Common contemporary practice within the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomics community is to evaluate and validate novel algorithms on empirical data or simplified simulated data. Empirical data captures the complex characteristics of experimental data, but the optimal or most correct analysis is unknown a priori, therefore, researchers are forced to rely on indirect performance metrics, which are of limited value. In order to achieve fair and complete analysis of competing techniques more exacting metrics are required. Thus, metabolomics researchers often evaluate their algorithms on simplified simulated data with a known answer. Unfortunately, the conclusions obtained on simulated data are only of value if the data sets are complex enough for results to generalize to true experimental data. Ideally, synthetic data should be indistinguishable from empirical data, yet retain a known best analysis.