, what is putting it to the amplifier and what is reaching the limits of what the Pre can do.

Same answer. Any content with full-range frequency response and high dynamic range. Reproducing that sort of content with accuracy (without introducing distortion) is the most taxing thing on all parts of the audio chain.

Grunge or any other type of rock music is (in general) really not that taxing as it tends to lack extremes in dynamic range. But it is usually with this type of music that many of us push our systems to the point where we hear distortion - generally because we want it to be loud, not because the content is all that difficult for the system as long as the user is not pushing things.

[stiehl11]

Nov 16, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 knucklehead said:

Nov 16, 2013 11:10:23 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Symphonic music hands down.

+1

Then everything else.

++1

A standard piano will cover most frequencies (the fundamental A₀ will go down to 27 Hz, C₈ will go to 4.2 kHz). A Bösendorfer piano will go down to F₀ (21 Hz) and a Stuart and Sons will run from C₀ to F₈ (16 Hz to 5.6 kHz). The reason for these extended frequencies is for extended resonances and overtones (although a few pieces, surely, have been composed for them). A well-made pipe organ will run from fundamentals from 20 Hz to 7.1 kHz.

There are two things that, I feel, determine how "good" a system is; how it handles dynamics and how it handles subtleties. The dynamics tax the power of the system and the subtleties test its refinement. You can have a very dynamic system that will gut-punch you into next week with every hit of the bass drum but totally suck seawater when it comes to refinement. The subtleties are the fast and intricate details that make a live performance sound like a live performance. It's incredibly difficult to strike a balance between gut-punching, low-frequency dynamics and subtle and soft transients. A personal example for me was adding an XDA-2 to my ERC-1; I heard things that I never heard before without it (such as a drummer setting down a set of sticks to pick up a different set waaaaay in the background).

A good recording of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite will test your dynamics and, likely, your subtleties as well.

[Cory Cooper]

When I demo speakers/audio systems, I tend to rely on the female voice to give me a sense of the accuracy of the reproduction. Things can go south quickly if the mids aren't right, The human ear is particularly sensitive in this range, and it is where the majority of music resides.

I agree with many points already made - classical, acoustic, solo piano, even rock and bass music. My personal "demo CD" has tracks of all types.

The mids tell the truth, and if they are correct, the low/high ends will usually fall reasonably into place.

C

[Jim]

I know piano can be very difficult. Very large dynamic range with sometimes huge peaks.

I've heard that you can differentiate between good and bad systems very effectively with piano music.

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2013 12:46:10 GMT -5 stiehl11 said:

Nov 16, 2013 11:57:00 GMT -5 knucklehead said:

+1

Then everything else.

++1

A standard piano will cover most frequencies (the fundamental A₀ will go down to 27 Hz, C₈ will go to 4.2 kHz). A Bösendorfer piano will go down to F₀ (21 Hz) and a Stuart and Sons will run from C₀ to F₈ (16 Hz to 5.6 kHz). The reason for these extended frequencies is for extended resonances and overtones (although a few pieces, surely, have been composed for them). A well-made pipe organ will run from fundamentals from 20 Hz to 7.1 kHz.

There are two things that, I feel, determine how "good" a system is; how it handles dynamics and how it handles subtleties. The dynamics tax the power of the system and the subtleties test its refinement. You can have a very dynamic system that will gut-punch you into next week with every hit of the bass drum but totally suck seawater when it comes to refinement. The subtleties are the fast and intricate details that make a live performance sound like a live performance. It's incredibly difficult to strike a balance between gut-punching, low-frequency dynamics and subtle and soft transients. A personal example for me was adding an XDA-2 to my ERC-1; I heard things that I never heard before without it (such as a drummer setting down a set of sticks to pick up a different set waaaaay in the background).

A good recording of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite will test your dynamics and, likely, your subtleties as well.

I think a 32' pipe organ will go to 16.4Hz and a 64' will go to 8.2Hz.  Try that one on your sub.