Thanks for everything. Ben, Andrew, everyone involved to date,... all the effort putting this together, I'm sure will be well worth it.
We're going to have a great time. I've purposely stayed away from the track suggestion stuff, because regardless what tracks we listen to, it's going to be fine. I've got preferences, but it's all good.
The way I view this, obviously you guys have done this, ... this type GTG has been performed before, and quite well from everyone's comments. That said, I just want to come and have a great time and experience this event in it's native form and experience other's preferred tracks, without altering the approach or music, etc. Kind of like the observer effect, whereby I just to experience this event without changing it. I know, ate up, but wth.
Like everyone, I've got my own reference material that I prefer to use, when delineating differences in equipment, but I don't get out much and want to be exposed and hear everyone else's reference tracks.
As this isn't Andrew's first rodeo, and with multiple repeat attendees, I'm sure the overall approach (what's achieved, material listened to, etc) has been tweaked/adjusted somewhat relative from what's worked and what hasn't worked at the previous functions. I'm sure it'll all be fantastic. This track in/this track out ... there is no wrong answers, no wrong approach, this is all about having fun, and fun we will have, no doubt.
If we were locked in a room, and our lives depended on our assessment efforts, yeah there's a handful of tracks I couldn't do without. I'm guessing others would agree, but this is all about having a great time, and besides, I can listen and enjoy anything ... as long as it's reasonably acceptable in engineering quality (knowing those involved, I'm sure these tracks will be great). Others may not care for my tastes, I'm looking forward to being turned on to a lot of material I otherwise wouldn't give a listen. Hell, my normal exposure to most music I'm not familiar with is thru my teen kids. No, I'm not kidding.
Not necessarily for enjoyment, but for sonic assessment, (more so than genre) I prefer quality, low intrinsic loudness material. Thus, high peak energy, well defined transients, nice reverb/decay tail. The Chesky label from the demo/test disc suggested by coolgeek, spans a variety of jazz type genres, not everyone's cup of tea, I like it. Bob Katz is often involved in the engineering effort throughout much of that label. If one isn't familiar, Katz, a mastering engineer, is a prominent figure leading the effort against the loudness wars/compression trends within the industry.
Katz often points out the merits of low intrinsic loudness
. Intrinsic loudness is the perceived loudness of a recording, relative to known overall gain structure, or a intra-system level. A more compressed/hot recording, with higher intrinsic loudness, typically has diminished transient clarity, and by definition, less dynamic range. Often, but not always, with an increase in intrinsic loudness, the overall quality goes down. Older, pre loudness war material is often dramatically better (in these metrics) than most anything that's released within the loudness war time period. That said, there's still solid exceptions throughout the time period ... spanning all types of music.
Low intrinsic loudness material is more realistic, needs more playback level, and can sound fantastically detailed at concert-like SPLs. But, such material can be brutally demanding ... needing significant headroom and peak capability, because enjoying it at satisfying and realistically loud average level, mean the transient peaks riding atop, if resolved cleanly, can require monumental capability.
Again, some of that material is a tough listen for many, just not everyone's idea of fun
. Besides, I'm sure there's some killer tracks on the demo list, ... and that will be fun
Thanks for all the pre-planning effort put forth, going to be a good one.
See everyone soon