They both have pretty amazing sound quality to me, especially considering the original recordings are from 1958 (Beecham) and 1960 (Reiner). The Reiner is still my fav, but the Beecham is a nice alternative.
The 2nd movement is a go-to test track for me. If that doesn’t move me emotionally, the system isn’t for me.
There are a lot of performances on YouTube Music of Tchaikovsky 6th from various orchestras, mostly from Europe. Surprisingly, the sound quality of these are better than one would think. The quality of performances vary, but several are actually quite good.
I’m not seeing any way to adjust these oversized video embeds so they don’t drown out my actual post, so I will try a sort-of bump to highlight what was my actual question about the video I posted:
The simple answer is no, its not muddy or too bottom heavy but it has a unusual equal level as the the piano in my view.
Listening with the etymotic ER2 and the Mirph1
Mike
Found this on a list of sibilance test tracks, if anyone needs one more along with all the other examples up-thread (sibilance test or… “S-sound tuning” shall we say, because under-representation of some frequencies can also make “s” sounds come out wrong):
Indila - Dernière danse
Probably not gonna use it myself though, since it’s part of my listening/enjoyment collection and I don’t want to get tired of it by playing it too much (this is why I’m looking through other people’s lists including randos on YouTube by the way: it’s better if I don’t know the tracks and don’t care about them aesthetically).
Another one for sibilance from the list with the double bass thing above:
Eva Cassidy - Fields of Gold
Just a little drinky and unamuzed with life clicking around. But my kneejerk reactions are my most reliable and the two YT videos I clicked on left me underwhelmed. And immediately your Tidal selection has me enthralled. I’m not trying to snub YT music, I was honestly sitting here questioning if YT can produce the claimed bitrates, and I really don’t know. But maybe it’s just the recording’s, I immediately heard more depth and seperation. Also part of that could be live audio vs studio. *edit: this could easily be a digital vs analogue argument.
You’re not hearing things: The sound quality of YouTube Music sucks.
In some cases, yes. Other cases, such as the Classical Videos from Europe, YouTube actually sounds pretty decent. I was surprised.
Specific links please. YouTube is compressed and routinely makes my ears ring.
Look for performances from NDR, Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra as a start.
I tried half a dozen tracks. All were 128 or 256 kbps compressed files and they all made my ears ring.
I don’t know how compressed (or not) this video is, but it is the best performance (in decent sound) I’ve ever heard of Vaughan Williams’s fifth symphony: RVW: Symphony 5 – Sir Andrew Davis, Frankfurt Radio Symphony
Sorry to hear that. I find that they sound OK with the Devialet Expert Pro or the Topping D900. I did notice a big improvement after I switched to 1 Gig internet.
The only thing that made my ears ring was the Grado Signature 100 SE with G Pads.
That track displays as 128 kbps on YouTube Music.
Like I said, it’s a beautiful performance. I’d rather listen to it than to any of the other performances on CD or SACD. Sometimes it’s good just to turn off the audiophile dial-watcher brain and listen to music!
I agree with your sentiment but even more with @generic on 128k compressed sound.
So if I want to turn off the audiophile brain and enjoy a performance, there is my boxed set of original RCA red label Aturo Toscanini conducting 9 Beethoven Symphonies.
It never hurts my ears, and the only artifacts are rare pops.
Given that the title of this thread is “Headphone Evaluation: Test Tracks,” a compressed file can only communicate if and how well your system reveals compression artifacts. As such, compressed tracks have zero utility for maximum performance testing or for listening to differences between hardware setups. They merely reveal the technical ceiling imposed by the compression algorithm.
Now, if one upsamples a compressed source, reprocesses, or runs the output through a wet tube amp, the artifacts may be harder to identify or generally obscured. In my experience the best you can hope for is a rounded off soft haze – efforts to increase clarity, hear defined edges, and listen for nuances in dynamic changes will bring back the compression artifacts.
None of this has anything to do with enjoyment or finding a rare/superior performance on YouTube or another low quality source. Many people find enjoyment in bootleg concert recordings, low-fi productions made in bedrooms and garages, punk rock, noise pop, and vintage recording made before hi-fi was technically possible.
I like a lot of low-fi content and I do use it for testing and evaluation, but I never test from a compressed source. Compression causes uncertainty about why low-fi sounds low-fi, and makes hi-fi sound like low-fi.
E. Power Biggs original transcription on LP of the Bach Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, performed at Harvard University’s Flentrop tracker organ. A good set of cans can pick up the dowel rods shifting in the organ case as the piece is performed.
Another good test track is the 24 bit edition of the disk Switched-On Bach. No acoustic slime to contend with on that.
E Power Biggs is almost always good although the quality of recording varies. I still have the original vinyl Switched on Bach when Wendy was Walter. Brilliant musician.
When it comes to test tracks, I used to have my go to 10 tracks or so. These days, I’ve got a “test tracks” playlist on my laptop and my DAP. On my laptop, I’ve got about 60 tracks now. When I get new gear in the house, I usually hit random play and let it rip through.