2. amps-preamps
  3. 1211935390

The use of equipment as "tone controls"

Several times in my Audiogon reading and posting over the last couple of years, I've noticed this or that contributor commenting along the lines of: "You shouldn't use your amp/cables/cartridge/whatever as a tone control."

I assume what this is supposed to mean is that there is some absolutely correct sound out there, and we ought not have audio equipment of any kind that deviates from that absolutely correct sound.

I might be able to buy into this if we were listening to live instruments (although their sound is, of course, affected by the space in which they are played, the position of the listener, etc., so is not itself "absolute"). But we're not listening to live music. We're listening to recordings. There are microphones, cables, recording equipment, mastering equipment, storage medium, etc, all of which come between us and the original sound--not to mention the taste and perception of the engineers, producers, etc. In that sense, what we hear coming out of our speakers is all illusion, anyway. And the illusion comes in quite a few "flavors." On one system I had, Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard sounded like he was in my living room. But Leonard Bernstein conducting the NY Phil in the early 60's was so shrill it made me run screaming from the room. In my current system, Bill Evans doesn't sound as "right there" as he used to (now I'm a few of rows back, yet still quite happy), but Leonard Bernstein doesn't make my ears bleed, either.

How did I work that? I experimented with different equipment. I used the equipment as "tone controls" (I guess). It's all respectible equipment: ARC, VTL, BAT, Cardas, etc. Maybe it reduced the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Bill Evans, but it increased the "accuracy" of the reproduction of Leonard Bernstein. Maybe. But who knows for sure?

We all tailor the sound of our systems to suit our preferences. What's wrong with that? And, most equipment has it's own sound character. That seems like a good thing, to me. It allows us to tailor our sound.

Now what we REALLY need is a good set of tone controls on our fancy pre-amps, so we can really tailor our sound!

Food for comment?
eweedhome
jafox
1,348 posts
 
Thanks - sometimes the obvious really does need to be stated.
Perhaps, but what is often NOT obvious is how destructive the "obvious solution" can be.

A $200-300 equalizer maybe resolve some tonality issues, i.e., peaks and valleys, but it can also destroy the dynamic contrasts and spatial queues to a point where the effort to achieve a believable result is all for not.

"You shouldn't use your amp/cables/cartridge/whatever as a tone control."
Ultimately you should do whatever works for you without losing the magic in your system's performance that you have worked hard and paid much to achieve.

There are many ways to resolve tonality problems and an equalizer might be fine for a Walmart rack system but beyond that, it would be my last option.
glenn_garza
61 posts
 
It is very difficult to know what sound and performance were recorded, and we all have our preferences. Choosing equipment to adjust or control the sound is one approach and is used by many if not most audiophiles. It is MHO however, via my own experience, that changing the sound can also change the performance.

For instance, I once heard a very beautiful sounding system that was absolutely wonderful. Some recordings sounded as if the performers were in the room, but they were all great. Then I realized that everything sounded not only good, but practically the same. That cannot be right. If everything sounds the same then the system is very colored and is likely coloring the original recorded performance too, no matter how good it sounds.

I started building a stereo to attempt to reproduce the emotional essense or excitement of the original performance in my home. I would equate anything else sort of the equivalent of making love to a blowup doll instead of the real thing. Or marrying a model instead of a person. Unfortunately nothing is perfect, stereos included. I guess we must each find our own methods of determining what is best.
nilthepill
842 posts
 
"Then I realized that everything sounded not only good, but practically the same"

Glenn Garza, could you elaborate on this statement? I think you are saying that no matter what recording you choose they all sounded good but similar and no venue ambiance difference was noticable?

I personally will take slightly colored system as compared to tone controls or an Eq. Too much fiddling and you could change tonal and phase correctness pretty fast.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
Jafox,

I agree with you 100% about about the dangers of using an EQ or tone control to compensate for inadequacies in the equipment. However, the same could said for swapping cables or amps to try and fix a harsh sounding speaker. Or selecting a speaker with extreme high sensitivity but bumpy frequency response in order to make up for an amplifiers lack of power. There are "destructive solutions" everwhere.

an equalizer might be fine for a Walmart rack system but beyond that, it would be my last option

Perhaps you are one of the lucky few with an absolutely perfect acoustically treated room and no minor room modes that can be improved upon/mitigated through the judicious use of a PEQ or pre amp tone controls. We mere Walmart mortals can often benefit from judicious application of some tone control...
Ag insider logo xs@2x
ramy
141 posts
 
The comments above indicate some misunderstanding of the recording process.Almost uniformly recording studios use equalizers.The Cello Audio Palette was primarily used by recording engineers,it's use in the home system does not detract in anyway from the quality of the sound,and has nothing to do with room equalizers.Should you use a low quality tone controls or equalizer the result ay indeed be deleterious to the sound.Try it you will like it.
More to discover