More User Adjustable Components, Please...

Early B.

I used to dislike preamps with tone controls. Didn't have a good reason. I was just following the crowd.

Then I got hold of a pair of VMPS speakers with midrange and treble adjustments on the front baffle, a supertweeter adjustment on the rear, and bass adjustment option on the passive radiator. Lately, I've been adjusting the knobs and it makes a considerable difference. For instance, I recently bought some cables that a really liked, but they were slightly bright. No problem. I simply adjusted the treble on the speakers, and now it sounds exactly like I want it to. Apparently, the pots don't degrade the sound.

What intrigues many of us about tube gear is the ability to manipulate the sound by rolling tubes.

My point is -- why don't more "high end" speaker and SS preamp manufacturers offer the consumer greater control of the sound? I really think it would decrease the urge to "upgrade." (Hmmmm... did I answer my own question?)

joeparaski

The big denial is that tube rolling is simply an elaborate form of tone controls. There's nothing wrong with using tone controls.

Joe (hopeless)

Yashu

A good tone control circuit works well. I use the one in my NAD integrated all the time. I dial the treble down a bit and then when I want to "treble down" something too hot I just engage the circuit and then disengage it when I don't need it.

A lot of older pro monitors like JBL monitors had tweeter controls, and I have been wishing I had those controls in the monitors I have that use JBL's hot 80's titanium tweeter (they left the controls out of the less expensive monitors). JBL used to be really good about it too, they would publish the freq. response graphs of all their pro speakers and it would show plots for all the control settings.

There are some speaker makers trying to bring back the feature. I think I read about a speaker recently in Stereophile that has a tweeter control. The reviewer liked using it too. I certainly would like to see more quality tone circuits, more than just two knobs... There are several audiophile brands that have a bass and treble knob, and they can be useful, but it would be nice to see a control for, and I don't know the proper term, but for adjusting the range that the tone control actually worked on and the slope. For instance, on my NAD, it moves the response up or down a max of 6db for each side, but the slope is fixed and so is what part of the band is effected. Still, the treble one is useful.

Systems

I think the tilt control that QUAD used on their preamps was a great idea.It was a single rotary control that if turned in one direction increased the upper mids and treble while at the same it decreaed the bass and lower mids.Moving the control the other direction had the opposite effect.

Yashu

That is the classic "tone" control. They used to put that one knob on every stereo, car stereo, and boombox for a while there. Everywhere I had seen it (many many many places in the 80's), it was just called "tone" everywhere I saw it.

Tilt control seems like such a better name for it. It makes more sense of what it is actually doing. Yes, it is a useful control, for I am pretty sure my NAD's tone controls would not give a straight slant in freq. response even if I dialed the bass and treble exact opposites of each other. Would be nice to have actually.

Jim Shearer

Some form of tone control is nice to have, as it allows a bit of adjustment to compensate for our less than ideal listening rooms. Real men (and women) aren't afraid of tone controls!

Cheers, Jim

madmax

Don't have them, don't want them.
madmax

AndyGwis

I have only used tone controls on my HK 3480, never used for felt the need to have them on my higher end 2-channel gear.

When I got new tweeters for my RT 600s, I found them to be a little muddy out of the box. Turned up the treble a little on the HK 3480, and all was well once again.

Face

madmax wrote: »

Don't have them, don't want them.
madmax

I don't understand this stance.

It's not like the artist recorded their album in your room with your equipment. Some equipment sounds darker or brighter than others. Same for cables. Sometimes treble or bass control is needed to compensate for these variables plus the others stated above, room deficiencies, etc..

I only have my bass set at 1230 and my treble set at 1300, but I felt it was needed to compensate for the room, speakers, interconnects, etc..

mhardy6647

The big denial is that tube rolling is simply an elaborate form of tone controls.

Hmmm... I always thought that's why folks bought expensive boutique cables and interconnects.

There is indeed nothing wrong with using tone controls. If you like what they do, use 'em to taste and just ignore the 'audiophiles' who sneer.

I don't use 'em, nor any other form of compensation -- not even a BSC network on my TQWTs (even though recommended by the designer).

In fairness, since they're always "in the circuit" on my EICO HF-81, who knows what if any influence they're having on frequency response or sound... but they're set flat, and I assume that they are (at least close)!

Early B.

Face wrote: »

I don't understand this stance.

I believe the stance against tone controls is based on four reasons:

1. These controls are usually in the circuit path, and the audio purist would rather minimize the elements along this pathway in order to permit the purist signal to flow from it.

2. A good 2-channel system doesn't need tone controls because the music is so good that it doesn't need to be manipulated.

3. With tone controls, the user can misrepresent the original intent of the sound quality of the artist or engineer.

4. Snob factor.


I also agree that we use other forms of "tone control" such as ICs, PCs, remastered CDs, tubes, tweaks, spikes, DACs, DIPs, transports, and the kitchen sink to alter the tone of the music to make it sound like we want it to. Then in the same breath we'll eschew the idea of tone controls.

Bring back the equalizer, dammit!!:p

Early B.

Gee, I'd love to try one of these:

http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/masspass99.html

madmax

Early B. wrote: »

I believe the stance against tone controls is based on four reasons:

1. These controls are usually in the circuit path, and the audio purist would rather minimize the elements along this pathway in order to permit the purist signal to flow from it.

2. A good 2-channel system doesn't need tone controls because the music is so good that it doesn't need to be manipulated.

3. With tone controls, the user can misrepresent the original intent of the sound quality of the artist or engineer.

4. Snob factor.

Couldn't have said it better.
madmax

Yashu

I always find it odd that studios can manipulate the audio in any way they like, but we are supposed to just accept what they dish out without trying to correct any mistakes.

I have done some recording so I have a perspective on this. I do not trust any recording engineer to get everything 100% right. 99% of studios aren't recording for audiophiles. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to correct their mistakes, in moderation, and with care. There are quite a few recordings that need some help.

Not only this, but for those of us that cannot spend thousands for a single component, sometimes a little adjustment can overcome a weakness in our budget minded systems. There is always a price to pay when inserting anything into a signal path, but we consider the end result is still better than no correction at all. I have extremely sensitive ears... HF noise, clipping, distortion, it gives me listener fatigue very quickly. The ability to tone down this HF and ultrasonic distortion allows me to focus my mind on the music, rather than some of these problems. There are many many recordings out there that have HF issues... and the more you spend on speakers and components, the more these problems become apparent... there are only a few "audiophile" recordings out there when compared to the millions of albums that were recorded for the average consumer, or just albums by indie artists that care more about the music than the tiny details of proper mastering technique. There is no reason why I should not be able to enjoy these albums.

A proper tone control circuit really does what it is supposed to do. Stereophile has done several measurements on various brands and tone circuits, and I will use NAD as an example, their review of the c370 shows that with the tone controls in-circuit, but set at the indent, the difference is so minute that even Stereophile considers it "inaudible". NAD is not the end-all of tone controls either, I am sure there are others that are even better. A tone circuit done right should not be something we are afraid of.

madmax

Yashu wrote: »

A proper tone control circuit really does what it is supposed to do. Stereophile has done several measurements on various brands and tone circuits, and I will use NAD as an example, their review of the c370 shows that with the tone controls in-circuit, but set at the indent, the difference is so minute that even Stereophile considers it "inaudible".

I think most of us hold ourselves to a higher level of performance than Stereophile.
madmax

PS: If the part isn't in there it can't change things for the worse.

Yashu

It can, however, make things better. I am not sure about you, but if you have been living under a rock the past ten years you surely have played a bad recording that was mixed too hot, with too much HF distortion and clipping. Being able to just roll that off naturally with a slight tone adjustment greatly improves the music FOR ME. I am not saying that everyone likes everything the same way, but as long as my ears can hear above 20khz, I need them tone controls. The bass one is never used, but that treble control is a lifesaver, a music saver, a fatigue preventer.

Trust me on this... recording engineers and studios make lots and lots of mistakes and shortcuts to the detriment of the recording itself. Why should we just accept their mistakes? Why should we not have, at least a basic way, to make corrections for some of the ineptitude of the modern recording industry (even the indie guys, trust me, the music can be great, but "lofi" is in style right now)

I just can't see why having more control over what we hear is a bad thing. I trust my ears, not the ears of people I have never met.

As far as Stereophile goes... there is this whole section called "measurements" that you should, you know, check out when you pick up the mag. They perform more tests, and provide more measured specifics, than any other review magazine or website. They are very useful, especially for products that do not have published details, or manufacturers that like to doctor their specs.

Measurements don't lie... but then I am in the objectivist camp on this.

VR3

I havnt had tone controls in a long time, and when I did have them - never used them...

I found the best way to get away from tone controls is get speakers you actually like. lol

Early B.

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

I found the best way to get away from tone controls is get speakers you actually like. lol

Well, I wish it were that simple. For instance, even the best speakers can't tame a live room where WAF is a high, but tone controls can help (hmmm... tone controls for WAF -- that would be very cool!). Or what about your favorite CD that sounds too bright on your system, but can be made quite listenable with a click or two.

IMO -- there are too many variables in audio to adopt a purist approach. I'd rather have the option of exerting greater control over my listening environment.

VR3

Honestly,
I havnt heard one recording I didnt like that tone controls would remotely even make me like...

Because most of what is missing is dynamic range or clarity... and boosting the highs or lowering the highs or whatever your augmentation may be ---

Its not really benefiting the sound -- just altering a **** and making it a shiney one...

sucky recordings are best for background noise

Early B.

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Its not really benefiting the sound -- just altering a **** and making it a shiney one...

That's my point. A shiney **** is better than one that ain't.:p

Yashu

Hehehe... yes I have to agree to that. Tone controls, like anything, are no magic bullet, but they fit into a solid aural arsenal.

Speakers, I think, ARE the most important, but there are no perfect speakers either. I have 3 full pairs of speakers and one set that I am rebuilding. They all sound different and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. The tone controls are down on the list of "important factors" but they can adjust a subtle change that may take a pair of speakers you like and make them more useful over a more broad range of music.

Do you have the perfect speakers? If you consider them so, and refuse to listen to music pieces with recording flaws... then your audio world must be quite small. Tone controls or no. The purist outlook, I respect it, and I am not knocking it.

I can understand that feeling of "being there" in the music hall, or the jazz club, or the opera house, that intimate concert... the problem is, there are so few recordings that pull this off correctly, and the genres are skewed at that, of course, rightly so, since a live rock concert isn't supposed to sound like a studio recording, but still... maybe 1% have that magic, where the recording was done just right, mastered correctly, the other 99%, well... we can forget they exist, or just sit back and try to enjoy what IS there... and try not to set things up to highlight what isn't.

I would rather have both, but that's just me. Some music is not worth the time, but there is a lot that is, and 99% of it, have not been recorded or mastered to the standards of an audiophile purist.

VR3

Well actually - I listen to about 80% of my CD's --

The last 20% - I either no longer listen to or consider to be nothing more than back ground music. I can sit through bad recordings --- but I enjoy good recordings much much more. However, I've found - no real reason to alter those bad recordings -- I usually just listen as is...

YMMV

treitz3

Tone controls = Knobs of sin.
Compensation for what your rig can't do. RARE exceptions on certain recordings.

Let me quote the author of the thread....."A good 2-channel system doesn't need tone controls because the music is so good that it doesn't need to be manipulated."

Coming from a guy [me] who owns a C-16 [highly manipulative] and a dual 31-band EQ....both used 2% of the time.

They knock you off reference and give a fake representation of what should be reproduced. Knobs of sin.....personally, I prefer the real one's.

lightman1

Flat or bypass for me.

Yashu

If I don't treble down I get a headache very fast... tried all number of speakers, sources, cables, various tweaks... Modern speakers of good design are going to all go well beyond 20khz, cables helped a bit, so did some tubed equipment, and also a good source... but honestly, a tiny few degrees down on the treble knob is such a simple thing to do, and it helps.

I tend to think modern components are designed to extend higher than necessary... Audiophiles hear this as extended resolution and "air and space", but I don't get that feeling. Demoing systems that costs 5 digits and upwards, I hear the same artificial brightness that has invaded modern HiFi. Hell, there are many speakers that come with supertweeters built in, I read the other day B&W using f'ing diamond for their new tweeters! This overbearing HF plague needs to go away.

There are a few manufacturers that "get it"... single driver, horn loaded speakers, mini-monitors that use paper for their tweeters (and even include a tweeter control, imagine that one, paper, but still measures well past 20khz). Where you guys hear the illusion of resolution from these artificially forward presentations, I get headaches. Knobs of sin, both kinds, are ok with me.

Face

You should try some of the mid to high end Tannoys.

madmax

Yashu wrote: »

I just can't see why having more control over what we hear is a bad thing. I trust my ears, not the ears of people I have never met.

I never "totally" trust my ears. Take an EQ and set it up in any fashion. No matter how bad it sounds you will love it if you listen long enough.

If everything in the system is right you will enjoy almost everything as recorded. As problems mount up in your system the percentage of recordings that sound right will decrease. I went for years with only a 10% "sounds right" rate. These days its up to maybe 85%. With tone controls at your disposal your system will never get to where it should be.
madmax

Yashu

I know what you are saying... and from the perspective of one audiophile to another one that says that he is (me), the idea of tone controls seems a little weird.

Honestly, I probably could build a new system from scratch that could "get it right" without having to mess with that stuff... It would be an all tubed system with a tubed NON-OS DAC for digital sources, and I would try to track down as much vinyl as I could where the option between vinyl and CD have remained. I would find a set of speakers with a smooth tweeter, no super exotic materials here, maybe Sequerra Metronomes. My point in all of this is that, yes it CAN be done... but damnit if I can afford that right now.

My NAD int. is well rounded, and I have speakers with a nice sweet top end, (but no low end), I DO have the non-os DAC and there is a tube buffer in the chain (but the TT is vintage and I am slowly restoring it)... but I still need that extra 5 degrees down on the treble. Nothing too bad... at least I have measurements of the NAD tone circuit so I know what I am getting.

So while I agree that it is not the final answer, it is certainly helps. I do trust my ears, I have done some recording and mastering... it isn't easy to do right, but it is VERY easy to take shortcuts, or to just compress instead of take the time to really work on the mix. I think there are more bad recordings than good ones because I hear all the mistakes, you can see them too with the right software... most CD albums today come with clipped waveforms.

treitz3

madmax wrote:

If everything in the system is right you will enjoy almost everything as recorded.

Yes sir.

madmax

Strange it happened after my previous post but I went home and put a new (to me) record on the table. Dropped the needle and said to myself "This won't do, there is no bass at all". Being lazy I just sat there for awhile and listened. By the time the first side was over I was no longer noticing the lack of bass but the beauty of the very light string bass that was being played. Just because it isn't perfect is no reason to hop right in and screw up everything just to add a little shake or sizzle.
madmax

shadowofnight

treitz3 wrote: »

Tone controls = Knobs of sin.
Compensation for what your rig can't do. RARE exceptions on certain recordings.

Let me quote the author of the thread....."A good 2-channel system doesn't need tone controls because the music is so good that it doesn't need to be manipulated."

Coming from a guy [me] who owns a C-16 [highly manipulative] and a dual 31-band EQ....both used 2% of the time.

They knock you off reference and give a fake representation of what should be reproduced. Knobs of sin.....personally, I prefer the real one's.

I just picked up a C-16 a few weeks back and just last night had the first chance to hook it up and play. I tried all of the fancy adjustments available
and came back to all of them off and the tone controls disabled...I didnt like anything they added or subtracted...the Sonic Hologram button was particulary annoying.

With all the buttons off it is an amazing pre-amp though...amazingly sturdy for a preamp as well. I just set it up on the kitchen table with a spare Oppo 981HD... driven with my new pair of silver seven t's going to my own custom made Monitor 10's ( Enclosure made larger then the standard 10's to be able to add internal bracing and keep the same internal volume ). The sound was amazing.

On the other end of the spectrum for tone control's, I also at the same time just picked up a DBX 10/20 Computerized Equalizer/Analyzer....I threw that on a bedroom setup...what a killer EQ...very first one I have ever tried that when introduced into the circuit path AND set flat ...didnt either cause a slight lower sound level or color the sound somehow...first one to be invisible when set flat...I really liked that.

Also, since there are no frequency sliders to get dirty/wear out.. or to add noise...adjusting the particular frequency you want is a smooth affair. And I don't use the EQ to "Set Flat " the room...using the pink noise generator and the mic to adjust the individual frequency controls to get the room to a flat response...I have never heard that work correctly or for better sound on any system. Basically all frequency controls stay flat....with me using the extreme lower frequency adjustments to just add a bit of extreme lower punch to some recordings lacking that quality...where as most tone controls dont go that low ( The subs go really low ) .

I havent had an EQ in 20 years....but this new DBX 10/20 is an awesome piece that has none of the pitfalls that made me quit using EQ's in the first place. This one was fun to play with ( But my other 2 channel setup's as well as the home theatre...all those use no EQ and no tone controls...sounds great without them )