I agree. Although, lately my EQ has been on standby duty. I am finding less is more, but to a point. I still like my highs and lows high and low. Like others have said, not all recordings are created equal.
James
Trying to wean myself off of tone controls
- Thread starter MWalt
- Start date
- Status
I agree. Although, lately my EQ has been on standby duty. I am finding less is more, but to a point. I still like my highs and lows high and low. Like others have said, not all recordings are created equal.
James
You're also going to need something way more precise than the typical tone control or slider-EQ to actually deal with this kind of thing. So my own viewpoint is to damp the room to some degree and live happily knowing that I like the sound how it is.
barredowl
Before and after Science
You are missing a couple of things Jon L first the FM effect is greater at low volumes.
Second when I say equalize to an equal loudness curve I mean with pink noise at your typical listening level. Even at full listening volume of say 90 dbs (loud in home) the FM effect is pretty drastic at 800 3.15K, see this curve for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
****The key here is we are primarily equalizing to correct room response *not* as a tone control for the recording.*****
This will compensate for room anomalies and assuming you have a full range speaker system you will come as close to hearing the original recording as possible with home equipment.
Then afterwards if the recording sounds thin you can apply more EQ to overcome that but using the pink noise to find roim anamolies is the first step to be able to hear all frequncies equally loud from the stereo which is the goal if we want to hear the original reording accuratly.
Second when I say equalize to an equal loudness curve I mean with pink noise at your typical listening level. Even at full listening volume of say 90 dbs (loud in home) the FM effect is pretty drastic at 800 3.15K, see this curve for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
****The key here is we are primarily equalizing to correct room response *not* as a tone control for the recording.*****
This will compensate for room anomalies and assuming you have a full range speaker system you will come as close to hearing the original recording as possible with home equipment.
Then afterwards if the recording sounds thin you can apply more EQ to overcome that but using the pink noise to find roim anamolies is the first step to be able to hear all frequncies equally loud from the stereo which is the goal if we want to hear the original reording accuratly.
TAGO MAGO
Super Member
Hmmmm...an interesting conundrum when it comes to using tone controls. I used to use tone controls myself as well as loudness when I was much younger and don't use either one any more and love the sound. I believe it is really down to how your amp and your speakers communicate with each other as well as the music you listen to.
whoaru99
Epic Member
Personally I'm not anti-tone control. ****, turn the bass up to 11 for all I care. It's just that most of the preamps I have and think sound good don't include them.
Good lord, where to start?
If you think avoiding the use of tone controls means you're listening to music "flat," you're delusional. Your speakers are not flat, your room is not flat, and the recording in all likelihood is not flat.
Those who don't use tone controls are more in love with the technology than the music. They want to hear what's on the recording, not what's in the concert hall, which is the true aim of reproduced music, in my opinion. Do you want to hear what the recording engineer captured? Why? Maybe he or she got it wrong. The wide variation in tonal balance among recordings is proof that sometimes they do, indeed, get it wrong.
A huge percentage of recordings do not preserve a natural tonal balance. Without tone controls, you're just reproducing the unnatural tonal balance. Does the frequency response the recording engineer heard through his or her speakers in his or her room match the frequency response you hear through your speakers in your room? Fat chance.
Tone controls cure more ills than they allegedly create.
Listen to music, not technology. Use tone controls when you need them and don't apologize.
-Bob
If you think avoiding the use of tone controls means you're listening to music "flat," you're delusional. Your speakers are not flat, your room is not flat, and the recording in all likelihood is not flat.
Those who don't use tone controls are more in love with the technology than the music. They want to hear what's on the recording, not what's in the concert hall, which is the true aim of reproduced music, in my opinion. Do you want to hear what the recording engineer captured? Why? Maybe he or she got it wrong. The wide variation in tonal balance among recordings is proof that sometimes they do, indeed, get it wrong.
A huge percentage of recordings do not preserve a natural tonal balance. Without tone controls, you're just reproducing the unnatural tonal balance. Does the frequency response the recording engineer heard through his or her speakers in his or her room match the frequency response you hear through your speakers in your room? Fat chance.
Tone controls cure more ills than they allegedly create.
Listen to music, not technology. Use tone controls when you need them and don't apologize.
-Bob
JonL
Lunatic Member
In my experience tone controls are not flexible enough or selective enough to make most deficient recordings sound much more like the concert hall. I listen to a lot of live music. I think some of my records approximate the sound pretty well, and those that don't... well they just don't and there's no fixing them. There's no fixing a record where the strings are too strident but the piano sounds dull, or where there's no coherency to the imaging. As I've said, my current preamp sounds great to me on just about everything with no tone controls.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I agree about the room, dunno about the recording and must assume the artist is at least somewhat complicit in the end sound, but my speakers are near flat as they come 29Hz-20kHz ±1.5dB.
As far as tone controls go, frankly, I'm not that interested in constant twiddling that you seem to indicate necessary with the "nothing is right" sentiment. I just listen to what comes out...my apologies if that simplicity offends you.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
No it's not. You're bypassing the tone controls, removing them from the circuit, there's a real potential that the sound will improve, the improvement being in the form of enhanced resolution. This may not always be the case with some models, but it's always been the case with the ones I've used.
I'm not "anti-tone control," I think people should absolutely use them if they feel it improves the sound. Why not? But you're fooling yourself if you think that there's no way bypassing the tone controls is going to result in better sound.
barredowl
Before and after Science
Again Mr. Lin any .00001% distortion introduced by the tone control is swamped by the 1 to 5% distortion introduced by even the best speakers, swamped means 100% masked BTW. If a system sounds better without tone controls it's probably because it's slightly louder with fewer components like resistors in the circuit and you could get the same effect by very slightly turning up the volume control while retaining the flexibility of EQ.
The amount of sheer anti science mythology in home audio post rise of the subjectivists is amazing to me.
The amount of sheer anti science mythology in home audio post rise of the subjectivists is amazing to me.
Classic_CJ
Well-Known Member
I suspect a number of the posters who have already responded may have read this, but if not-- a very extensive ramble on equalization, tone controls and related neat stuff:
http://www.roger-russell.com/equalizers/equalizers.htm
As someone who measured many actual room responses and programmed quite a few MQ104's and 107's and many non-Mac equalizers, I can attest that if you want to freak out an audiophile, just show him what his room is doing to the "flat" sound from his high end tone-control-less system.
Now, having said that, a few points I would like to make:
If your tone control system is significantly coloring the sound of your system, the controls are poorly designed. And yes, they often are. But they aren't inherently to blame. The effects of well-designed tone controls are very subtle, but if you are one of those who can hear that difference, purchase a preamp (or whatever) with bypassable controls. Real easy to do, electrically speaking.
The basic bass and treble controls on the typical preamp are very limited in that they often have too broad of an adjustment range, or turn over at poorly selected frequencies, or change the levels too severely, like those olden-timey ones that had like +/- 15 or 20dB boost/cut ranges! Eeesh!! 5 to 10 dB is way more like it. Look for controls that allow very fine adjustment, at least one dB at a time. Many times a dB or two in the right place is all that you need. Most people advance the controls way too far.
Within reason, a few more controls are better. Not a plug for McIntosh in particular, but I think their original setpoints for the C32, C33, C34 etc. were close to just about perfect for the five-band set of controls they sported. Some of their newer pres have eight controls, which I think is too many.
There is a deiiference between EQ's used for program correction ("what sounds right") and room correction. Program correction should not use more than 10 controls, like in an octave band equalizer. Room correction requires 1/3 octave correction at a minimum to do a proper job, and you must use test equipment to meaasure the room, average the various modes (account for different positions in the room) and once set, you forget it. You will find that with the room eq'd properly, your program controls, if used, will respond more accurately.
Almost lastly: As several others have commented, whatever sounds good to you is what's important. I do not have my listening room eq'd, and my preamp has three tone controls with center detents that take them electrically out of the circuit when not in use. I have a variable loudness control. Other than these amenities, the preamp is fairly "purist" in design. I have a large music collection, and if the recording calls for it, I use any of the above controls to make it sound more pleasing. If it doesn't, I don't.
Lastly: I have found that failing to obsess about small sonic details has made my music listening life happier. Good music, happy me.
http://www.roger-russell.com/equalizers/equalizers.htm
As someone who measured many actual room responses and programmed quite a few MQ104's and 107's and many non-Mac equalizers, I can attest that if you want to freak out an audiophile, just show him what his room is doing to the "flat" sound from his high end tone-control-less system.
Now, having said that, a few points I would like to make:
If your tone control system is significantly coloring the sound of your system, the controls are poorly designed. And yes, they often are. But they aren't inherently to blame. The effects of well-designed tone controls are very subtle, but if you are one of those who can hear that difference, purchase a preamp (or whatever) with bypassable controls. Real easy to do, electrically speaking.
The basic bass and treble controls on the typical preamp are very limited in that they often have too broad of an adjustment range, or turn over at poorly selected frequencies, or change the levels too severely, like those olden-timey ones that had like +/- 15 or 20dB boost/cut ranges! Eeesh!! 5 to 10 dB is way more like it. Look for controls that allow very fine adjustment, at least one dB at a time. Many times a dB or two in the right place is all that you need. Most people advance the controls way too far.
Within reason, a few more controls are better. Not a plug for McIntosh in particular, but I think their original setpoints for the C32, C33, C34 etc. were close to just about perfect for the five-band set of controls they sported. Some of their newer pres have eight controls, which I think is too many.
There is a deiiference between EQ's used for program correction ("what sounds right") and room correction. Program correction should not use more than 10 controls, like in an octave band equalizer. Room correction requires 1/3 octave correction at a minimum to do a proper job, and you must use test equipment to meaasure the room, average the various modes (account for different positions in the room) and once set, you forget it. You will find that with the room eq'd properly, your program controls, if used, will respond more accurately.
Almost lastly: As several others have commented, whatever sounds good to you is what's important. I do not have my listening room eq'd, and my preamp has three tone controls with center detents that take them electrically out of the circuit when not in use. I have a variable loudness control. Other than these amenities, the preamp is fairly "purist" in design. I have a large music collection, and if the recording calls for it, I use any of the above controls to make it sound more pleasing. If it doesn't, I don't.
Lastly: I have found that failing to obsess about small sonic details has made my music listening life happier. Good music, happy me.
ketamine
Get some, Go again!
Use them if needed. I LOVE equalizers but I have my Sony amp in the kitchen and it sounds GREAT with its tone knobs modified to my taste only so no EQ. Anyways, try it out for kicks see if you like it flat but sometimes flat can sound great and sometimes its just like gross with some music and speakers. Let us know how it all turns out.
Again Mr. Lin any .00001% distortion introduced by the tone control is swamped by the 1 to 5% distortion introduced by even the best speakers, swamped means 100% masked BTW. If a system sounds better without tone controls it's probably because it's slightly louder with fewer components like resistors in the circuit and you could get the same effect by very slightly turning up the volume control while retaining the flexibility of EQ.
The amount of sheer anti science mythology in home audio post rise of the subjectivists is amazing to me.
With your train of thought, we can run sources with 24% distortion if our speakers have 25% distortion, and we wouldn't notice it. So..tell me how that works out for you if you want to go ahead and try it.
Doug G.
Lunatic Member
That was my point. But it's no more ridiculous to me than the idea of loudspeaker distortion masking a lesser amount of distortion further up the chain. If that were the case, we could certainly run amps with 1% distortion, our cartridges could be aligned by gueswork, and we could let all of our connections corrode and never have to think about replacing old resistors and caps (if they're working) because none of it would matter, the distortion in the loudspeaker would hide it all. But it doesn't. And it doesn't mask the effects of a poorly designed tone control circuit, either. This isn't to say there aren't perfectly fine ones. I can't tell the difference when my Marantz preamp has them bypassed or when they're not, if they're set flat. So I use them on occasion. But usually that is not the case in most gear I've had, especially receivers with their wall of buttons. If they're always in play, like my Fisher X-202b, then I tend to use them more, too. I'm not after 'flat' as much as I'm after a purer signal path, so I'll play with 'em. But like others have said, most of the gear that I have gravitated towards doesn't have them, and I use that gear because it sounds better regardless of whether or not is has controls. And being that this gear sound so good, I hardly think that a bunch of subjective audiophiles are the ones who designed it...so they must not be the only ones who believe there's merit in not using them.
- Status