Tone Controls

SCompRacer

I used a Behringer DEQ2496 for a while and even considered modding it to make it less harmful to the signal passing through it. While it worked OK, I found greater listening pleasure by removing it and spending some money on room acoustic treatments. I couldn't be happier and regretted not addressing the room sooner in my audio life.

hearingimpared

SCompRacer wrote: »

No, it's more an issue of poor judgement.:D

Hey Joe, if I have a balance problem, I just lean right or left.

I just put my ear tweaks on.:eek:

pploeser

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I am not sure if an analogy between an artist and an audio reproduction device is a comparison of note. The pots in the controls further degrade the signal on its trip. Do you have any experience with audio gear developed without tone controls?? Any thoughts on why certain manufacture's make sure to include tone defeats on some of their gear?? Just asking, as you say, you can use them all you want if it makes you like your system.

I was comparing the artist to the end listener, rather than the equipment itself. Artists/mixers use tone controls to make the music sound the way they like, as would a consumer listening to the final product.

Still, I agree with the comments about the presence of tone controls effecting the sound. Every single component between the original instrument and the consumer's ear is going to introduce changes, no matter how good it is. I prefer to find gear that sounds good over a range of music styles, without tone controls. The simpler, the better. Moving your speakers or listening position can sometimes be surprisingly effective too.

reeltrouble1

gotcha, and btw welcome to Club Polk, enjoy the board and all our rather unique members.

RT1

pploeser

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

gotcha, and btw welcome to Club Polk, enjoy the board and all our rather unique members.

RT1

Thanks, glad to be here. I've found it to be very informative so far.

JPSmario

Having been on both sides of this (as I see it), I have a personal perspective.

As a working musician, I would never have considered working without EQ control. My keyboard patches (strings, brass, Rhodes, B-3) often required EQ changes to get the sound I wanted. EQ'ing the mic on my sax was the only way to get my sound (what I hear when I play facing a live, hard surfaced wall) from the PA system. Getting the sound you want is, for me, a critical part of musical expression either on stage or in the studio. Also, some of the mixing boards, EQ's, and effects present in these systems time and again would redefine 'clean' and 'cost' in my world, far more of an investment than I will ever see in my living room.

I used to have a 7-band EQ on my 2 channel receiver and it did make up for what I saw as deficiencies in my speakers at that time. This constantly allowed me to get my rig to sound the way I liked it to sound. I've changed on this, though. Now I look for the sound the artist intended when they recorded and mixed their work and the lack of tone controls is key. My system now probably has its own sound, but this seems to be more about what it's capable of and less about making all recordings sound the same. The system provides a wide, deep stage and seems to otherwise disappear as it sounds different with each recording artist, style or era. This new way of listening has me rediscovering my music collection and I really enjoy that. I think I'm hearing more of the truth of each artist's expression.

Well there's my $.02 worth. I enjoy reading everyone's ideas and perceptions because I learn new things all the time.

steveinaz

It all depends on what you are after; the recording as it happened (warts included), or a version that you prefer. It's just that simple. This reminds me of HDTV calibration, where people insist on deviating from the standards to something more like what they believe to look better or more pleasing---one choice is proper calibration, the other is not. Do you want reality, or your version of what you'd like reality to be?

Beauty vs Truth, one of the oldest debates in Audiophile land.

Having said that, if you use "after-the-fact" equalization---this would seem to indicate (at least in my opinion) something is out of whack.

Fongolio

Thank you JPSmario and welcome to the forum. I like you perspective from the recording and performance end. I still feel that what the artist intended and what was released on a lot of vinyl (and cd for that matter) are I'm sure way too often NOT the same thing.

I'll give an example. I have Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of LIfe and Innervisions. Both on vinyl both original Tamla/Motown releases. Songs In The Key sounds fantastic, perfect balance of good deep bass and articulate highs and very dynamic. Innervisions on the hand sounds lifeless, totally flacid bass, muddy sounding highs and not very "alive" sounding. I am sure this is not the sound Stevie was striving for. Some mastering engineer probably had "bright" studio monitors and eq'ed the life right out of the pressing. I can compensate a little and make this recording sound quite nice by adjusting my tone controls. An equalizer would be better I agree. So if I only listened to audiophile (whatever that means) pressings of LP's I would probably never feel the need for adjustment but as long as every engineers ears and monitors are different I will want to have the option of making an adjustment to the sound. If that comes at a slight signal degradation for the gain of my enjoyment I am perfectly ok with that.

hearingimpared

Fongolio wrote: »

Thank you JPSmario and welcome to the forum. I like you perspective from the recording and performance end. I still feel that what the artist intended and what was released on a lot of vinyl (and cd for that matter) are I'm sure way too often NOT the same thing.

I'll give an example. I have Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of LIfe and Innervisions. Both on vinyl both original Tamla/Motown releases. Songs In The Key sounds fantastic, perfect balance of good deep bass and articulate highs and very dynamic. Innervisions on the hand sounds lifeless, totally flacid bass, muddy sounding highs and not very "alive" sounding. I am sure this is not the sound Stevie was striving for. Some mastering engineer probably had "bright" studio monitors and eq'ed the life right out of the pressing. I can compensate a little and make this recording sound quite nice by adjusting my tone controls. An equalizer would be better I agree. So if I only listened to audiophile (whatever that means) pressings of LP's I would probably never feel the need for adjustment but as long as every engineers ears and monitors are different I will want to have the option of making an adjustment to the sound. If that comes at a slight signal degradation for the gain of my enjoyment I am perfectly ok with that.

I agree with your assessment of 'Innervisions' it sounds lousy. The problem I have with tone controls or EQ's is the noise they induce into the chain. If I needed to change the sound of a lousy recording, in my experience, it can't be done with either because it just accentuates the lousy SQ of the recording.

Even if I have great music that is compressed or just crappily recorded, I can't listen to it anyway. I've become spoiled by "audiophile" or just plain good recordings and would rather listen to them.

I've stated on many occasions that if it sounds great, I don't care if I like the music genre or not, I'm listening.

Kelvin, how's the stapled wrist healing?

Cpyder

hearingimpared wrote: »

I agree with your assessment of 'Innervisions' it sounds lousy. The problem I have with tone controls or EQ's is the noise they induce into the chain. If I needed to change the sound of a lousy recording, in my experience, it can't be done with either because it just accentuates the lousy SQ of the recording.

Even if I have great music that is compressed or just crappily recorded, I can't listen to it anyway. I've become spoiled by "audiophile" or just plain good recordings and would rather listen to them.

I've stated on many occasions that if it sounds great, I don't care if I like the music genre or not, I'm listening.

Kelvin, how's the stapled wrist healing?

I can agree to that. If a recording sounds amazing I'll listen to it even if it's not my usual listening genres.

mhardy6647

Cpyder wrote: »

I can agree to that. If a recording sounds amazing I'll listen to it even if it's not my usual listening genres.

Carry that to its illogical extreme... and you have Jazz at the Pawnshop.

(In fairness, I do it, too... that is the only possible explanation for the fact that I do own one Diana Krall CD)

EDIT: FWIW, I wouldn't call Innervisions a lousy sounding album... it's certainly not a great-sounding album (I have it only on licorice pizza, so I don't know about CD releases), but it's a great album...

hearingimpared

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Carry that to its illogical extreme... and you have Jazz at the Pawnshop.

(In fairness, I do it, too... that is the only possible explanation for the fact that I do own one Diana Krall CD)

EDIT: FWIW, I wouldn't call Innervisions a lousy sounding album... it's certainly not a great-sounding album (I have it only on licorice pizza, so I don't know about CD releases), but it's a great album...

I'll have to dig up my LPs (I have a few copies) of Innervisions and check again. The last time I listened to it, I took it out of the heavy rotation line-up and have buried it in the crappy recording file.

Speaking of great recordings but awful music that I listen to often, my son came back from Ireland with a recording of, I can't remember the name of the instrument, but it is similar to bagpipes, being played and recorded in a chuch in conjuction with a huge old fashoned pipe organ. It sounds awesome!!! The pipe organ's lows shake the house and many are felt more than heard. The music however sucks but I still enjoy it.

EDIT: found it, the instrument is an Irish bagpipe called Uilleann Pipes.

Hey, don't we have a new member with the screen name Uilleann?