I agree. Interestingly, i ALSO find that for any kind of system check, i like using electronic deep house...and it can help me improve the system for classical. The reason is because every sound (no matter how subtle) was almost always specifically placed there by the musician in deep house...and in 90% of the cases, i find that it was ALSO placed there for a specific effect and almost always IN TIME WITH THE BEAT.
As the system has grown more and more resolving, i have found that more and more of 'seemingly random sound effects' are actually dropped into the track and match or are syncopating the main rhythm of the track. And because (unlike violin with its myriad nuances of noises which are sometimes hard to recall/remember)...i find that with deep house electronics, a lot of the super-subtle sound effects are either there...or they are not. And as a result, its a much easier black/white test about noise floor, detail retrieval and the system's ability to track super-subtle rhythms...
Absolutely!
We have to thank not just the composer here but actually the very way some of the machines are made: the sequencers, and the tempo-sync'ed delays.
For more acoustic types of music rather than electronic, you could try some Chic, or any Nile Rodgers song with his signature riffs. His style was heavily influenced by Giorgio Moroder's electronic sequencer riffs.
Forgot to add: thank Analogue Modular synths as well, as their transients are sometimes very fast as well.