Tone controls are not evil

Serendipity

Yes, tone controls degrade the sound quality.

I prefer the most direct path, so 100% of the time I am in "2ch Direct" mode.

shack

TroyD wrote:

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

Isn't that what **** do?

TroyD

Good point...but there are so many other places in life and the internet to commit douchbaggery.

BDT

Serendipity

Use 'em if you like them, otherwise don't.

Personally I have never used tone controls - never needed to. Pure Direct is the way to go.

K.Loughlin

Hello all: Just to get a few points out there as you continue to draw comparisons between cables, EQ's and tone controls; Tone controls, and EQ's work to coutour the sound to be perceived as "more linear", in most cases. In other cases, they are generally used to accentuate a particular part of the bandwidth because the user considered it (this part) to be lacking in spl's. This, as compared to the musical expectations of any listener, engineer, or whomever is at the controls making subjective decisions to alter the signal.
With the exception of cables, contouring is generally acheived by the use of potentiometers, or "pots" to attenuate the signal, not to amplify it. You have to consider that the EQ, more specifically the pots in an EQ, will defeat the signal to a specified degree. Comparitively, accentuating the part of the bandwidth that is considered correct, by leaving those control pots alone. Every recording session I have been on, the engineers were using mixing boards or some other EQ device to create the most realistic sound they felt that they could capture on the recording media, by using this "trimming" method of attenuation for the purpose of "equalization".

Cables, are universally misunterstood for many reasons, but misunderstood nonetheless. Think for a minute about the duty of the cable, or interface as we prefer to call them; which is to transport energy from point to point, without changing the integrity of the signal once it reaches its next termination, or point of connection. If the interface, without perference of one frequency over another, can deliver 100% of the signal it would be considered to be ideal. Non reactive, non current limiting, sonically invisible.

When we look at the job of the interface, it would seem quite simple; efficient current handling, low resistance over distance, well sheilded.
When we consider the variables, the job of the interface becomes quite complex; like variences in bandwidth from component to component, impedances (coming and going), RF interference and the grand daddy of them all......... to handle the complete audio bandwidth without prejudice! Until recently this topic was not discussed much other than where exactly the -3db down points were, at each frequency extreme. Or, "how low will it go" was what we were all worrried about then, before subwoofers. Cable will go as low as DC, but at the other end, and in certain designs we see first order reflections as low as 10-15Khz! Simply put, the cable is bandwidth limiting! Plus, reflected energy is on its way, right back to the source! So, what does a piece of wire have that will control reflections (now occilations) once they occur? What effect does different dielectric materials have on the wire, other that to move the "pole" for the purpose of aligning it's pole, with the part of the audio bandwidth that you favor, or your system may favor. Note: a pole is point of magnitude along the audio bandwidth where the Inductance (L), Capacitance (C) and Resistance (R) are optimal for transferring energy.This point, like any point is above the frequencies to the left, and to the right of the pole, or less than the pole in terms of its ability to transport energy without degradation. These are efficiency topics, not tone control settings to be mulled over.
Yes, as audiophiles from the 60's and 70's, we went to pure silver for our 300B valves, because it "cleaned up the highs" or solid stranded 24 ga. copper conductors for transistors because they delivered "more bass". What we have today, are two important things to consider; where the poles are, (where it is most important to me) and how wide is the bandwidth, (is it wide enough to avoid unwanted reflections)? Therefore, cables are not tone controls or equalizers; they are simply "filters" that are capable of altering the signal to varying degrees due to a limited bandwidth, or construction material choices. Most cables will behave (sound) different from one another, but none, MIT included, are tone controls as the common use of the word would suggest.
I hope that you find this note to be thought provoking, Kent

nooshinjohn

Well written post Kent... I would love to demo some cable one of these days, but I am still waiting for my ship to come in. I think it's called Titanic:eek:

gavn8r

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Well written post Kent... I would love to demo some cable one of these days, but I am still waiting for my ship to come in. I think it's called Titanic:eek:

You should join the MIT Cables demo!
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79365

treitz3

Just for the record........while tone controls may not be evil, they are definitely knobs of sin to an audiophile in the know. If one was to think otherwise, they haven't arrived yet.

I've arrived. Oh yeah baby, I've arrived and my ears are lovin' it.

heiney9

My little Dared MP5 integrated tube amp with Telefunken's rolled into it this AM listening to my favorite female artist of the moment (Erin McKeown) thru my Canare Star Quad and Signal Analog II cables rocking my modded 5B's on the office/computer rig.............is making the hair on the back of my neck stand up it sounds soooooooooooooo good!!!

Not a TONE control in sight. Not necessary.

Damn, this sounds good :):):):D

H9

P.s. I arrived a LONG time ago.

shack

treitz3 wrote:

they are definitely knobs of sin...

I have no knowledge of tone controls...but I am very familiar with "knobs of sin".

treitz3

Hey now....those knobs are good.

wayne3burk

i just turned off the eq on my shoutcast radio station -- as a purist playing a streaming 128kb audio stream from winamp through my creative labs sound blaster MP3 usb audio out to my Yamaha RX-V870 receiver out to my SDA-1Cs... i feel like i'm getting a more pure experience than when i eq'd up the 310 and 600 Hz bands a little...

treitz3

Hello Wayne and welcome to Club Polk. I heard a system the other night that not only made my hairs stand up straight, it gave me consistent goose bumps that made my skin look like a plucked chicken not only during the song but for two minutes after the song. My lip actually started to quiver it sounded so damn good......and that has never happened before.

There wasn't a tone control in sight.

I have heard your speakers work the "magic" before. On a couple of different rigs and on the rigs I'm talking about? Not one tone control either. What we are saying is that with a well designed system that has been well thought out, executed and happens to have this thing we call synergy, tone controls are not necessary at all. At that point, they are a detriment to the sound.

Bubinga99

I guess the way I look at "signal modification" is this: (and I confess I didn't read this whole thread)

You start with human hearing, non-linear, everybody's is different, it changes with age, changes with loudness, and can even vary with environmental conditions. Mine defnintely isn't what it used to be.

Then there's the recording engineers, each adding their unique "artistic license" in the mastering. Some classic recordings just don't sound good at all.

Then, with LP's there's equalization to accommodate the vinyl medium, and post-equalization to undo that. There's even equalization (pre-emphasis/de-emphasis) with CDs but it isn't always used (or for that matter isn't always detected by the players).

Then there's room acoustics, every one different. Potentially, this is the most non-linear effect.

And various other less-than-neutral changes depending on the individual and collective interactions of your particular system. Speakers have the most variation of all, across brands/models.

So...

You can either take the approach that you just don't want to add MORE, and the collective sum of all these non-neutral effects are what they are. That's why you spent all the time hand-selecting all the various components, probably over a period of many years, tossing a few along the way.

or

You can take the approach that you want the OPTION to adjust out any of these many possible individual or collective variations (especially if you know your system and/or room are less than ideal, and/or like some old but bad recordings), accepting any side effects that you hope are lower that what you're correcting for, but you can also choose not to (i.e. bypass).

Having said all that, I usually leave my tone controls on bypass. Mainly because the right tool for the job is really a parametric equalizer, 2 or 3 band, and I no longer have one. Not to mention you have to remember the different settings for different albums. Totally impractical.

I'm looking at some high quality digitizer/recorder/player units, some of which have parametric equalization that is done digitally, on playback of your saved 24-bit oversampled masters, using at least 40 bit math, and you can even save the settings so they are automatically recalled when you select a particular digitized album for playback. But you can also choose to bypass it, or even create CD's or digital formats with your custom equalization recorded in.

The parametric eq part of this is really just going to be a toy to mess with, if I end up getting a unit that has it. Even given the greater flexibility of it in these units compared to an analog version, it wouldn't surprise me if, after all is said and done, that I usually bypass it except for the really crummy quality recordings. Or it might be useful at a fixed and fined tuned setting for room acoustics, which you don't always have the ability to alter.

ben62670

WilliamM2 wrote: »

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

I don't know if I feel bad for you or happy. If I couldn't hear the difference that cables make I would have save some coin. Again nearly everyone who uses my cables reports back with the same comments;) I guess all hear the same audio halutionations:rolleyes:

Oops I almost forgot.
Yawn.

WilliamM2

Again nearly everyone who uses my cables reports back with the same comments I guess all hear the same audio halutionations

I guess so.

Cpyder

WilliamM2 wrote: »

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

I chuckled.

reeltrouble1

one must deal with energy, consistency across the spectrum is essential, lest you wander across this Rabbit Hole forever lost.

RT1

madmax

I notice even really good preamps do bad things to the signal. I was pondering the other day the implications of getting rid of my pre. No way I would add more phase differences and such with tone controls, that is just wrong. Still, fun to play with sometimes but the more you fix your response the more you break everything else.

concealer404

madmax wrote: »

I notice even really good preamps do bad things to the signal. I was pondering the other day the implications of getting rid of my pre. No way I would add more phase differences and such with tone controls, that is just wrong. Still, fun to play with sometimes but the more you fix your response the more you break everything else.

Have you tried a passive pre? I had an SLC-505 shortly before i sold it to George Daniel, and the sheer size of the soundstage, and how "unspoiled" everything sounded was eye-opening.

madmax

concealer404 wrote: »

Have you tried a passive pre? I had an SLC-505 shortly before i sold it to George Daniel, and the sheer size of the soundstage, and how "unspoiled" everything sounded was eye-opening.

I had one for awhile with a pretty different system. On that system I didn't have enough gain in the amp and an active pre was much more dynamic. My present system has plenty of gain for a passive. Since the present amps have a gain control on the inputs I was able to try it. There was not a big difference getting rid of the pre but it was a little better in some areas.

heiney9

I've found passive to be a mixed bag and totally dependent on the actual recorded material. That being said, you need to make sure all the components have good synergy to begin with. I have a pre that allows active/passive operation and until I recently added tubes I would listen either in passive or active depending on the source material.

Beware passive doesn't work (ie have good synery) in every system, but like I stated for my particular situation I use one or the other with excellent results.

H9

reeltrouble1

if you push on a waterbed the transferred energy created will cause some sort of a proportional anomoly to occur within its system loop, similarily elimination of undesireable energy artifacts in an audio system requires a consistent application of devices across the system, piecework strategy is most likely to lead any number of unknown variables each with there own tangent issues.

or Everything Matters.

RT1

wayne3burk

Well I am new to this forum (and club) ... and i see there are lots of folks with both good tastes and very nice systems (cost restricted and otherwise) ... so here's my question and you've probably heard it a thousand times before. Has anyone experimented with running A+B configuration with their Polk speakers (in my case my SDA-1Cs)? I find that if i use a vintage pair of 2-Way bookshelf speakers on top of my 1Cs that i get a more richer mids and crisper highs - especially nice when i'm listening to 60s Jazz and post WWII big band Albums. second part to this question is am i just coloring matthew polks genius with tinny paper 2-way speakers, i.e., the equivalent of interjecting tone controls or EQ?

______________

2 channel-
Yamaha RX-V870 Receiver (pre-amp section)
SAE Two P10 power amp
polkaudio SDA 1C Studio (Speakers A)
RCA Victor KS-16 (Vintage 2-Ways - Speakers
Dual 1249 turntable
Stanton 680 EE

madmax

wayne3burk wrote: »

so here's my question and you've probably heard it a thousand times before. Has anyone experimented with running A+B configuration with their Polk speakers (in my case my SDA-1Cs)? I find that if i use a vintage pair of 2-Way bookshelf speakers on top of my 1Cs that i get a more richer mids and crisper highs - especially nice when i'm listening to 60s Jazz and post WWII big band Albums. second part to this question is am i just coloring matthew polks genius with tinny paper 2-way speakers, i.e., the equivalent of interjecting tone controls or EQ?

A better idea possibly is to upgrade your tweeters to the new replacement and upgrade the capacitors in your crossovers. These are typical things done here to fix what you are describing. Just search the forum and you can find the how-to threads. The new tweeters are really a great upgrade.
madmax

Ranger0912

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

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.

Anything you're doing that makes it sound better to you is the right thing to do. Trust your own ears!

lanchile

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Tone controls are evil.

That's all.

I second this!!!

adam2434

I turn my preamp's bass knob up a bit when listening to the outdoor speakers on the patio. This just helps to compensate for the obvious bass deficiencies when running smallish speakers in an outdoor environment.

For all other situations, the tone controls are defeated with the "Direct" button.

DollarDave

I find the loudness button on my B&K PT-5 preamp works very well at lower listening levels. It is designed to "regress" as the volume increases. Not evil at all.