Are Tone Controls and the Cutting Edge Incompatible?

[bshorey]

Not me. Even with the high quality stuff, some times you need tone controls or equalization to fit the system to the room. If they result in improved sound, why struggle with them?

bs

 

[RichPA]

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.

As 240sx4u said, I run a TacT room correction system. It corrects response to match a target curve, but you can change that curve on the fly, selecting from 9 possibilities. So I can select one with more or less high-frequency rolloff, for example, and room correction is calculated to whichever curve I select. So yes, both can be done simultaneously.

 

[poppachubby]

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?

For me, the cutting edge is about achieving the all around enjoyment. I have old R&B and jazz albums which are anything but audiophile. I used to be configured so that these albums were glaringly awful sounding, but I then made the appropriate changes. I don't need tone controls, but if I did i wouldn't have any issues with that.

We all know that less is more, but honestly, people get really bent out of shape about so many trivial things. My Bozak has a tone bypass, and when not engaged it imparts a warm signature to the music. Frankly it's really pleasant but I don't need it as a rule.

The thing I can't stand is when without any real effort, someone just slams in an "EQ" as a standard piece of gear. That said, if you find that you need correction... so be it. These days all I care about is the final result... engaging music.

 

[tomlinmgt]

As 240sx4u said, I run a TacT room correction system. It corrects response to match a target curve, but you can change that curve on the fly, selecting from 9 possibilities. So I can select one with more or less high-frequency rolloff, for example, and room correction is calculated to whichever curve I select. So yes, both can be done simultaneously.

That's pretty bitchin'. :yes:

 

[poppachubby]

I think tone controls often are like using a mallet where you need a tack hammer.

Sure, if you are trying to change what's being presented it's got to be the most fruitless thing imaginable. But as a way to make a poor recording bearable ie; excessive ear bleeding treble, zero tone or bottom/warmth, it's fine. I have old radio recordings of Sidney Bechet which are musically killer, but horrendously recorded... for those I may engage my Bozak's controls.

 

[nj pheonix]

Not to be polarizing. few of us have perfect gear, speakers, rooms or sit in the exact same spot with perfect recordings. Perhaps we even have memories of imperfect sounds from our youth, that is in our minds ear that it should sound like(even if its not right) or sometimes sound like that, or there's a bass player or guitarist or pianst or sax player, that you just really love and want occasionally to accentuate that piece. Again , not criticizing anybody's opinion here. Tone controls may not be the purist choice. There are certainly systems that have them that sound excellent. Its no bad thing. Not right, not wrong. If it pleases the user, that's all that matters.

 

[slippers-on]

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?)

John...there is credibility in much of your voiced experience on this subject.....my only contention is the opinion that quality gear is the all fix all for less that optimum recordings.

 

[JohnVF]

It doesn't fix all recordings. I just think it makes them all bearable, along with room treatment. Not saying EQ doesn't work, too. It does, just different priorities, and nothing wrong with any approach really. But I did find that when I used to tweak things more, much of it was for problems introduced by the gear, not the recording.

 

[Wes_in_VA]

The only reason I'm happier sans tone controls is that I'm not constantly fiddling with the damn things, which I always seemed to be doing when I had them.
"Free your hands and your mind (and ears) will follow."

But that's just me.

 

[slippers-on]

It doesn't fix all recordings. I just think it makes them all bearable, along with room treatment. Not saying EQ doesn't work, too. It does, just different priorities, and nothing wrong with any approach really. But I did find that when I used to tweak things more, much of it was for problems introduced by the gear, not the recording.

Bearable...then we are in agreement. I have a dedicated music room, with some treatment...wife asked me to sound proof it. that's a little down the road. Things sound really good in my system. I don't use control's...no need, but I know there are lots of recordings that simply stink that can't be fixed with gear. Make them tolerable? You betcha!

 

[Poultrygeist]

I have an old Marantz 1150 which drives a passive porch sub with speaker levels to Axiom outdoor speakers.

Without tweaking the six slide controls on the Marantz the sub doesn't integrate nearly as well.

 

[Mr. Lin]

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.

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

I'm going to have to agree with John in this case. Could it be? Another source-first guy like myself? (I'm joking - this would be assuming a little too much from what John has said)

Like John said, a better source is not a cure-all, but it makes the bad stuff much more bearable.

Sure, if you are trying to change what's being presented it's got to be the most fruitless thing imaginable. But as a way to make a poor recording bearable ie; excessive ear bleeding treble, zero tone or bottom/warmth, it's fine. I have old radio recordings of Sidney Bechet which are musically killer, but horrendously recorded... for those I may engage my Bozak's controls.

As I'm no kind of anti-tone-control extremist, I totally agree with Chad's point here as well. In some cases, just a slight adjustment at one extreme or another is occasionally beneficial, with certain equipment. I've noticed my NAD 326BEE has tone controls that do exactly this, for example; the bass and treble are for relatively mild adjustment of either end of the frequency spectrum, should you choose to even have the tone controls turned on (you can take them out of the signal path altogether in the case of this amp). Another integrated amp I own does not have any tone controls at all, and I've honestly never missed them while using that amp.

But if someone has a killer source, isn't happy with the way some recordings sound, and wants to take advantage of tone controls, I don't judge. There's ultimately no right or wrong approach here, as others have said.

 

[Mr. Lin]

I forgot to confess I regularly use the equalizer of the head unit in my car. That's the situation you're in when you only have the two front door-panel speakers left.

 

[JohnVF]

If anybody is familiar with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats", it applies to what I was trying to say about source-gear quality. It occurred to me that somebody could say "Well, I have some recordings that sound great, so it can't be my source", but that's missing the point, and assuming that those recordings are sounding as good as they possibly could. With more attention to source, those good recordings will achieve levels of clarity, definition, and transparency that weren't there before. And bad recordings, will develop depth, openness, and a hint of clarity that they never had at all, in any measure. So what sounded thin with a cheap DVD player playing CDs, now sounds more full, with added bass definition, more detail, etc. And because of that, you won't be wanting to reach for a bass contour as much. Or you won't be reaching for the EQ to tone down sibilance that's being introduced by a cartridge or phono EQ, because it won't be there for you to want to tame it.

Again, I do use tone controls sometimes. My favorite piece of gear here has them...Accuphase e303x, and my Leben integrated has a bass boost that I use sometimes when listening at low levels. But when I dig out the best sounding gear here, none of my preamps have tone controls and my Pioneer SG-9500 EQ is buried in my storage unit. I just don't feel the need.

And if I really was chasing the last 5% or whatever, I would professionally treat a dedicated room with bass traps, panels, etc, and choose gear for a system-wide tonality, that would be kind enough for bad recordings while still letting the good ones shine through. It can be done, I've heard it. I've also heard systems where the only thing that sounds good is a girl cooing tired jazz standards while humping a piano bench. I'm not after that.

I think we spend too much effort chasing speakers and not enough finding the best gear to feed them with.

 

[Bigerik]

You know, I think I could be good without tone controls, if the pre-amp had a good loudness contour. A truly well designed one that did what it needed to do at low levels, and then went away as the volume was turned up.

 

[JohnVF]

You know, I think I could be good without tone controls, if the pre-amp had a good loudness contour. A truly well designed one that did what it needed to do at low levels, and then went away as the volume was turned up.

That was the only thing I liked about the Yamaha C-80 pre I used.

 

[Bigerik]

That was the only thing I liked about the Yamaha C-80 pre I used.

Yamaha did do that well.

 

[Fred Sanford]

You know, I think I could be good without tone controls, if the pre-amp had a good loudness contour. A truly well designed one that did what it needed to do at low levels, and then went away as the volume was turned up.

I do like that about the Nakamichi RE-1 that I use in my bedroom system. It's got a variable loudness contour knob, and it seems to match nicely with the sensitivity of the JBL HP420s that I use there, and blends down the effect right when I would want it to as the volume knob rises.

My main reason for not using tone controls has been stated here in the thread- I would want fully parametric controls (not the fixed freq or bandwidth that's nearly always found), and I'd want them bypassable. But, as also mentioned, I've worked to match gear per room, find happy locations & adjustment settings for the speakers, and often also integrated subs and/or employed active crossovers for bi-amping...so, even without tone controls, my systems have been 'tweaked'. But, not a single one of the 5 constant-use systems has the tone controls engaged or adjusted- they're all always bypassed.

I do have a DBX DriveRack PA+ that I'm going to try out on my main 2-ch system, just for giggles. Still, with that type of approach, you're only setting the system up for one sweet-spot anyway. When I use a processor like that live, it's still only a starting point that gets tweaked afterwards.

And, I'm a live sound & recording engineer, so I use EQs of all types many hours of each day.

je

 

[davidro]

do the purists object to channel balance control too?

 

[Bigerik]

do the purists object to channel balance control too?

I'm not sure if I am a purist, but I can't imagine buying a pre-amp without one.