Tone controls are not evil

Systems

Tone controls suck.

concealer404

This thread rocks.

I had to take joojoo off the ignore list because i needed a laugh.

heiney9

I am going as Ju Ju for Halloween......................ya know Audio Messiah.

H9

concealer404

heiney9 wrote: »

I am going as Ju Ju for Halloween......................ya know Audio Messiah.

H9

Take pictures!

vc69

F1nut wrote: »

Hmmm.....I thought my cat was the only one that could do that.

I never met a cat that couldn't do that.

erniejade

I thought the idea of high end audio or even mid fi, was to try to produce what it would sound like if you saw the band or musician live... Well, having worked in live sound re-enforcement, I can tell you they do use processing, eq, delays, whatever it takes to get it to sound right due to room acoustics.

To me, the same applies in a room. Unless your room is acoustically perfect, or darn good, I see nothing wrong with some adjusting sometimes for room acoustics. Take me for instance, I have my setup in a basement, cement walls, floor, ( yes I need to put up some room acoustic treatment or carpet or something LOL ) so I actually turn the highs down to 1 - 2 depending on what I am listening to on the Polk's. If I am listening to the Carver amazings, ( I still need to fix the crossover on them) I actually turn the treble up.

On the SDA 1.2, because of room acoustics, I also actually turn the bass +1, on the 2.3 the bass goes back to flat. For my room, for whatever reason, the 1.2 needs the slight bit of boost to sound right to me.

I will say when I had my stuff in the living room, I never used any of it and usually ran it in bypass. In the basement is a different story. I see nothing wrong with adding a little to compensate for room acoustics. It does not mean your equipment is bad. I have heard a set of B&W 802D sound terrible in one room no matter where we put them ( pain to move also lol ) , and in a different room sound perfect. Sometimes you just need to help for the room itself.

Is it adding something in the line? YES, but I would rather add something in the line and have it sound better because a room is not acoustically compatible.

vc69

erniejade wrote: »

I thought the idea of high end audio or even mid fi, was to try to produce what it would sound like if you saw the band or musician live... Well, having worked in live sound re-enforcement, I can tell you they do use processing, eq, delays, whatever it takes to get it to sound right due to room acoustics.

I have also worked in live sound reinforcement. Totally different set of parameters to work within and problems to solve. There is little to compare that is valid with regard to home audio. Also, many here listen to jazz and classical. ZERO processing.

erniejade wrote: »

Sometimes you just need to help for the room itself.

I agree to the extent that rooms often need treatment. Rarely will "tone control" (ie: bass and treble) of any type help the situation.
In the case of HT, room correction can be valuable but is tricky and is decidedly and practically quite different than tone control.

erniejade wrote: »

Is it adding something in the line? YES, but I would rather add something in the line and have it sound better because a room is not acoustically compatible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any real engineering experience would make that statement. I am assuming you understand the procedures and practices followed to achieve a good, reasonably flat response curve in a given space. NO room is acoustically compatible. Coming reasonably close takes skill and equipment way beyond the scope of most home users and besides, with live sound, the goal is totally different.

As I have said, reasons you use to support your conclusions are erroneous.

If you like to add bass, by all means do so. But don't use whatever experience you may have in sound reinforcement to mislead others into thinking "tone control" is similar or even necessary.

Reproducing a given recording faithfully is my goal. In my opion, EQ (tone controls) cannot assist me in my endeavor. I want to hear what the recording sounds like. Period.

praedet

All right, I am relatively new here, and I am not on one side of this or the other. Having said that, I do not have, nor ever plan on having tone controls...

But, how is using tone controls to modify sound any different than using different speaker cables that have the ability to change the sound? The boxes on the MIT cables do this, using a silver vs. a copper cable does this, etc...

I personally have some SC Ultras that I like, and I will try MITs when I get the chance, but I know that the "differences" between cables is because each has its own passive artifacts, and in the MIT case, has an active artifact. As a newbie, how are tone controls different?

heiney9

Great gear, proper placement and room treatments are all that's needed. Anything else is a compromise. The level of compromise depends on your level of commitment to the hobby.

H9

praedet

So wouldn't a wire or interconnect that has an active (powered) impact on the signal, considered some form of tone control?

concealer404

praedet wrote: »

So wouldn't a wire or interconnect that has an active (powered) impact on the signal, considered some form of tone control?

You're talking about powered interconnects? I honestly wasn't aware that such a beast existed.

A "tone control" in terms of what we're talking about, whether that be EQ (probably what the OP is talking about, since he gets wet over them) or a simple bass and treble knob on a preamp, "process" the sound all over again.

A tone control on a preamp is probably lesser evil here, since it's not introducing another whole set of cables for sound degredation, and it's not sending the signal through yet another "box."

EQs are just something else along the line to dirty up the signal.

Wires could be considered tone control, but not in the sense that is being discussed. Wires change tone via characteristics, not via an action, or another "stop" along the way.

nooshinjohn

Great gear and pure direct for me...

megasat16

praedet wrote: »

So wouldn't a wire or interconnect that has an active (powered) impact on the signal, considered some form of tone control?

I think these two does not share the same concept.

The Wires and IC with the magic boxes (the active networks) are to preserve signal integrity and maintain transparency of the signal from cables absorptions / losses. I believe they do not attempt to alter or transform the signal passes through them.

Tone controls are there for the sole purpose of shaping the tone (frequency) by altering / changing / transforming the signal by adding / removing to the original signal directly.

heiney9

MIT's are not active or powered, they are passive like most other cables. Like it or not anything in the signal path is going to influence the final output as much as your room and placement of speakers.

I wouldn't call cables, capacitors, resistors, tubes, a kind of tone control. They all have their own unique properties and by mixing these you can achieve what many call "synergy". What is synergy for one may not be the ultimate synergy to another.

H9

vc69

praedet wrote: »

So wouldn't a wire or interconnect that has an active (powered) impact on the signal, considered some form of tone control?

I have yet to encounter one.

Passive or active (less so) tone control or EQ invariably introduce phase shift. Phase shift destroys a stereo image. I have not ever run into a set of properly terminated cables that introduces any such destructive characteristic.

I know, there are some really crappy cables out there. I don't use those.

I definitely use cables to "tune" my system. How that could be considered EQ completely escapes me.

jinjuku

concealer404 wrote: »

A "tone control" in terms of what we're talking about, whether that be EQ (probably what the OP is talking about, since he gets wet over them) or a simple bass and treble knob on a preamp, "process" the sound all over again.

I'd rather get wet over an EQ than soaked for a pair of cables;)

Again proper placement->room treatments->eq. You do the first two correctly you might not need it or you will minimize the need for it if you have to smooth a peak or two.

EQ/Tone Control's are not evil. Sometimes they are needed. Don't be afraid to get a clean EQ and move forward on your audio journey. Just like cables, if you don't like it you can always sell it.

concealer404

jinjuku wrote: »

I'd rather get wet over an EQ than soaked for a pair of cables;)

Again proper placement->room treatments->eq. You do the first two correctly you might not need it or you will minimize the need for it if you have to smooth a peak or two.

EQ/Tone Control's are not evil. Sometimes they are needed. Don't be afraid to get a clean EQ and move forward on your audio journey. Just like cables, if you don't like it you can always sell it.

It was a friendly jab. I don't have the money to even both getting worked up over a $500 set of cables. I'm happy with my Sidewinders at the moment.

I will admit that i would try an EQ. But only as an absolute last resort, after i've spent months tearing my hair out over why my system sounds like ****.

reeltrouble1

praedet wrote: »

So wouldn't a wire or interconnect that has an active (powered) impact on the signal, considered some form of tone control?

as answered above but still a good question.

just understand there is no device in the speaker wire or connects themself adding any power to the audio signal in the wire.

RT1

vc69

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

as answered above but still a good question.

just understand there is no device in the speaker wire or connects themself adding any power to the audio signal in the wire.

RT1

or... electronically contouring the signal across a band of frequencies.
Which is where all the problems begin.

jinjuku

concealer404 wrote: »

It was a friendly jab. I don't have the money to even both getting worked up over a $500 set of cables. I'm happy with my Sidewinders at the moment.

I will admit that i would try an EQ. But only as an absolute last resort, after i've spent months tearing my hair out over why my system sounds like ****.

I agree placement and room treatments are critical. I would tell anyone that is still having a problem with weird room gain that they can't seem to reasonably tame with the first two efforts try an EQ.

Again EQ/Tone Controls aren't evil, they aren't even a necessary evil. They are something to try if you are having a difficult time with your environment.

Now if you have a poorly designed speaker/x-over introducing those issues then you address that directly. There are even some Polk speakers out there that have benefited from a retro x-over.

reeltrouble1

yes, in the case of MIT its about impedance, some folks here dont like boxes on the cable, most folks here do, I dunno, but I do know the MIT cables make my rig more musically involving.

I like it.

RT1

WilliamM2

But, how is using tone controls to modify sound any different than using different speaker cables that have the ability to change the sound?

The difference is that tone controls can make real changes to the sound.

disneyjoe7

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

yes, in the case of MIT its about impedance, some folks here dont like boxes on the cable, most folks here do, I dunno, but I do know the MIT cables make my rig more musically involving.

I like it.

RT1

Funny at first I was like no it must be doing something bad to the sound if something is added to the cabling. Now I like it myself, don't understand it 100% but it works for me.


And I like it.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

The difference is that tone controls can make real changes to the sound.

Horrible changes over far to wide a band of frequencies to do any good whatsoever.

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Horrible changes over far to wide a band of frequencies to do any good whatsoever.

I agree. It's always better to have subtle imaginary differences that do no good whatsoever.

Systems

The goal of hi end equipment is to extract and faithfully reproduce as much as possible the orignal musical signal.The straight wire with gain minimalist approach having less circuitry in the signal path will better achieve this goal.

The addition of tone controls inserts extra circuitry into the signal path so can/will intrude distortion, noise and likely obscure some of the fine detail.If you prefer flavouring to taste instead of ultimate accuracy then tone controls are for you.

Face

Well said GV.

Serendipity

Tone controls are awesome!

I use the "loudness" feature, have Treble and Bass set to +12, and DSP set to "Stadium" mode.

Just kidding...

kawizx9r

appadv wrote: »

Tone controls are awesome!

I use the "loudness" feature, have Treble and Bass set to +12, and DSP set to "Stadium" mode.

Just kidding...

:eek:

What's wrong with the 'Concert' dsp setting?

TroyD

...it sounds like ****.

Man, who the f*ck cares? If you like tone controls...use 'em. If you don't...cool. I'm not even against a spirited debate, lord knows I've been in a few...but Jesus, Joeseph and doggy-style Mary, why stat a thread just to start **** (one) proclaiming something to be an absolute, which you KNOW most aren't going to agree with and is subjective anyway.

In other words, why be an **** for the express purpose of being an ****?

BDT