Are Tone Controls and the Cutting Edge Incompatible?

[tomlinmgt]

The best "tone control" you can ever get is an investment in better source gear.

To a point. No single piece of source gear can overcome poor room acoustics....unless it has built in DRC.

 

[JohnVF]

To a point. No single piece of source gear can overcome poor room acoustics....unless it has built in DRC.

I absolutely agree on that point. I have two systems here, one in a good room, one in a sparsely decorated room with glass windows. The rooms make the systems. A room full of books is like adding a subwoofer to my Harbeths.

 

[MikeT.]

So, are we talking tone controls/EQ for the sake of making the original mix something it's not or to correct for acoustic conditions that create a spectral imbalance of content? Not that one is right or wrong and you may be talking either/or. I'm just asking if there is an intended distinction.

Many studios are acoustically treated already and mixed accordingly and with whatever adjustments the sound engineer wants to add at their discretion artistically.
What's inconsistent is acoustics in every other listening room you put gear into.
I agree with John VF to the degree that I set up my system with gear and cables that I like 90% of the time but I have to say, adding acoustic treatments have made much more difference than all of the other tweaking. Hence my comment regarding "flexible" parametric EQ.
May be the quality of digital source material and the flexibility that software EQ might give the average person makes EQ a process where acoustic deficiencies can be addressed without the downside of affecting the signal quality in a big way.

 

[MWalt]

I'm not against tone controls or equalizers at all, if you need them, then use them. I don't have tone controls or an EQ in any of my systems because I don't need them. But, I think digital room equalization or room node correction devices ARE cutting edge and should be included in the conversation.

 

[Rrroberts40]

With my system I found that as the gear got better and more revealing the good sounded better the great recordings were unbelievable and the poor recordings were worse and flat dreadful on the really pooly mixed stuff/recorded stuff. I have bounced between making my system more detailed, to slightly less detailed and back and forth for over a year chasing my tail until I finally decided a crap recording is at best augmented to sound listenable and be happy with that...the electronic eq. on a computer based system seems to be the answer...I can find a reasonable medium point so if I have people over to have a listening session and they may want to jump around to several cuts it will be good sounding at that but when I want to "wow" the group I click out the eq and thrown on the go to cuts...

 

[tomlinmgt]

Is there DRC that can be done in the digital domain upstream of the stand alone DAC? The two EQ software programs mentioned, Amarra and JRiver, certainly seem like a good starting point if you've properly measured your room's acoustic response, but an intuitive correction program at the source seems the ticket to me. I understand the benefits of DRC outweigh any losses/noise introduced by the device, but I can see a lot of merit in having all this taken care of upstream of the D>A conversion.

 

[slippers-on]

I'm being totally serious. I think a lot of people are adjusting for mediocre source gear's shortcomings, and not something that got botched in the studio.

I'm also not saying that every recording is steller, but I really am not all that bothered when they're not, as I can sit through what's wrong and listen for what's right. And a lot of recordings have things that are right, that you won't hear on crap source components. So there's nothing there.

Call me a snob or whatever, I don't care. Its an opinion I've come to have based on what I've had, and its just an opinion. The only EQ I ever heard do anything that on the balance was more positive than negative was the MCACC room correction in the Pioneer receiver I had. I'm sure there are great options out there..I've been in studios, I've seen what they use and how well it works. But the usual suspects in home-audio just don't do it for me. The Amarra option seems like it could work for me, but again, I really am not into tweaking individual songs. I tweak the system to sound good on the most music and just leave it at that.

If you're constantly boosting bass...do you really think that many studio engineers botched the bass? Maybe you should get a better digital setup, phono preamp, cartridge, or preamp instead. Or more dynamic speakers. If you're constantly fiddling with the frequencies around the crossover points in your speakers...maybe its not the song that is wrong, but the 40 year old speakers with aging caps? And sometimes the problem surfaces because there isn't much else to hear in the system on this particular song, and sometimes the recording is good enough to gloss over it, so you think things are fine.

So when you have a recording that's not stellar you're not bothered by whats wrong but listen for whats right....but other's who have the same situation as you are "adjusting for mediocre source gear's shortcomings, and not something that got botched in the studio."

So if you are in the same situation as group "A" mediocre gear is canceled out?

You and I have a disagreement here....but thats ok, we are both entitled to have them.

 

[240sx4u]

As I sit and mull over things audio related, this is one that I just can't seem to get my head wrapped around. I get the whole idea of short signal paths, and putting as little as possible into the signal path. From that aspect, no tone controls is a good thing. However, sadly, a lot of my music is not of audiophile quality. In fact, there are some CD's and even records where a tweak, so to speak, of the bass or treble control can make an irritating sounding piece of music enjoyable again.

I am really into this for the music, although I love the audio gear too. I just really hate when my system choices limit me to the music I can listen to. My music should always come first. I don't expect my gear to make my crappy sounding music sound like my audiophile stuff. But I would like to make it at least listenable.

Sadly, it seems that tone controls are taboo in the world of Cutting Edge audio. Anyone else struggle with this?

I have always had a double standard regarding tone controls with systems. The reason I say that is because in automotive environments I was never afraid to do some serious EQ and DSP work to get the job done. As I get older and start to openly look at other options, a proper DSP/EQ setup may get me that last 5% I am chasing. More DSP than anything I suspect, my system is pretty pleasing tonally to me. Using a brute force method like eq/dsp to invoke large changes sounds fun vs. chasing incremental changes with other tweaks. This hobby IS about fun right?

Evan

 

[JohnVF]

So when you have a recording that's not stellar you're not bothered by whats wrong but listen for whats right....but other's who have the same situation as you are "adjusting for mediocre source gear's shortcomings, and not something that got botched in the studio."

So if you are in the same situation as group "A" mediocre gear is canceled out?

You and I have a disagreement here....but thats ok, we are both entitled to have them.

All I'm really saying is that the better the source gear, the better everything sounds. Even not so great recordings.

The systems that I have heard where the person put 90% of their budget into the speakers, and just kind of hodge-podged the rest, are the ones where I heard the most need for some sort of EQ/tone device. More than anything what has done that for me is bad digital. I think digital is both the best and worst sound you can get, depending on the quality of it. Personally (just an opinion! But we're all very opinionated, and it wouldn't be much fun if we weren't, right?)

 

[tomlinmgt]

I have always had a double standard regarding tone controls with systems. The reason I say that is because in automotive environments I was never afraid to do some serious EQ and DSP work to get the job done. As I get older and start to openly look at other options, a proper DSP/EQ setup may get me that last 5% I am chasing. More DSP than anything I suspect, my system is pretty pleasing tonally to me. Using a brute force method like eq/dsp to invoke large changes sounds fun vs. chasing incremental changes with other tweaks. This hobby IS about fun right?

Evan

Given my efforts in acoustic treatments I'm beginning to think it's not possible to get the last 5% without the emerging technology that is DRC/EQing in the digital realm (provided your electronics and transducers are well above average).

 

[240sx4u]

Given my efforts in acoustic treatments I'm beginning to think it's not possible to get the last 5% without the emerging technology that is DRC/EQing in the digital realm (provided your electronics and transducers are well above average).

You're very well setup, I am always a bit envious. I made the conscious choice to put my gear in a "bad" room just because I knew I could use it constantly. Unfortunately I am sure I have hit my rooms limitations without treatments and DSP.

I have been running serious DSP in cars for years and the differences it can make in staging and depth is downright freaky. The first time I remember hearing a proper DSP setup was in a friends truck. He had it setup where he could move the center image around easily with presets, it was shocking with my eyes closed. I had never seen anything like it.

I am very interested in home DSP solutions but deep down I am afraid to spend what little audio budget I have left on something that I may not like.

Evan

 

[kirk57]

I don't listen to many recordings that sound awful without tone controls, but if I did, there is always the tape loop on my (no tone controls) preamp, no harm in putting a nice EQ in there.

My understanding of why tone controls were dropped from preamps to begin with was that manufacturers felt that 'if you desire EQ, buy an equilizer!', Equalizers were roughly at the same time becoming widely available at reasonable prices. I recall reading a review of a preamp (maybe DB systems?) where the designer actually said that very thing...

I'd agree that any distortion introduced by an EQ is going to be minor compared to tonal imbalances of very bad recordings, such as field recordings from the 30's or a lot of bootlegs.

 

[onepixel]

I must be a little less OCD about this. I try to set up a balance in my system where the bad sounds ok and the good still sounds great, using passive stuff like gear choice, speaker placement and room treatment. Seems to work fine for 90% of recordings, without EQ, at least to my level of compulsion. The day I'm getting up to tweak the whole system for one song is the day I pass the time some other way. Filling the room with record and bookshelves helped more than any EQ I ever tried, to bring about greater happiness with more recordings.

I'm not after some "purity" of the recording, and I will adjust the controls occasionally if I'm using my Accuphase integrated. But usually things sound better to me without them. They add, but they also subtract stuff. Something like Amarra might work better for me, as I used digital room correction for a bit and really liked it.

Yup.

 

[livestrong]

The way I look at it Erik, is that if you feel the need for tone controls for some material and not for others, it should mean that your system is doing its job correctly- namely reproducing the material it's being fed. The fact that you may find periodic tweaking necessary isn't an indication the system is lacking, on the contrary- it's a reflection of the technical expertise of the recording engineers' abilities in recording production quality. If a system failed to reveal shortcommings when they were present, that should be taken that the system wasn't doing its job.

I normally don't play over here in The Cutting Edge, but I'm wondering if this is exactly where I am with my system right now. I've recently done some major system changes/upgrades in a very short period of time. I've been listening to Patricia Barber's The Premonition Years 1995 - 2002 CD Box set on repeat for the past week or so and I've never been more thrilled with the sound - it is a warm, rich, full sound that still has incredible detail. My vinyl rig is also sounding better than it ever has before. But when I put in some other CD's (more pop, rock, alternative indie stuff), the bass is lacking - I mean really lacking. I thought it was because I got rid of my sub, but after hearing how amazing those Barber CD's sound, I know the rest of my system is capable of amazing sound.

To me I don't know that it is necessarily someone doing a crappy job in the studio, but rather a product of the loudness war. I honestly feel a little lost right now!

 

[62caddy]

If you're constantly boosting bass...do you really think that many studio engineers botched the bass...

Actually I have a number of classical recording where the bass was totally botched-- in the other direction. Waaay too much bass and severe attenuation was necessary to make it even listenable. Thankfully this is rare.

Point being, the more accurate the system, the more likely the variation in source quality will be evident. Or at least that's been my experience.

Recording quality is as varied as reproduction gear itself. No matter what you have, no matter what you spend, the simple inexorable truth of the matter is the GIGO principle. Gargage In; Garbage Out. Tone control if used judiciously can soften these inconsistencies- although usually to a limited degree- I'll agree.

My 2 cents.

 

[MikeT.]

I normally don't play over here in The Cutting Edge, but I'm wondering if this is exactly where I am with my system right now. I've recently done some major system changes/upgrades in a very short period of time. I've been listening to Patricia Barber's The Premonition Years 1995 - 2002 CD Box set on repeat for the past week or so and I've never been more thrilled with the sound - it is a warm, rich, full sound that still has incredible detail. My vinyl rig is also sounding better than it ever has before. But when I put in some other CD's (more pop, rock, alternative indie stuff), the bass is lacking - I mean really lacking. I thought it was because I got rid of my sub, but after hearing how amazing those Barber CD's sound, I know the rest of my system is capable of amazing sound.

To me I don't know that it is necessarily someone doing a crappy job in the studio, but rather a product of the loudness war. I honestly feel a little lost right now!

I was feeling the same way a while back but continued to tweak my speaker placement in my room. I did everything I was reading about, pulling the speakers into the room, setting them up at almost every point in the room, everything BUT moving them closer to the wall they were on. I finally said, what the heck, moved them back about three inches closer to the wall and you would have thought I added another bass driver. There was obviously some cancellation going on acoustically or reinforcement benefit from moving them closer to the wall.
Mr. Tomlinmgt thread on acoustics kept me going. I added acoustic treatments and kept "futzing" with speaker placement and I was rewarded for the effort.
That being said, the digital EQ has me intrigued on getting that extra 5% performance people talk about in this forum.

 

[RichPA]

The best "tone control" you can ever get is an investment in better source gear.

The nice thing about a clear, general, simple statement is that you can feel confident in disagreeing with it

I have got pretty good source gear (Bel Canto DAC3.0 upgraded with VBS and DAC3.5 processor board), and the rest of the system is not too shabby, either. But I would not be without room correction EQ, and I can and do switch between target curves for specific recordings - I probably switch from my default curve for about 1 in 20 albums. This is, of course, not the same as tone controls or graphic EQs in the analog domain, though I admit I've not heard state of the art analog EQ gear.

So, are tone controls incompatible with the cutting edge? Not for me, if you include the kind of EQ I'm talking about.

 

[tomlinmgt]

The nice thing about a clear, general, simple statement is that you can feel confident in disagreeing with it

I have got pretty good source gear (Bel Canto DAC3.0 upgraded with VBS and DAC3.5 processor board), and the rest of the system is not too shabby, either. But I would not be without room correction EQ, and I can and do switch between target curves for specific recordings - I probably switch from my default curve for about 1 in 20 albums. This is, of course, not the same as tone controls or graphic EQs in the analog domain, though I admit I've not heard state of the art analog EQ gear.

So, are tone controls incompatible with the cutting edge? Not for me, if you include the kind of EQ I'm talking about.

So you're saying you EQ for acoustics and to tailor recordings? Can that be done exclusively simulatneously (or simultaneously exclusive...:headscrat)? If you EQ to tailor the recording don't you deviate from the EQ setting that corrects the room? I suppose it's moot really as it sounds like for that one recording out of twenty tailoring the recording trumps proper room response when it comes to pleasing your ears.

 

[240sx4u]

So you're saying you EQ for acoustics and to tailor recordings? Can that be done exclusively simulatneously (or simultaneously exclusive...:headscrat)? If you EQ to tailor the recording don't you deviate from the EQ setting that corrects the room? I suppose it's moot really as it sounds like for that one recording out of twenty tailoring the recording trumps proper room response when it comes to pleasing your ears.

Rich runs a TACT preamp I think FYI.

 

[JohnVF]

The nice thing about a clear, general, simple statement is that you can feel confident in disagreeing with it

I have got pretty good source gear (Bel Canto DAC3.0 upgraded with VBS and DAC3.5 processor board), and the rest of the system is not too shabby, either. But I would not be without room correction EQ, and I can and do switch between target curves for specific recordings - I probably switch from my default curve for about 1 in 20 albums. This is, of course, not the same as tone controls or graphic EQs in the analog domain, though I admit I've not heard state of the art analog EQ gear.

So, are tone controls incompatible with the cutting edge? Not for me, if you include the kind of EQ I'm talking about.

But if you didn't have that source gear, you might be switching from your default curve for 10 out of the 20 albums, no?

I didn't say it was the only control necessary for everybody, just that it went a long way towards making me not miss them. And I do think that room correction is far more useful than tone controls, as it actually addresses the problem where I think tone controls often are like using a mallet where you need a tack hammer.