The notion that there are no "test tracks" in audio is ludicrous.
Ever test drive a car? Of course. Why? Various reasons.
To test limits.
To test special circumstances.
To test normal driving conditions.
Etc.
Test tracks can be ear candy and test limits.
Test tracks can be normal stuff and that gives information, too.
Test tracks can be badly recorded or old compressed stuff.
One can pay close attention, or just listen relaxedly, or even pay oblique attention. One can even go out of the room and see how it sounds out there. (Ever get drawn into a room from the hallway at an audio show? Something brought you inside even though you were far from the sweet spot. What was that? That’s relevant, too.)
The argument against test tracks needs to be understood for what it typically (and inexplicitly) is - an argument against a track which isn’t comprehensively representative of the various kinds of music which could/will be played or the various ways we could/will listen to it.
It’s merely good scientific method to reject the pretense that a test can pretend to be more than what it is. But that doesn’t mean such tests don’t have any value -- only that their value needs to be specified in a proportionate way relative to the overall experimental question.
And as for "Year of the Cat" well that track is just fine. It’s just that MC testifies here against needing test tracks and elsewhere he mentions Year of the Cat multiple times. Kinda funny.
Ever test drive a car? Of course. Why? Various reasons.
To test limits.
To test special circumstances.
To test normal driving conditions.
Etc.
Test tracks can be ear candy and test limits.
Test tracks can be normal stuff and that gives information, too.
Test tracks can be badly recorded or old compressed stuff.
One can pay close attention, or just listen relaxedly, or even pay oblique attention. One can even go out of the room and see how it sounds out there. (Ever get drawn into a room from the hallway at an audio show? Something brought you inside even though you were far from the sweet spot. What was that? That’s relevant, too.)
The argument against test tracks needs to be understood for what it typically (and inexplicitly) is - an argument against a track which isn’t comprehensively representative of the various kinds of music which could/will be played or the various ways we could/will listen to it.
It’s merely good scientific method to reject the pretense that a test can pretend to be more than what it is. But that doesn’t mean such tests don’t have any value -- only that their value needs to be specified in a proportionate way relative to the overall experimental question.
And as for "Year of the Cat" well that track is just fine. It’s just that MC testifies here against needing test tracks and elsewhere he mentions Year of the Cat multiple times. Kinda funny.