who wants tone controls on your next preamp?

Wanting to know if you still have Carver C6 pre I know this is a bit late in the game but im checking anyway

You may not realize it but if you have speakers with a passive crossover, you have tone controls in your system. Actually it's even worse than the electronic tone controls as you have high current going through the crossover which limits dynamics and could add more distortion than the line-level counterparts.

I discovered this when running Seas ER15RLY full range with no crossover. These speakers dropped nearly 10dB at 100hz. But when used in commercial speakers you may not only see flat to 60hz but even a 5db BOOST at 100hz. Ain't coming from the driver itself, that's for sure!

If nothing else, I would appreciate a control that addresses the most common frequency problems found in recordings. Even a well-tuned system is going to sound edgy when the recording is edgy, and some great performances are only available that way.

If your tone controls are A) sufficiently flexible and B)used properly, they will increase the fidelity of frequency response in virtually any system in virtually any room. Key disclaimer : "virtually".

The example I have in mind is digital room correction (DRC) in the bass region. The trade-off is that effective DRC is executed in the digital domain and subjects analog signals to ADC. Some (LP types in particular) may find that too hard to swallow and I get that. But, if you use subwoofers, you needn't go that route above the x-over point and your main signal can remain analog all the way..

Here, the trade-off is (generally) that you must employ an active x-over unit to roll off the main speakers and use corrected subwoofers.. IMO, the negative effects (if any) of a good x-over are dwarfed by the improved frequency response in the bass. I acknowledge that others will disagree on this point.

You can also use a sub/main set-up with main speakers that meaningfully roll off at/above 80hz (where room effects are doing the most damage). No x-over required in the main path and you can keep it completely pure. Just "snug up" the subs from below. The trade-off is a limited choice of main speakers.

Either way, I'm squarely in the "tone control" camp - just make mine DRC.

Marty

PS I agree with the notion that the audiophile idea of "TAS" is kind of misguided. I don't primarily ascribe that to differences in physiologyor even differences in recordings (though these are definitely significant), but to differences in listening rooms.

Parasound P7 has tone controls on remote. Bass management too if you're using subs.

By tone control, it is easy to adjust treble and brass level to my favour. I understood many hi-end users will not like this method because tone control like a additive to music and not really "sound direct'. They like using cable/power cord/DAS to change the tone w/ so much money.

I like tone control and many big brand equipped with it. such as Marzantz, Luxman & McIntosh and many many.

Just for sharing

If they're great tone controls, absolutely. Good IC's and cables are important. I see the relationship between hyped cables and lack of tonal controls. We'll all hear the true breakthroughs. I remember nearly all analog systems had tone controls. They included them to allow user preference to improve the tonal qualities of the recordings based on the music system and the home environment. On 10 different, perfectly matched, flat reference systems, the same disk will sound different.

I feel digital tone control corrections may best be done like this: Properly set-up high quality, matched reference components. To get a linear musical response, a digital calibration unit like the Behringer 2496 can calibrate your system to the room, and save your preset curves.

The real problem is next. Preset curves are good, but not like having additional control from CD to CD. What would possibly be best is a additional 5-frequency tonal control like the Cello Palette. It's dialed in completley by ear for each CD. 5 dials adjusts tones from 20-20K Hz from 0-6 dB (mids) or 0-12 dB (lows and highs) increments together in both left and right channels.

This additonal control was designed to correct and improve, after the set-up/room calibration, the various lackluster digital mixing issues from CD to CD.

It allows dialing in the most musical playback quality from one music system to the next, plus addresses environmental issues. I'm very surprised that nice tonal control units allowing CD to CD mixing adjustments haven't followed the Palette and fourished. They'd simply go between digital transports and preamps.

If some readers may know of any components similiar to the Palette, please respond.

Mcphersn - nobody wants 19 year old intern to affect recorded sound. The difference here is that the only think I can do about it is to select good recordings.

I want to have system as transparent and neutral as possible to avoid further damage.

Nature of recording deficiency is more complicated than treble and bass. Adjusting bass and treble affects whole harmonic structure and can make more harm than good. Additional stages containing capacitors reduce transparency. Less is more.

It is interesting that with cheap amp and speakers nothing sounded right and I had to adjust tone all the time. With good amp and very good speakers I don't have any desire to adjust. I don't need tone controls and don't want to pay for them. Fortunately most of high end amps don't have it. If you feel you need them - that's fine. There is no right or wrong here.

Just a naive (i.e., McIntosh devotee/musician for 5 decades or so) lurker here. It's interesting to me that the purists want to give control over the music to the 19 year old studio intern who sets up the microphone, and are willing to spend ever-increasing amounts of money to achieve perfect reproduction of whatever result emerges. One possible interpretation is that if you are spending a sizable chunk of your income on something like this, it pretty much has to become Communing With The Gods for you. I'm wondering how much of this point of view would survive a serious study of what happens to the sound in its trip from the instrument to the audiophile ear.

It's interesting that when I a/b the outputs on my gfp715 there is VERY little difference (if you leave it "flat" that is)...and on the "tone" side you hear very little difference (almost none really) when you engage the "tone in" switch. I think that's a sign of good design, although the "audio illuminati" would likely dismiss this preamp altogether since it's a bargain. But then, I'm a long time professional musician/recording engineer so what the hell do I know?

I prefer a nice sub paired with a neutral preamp that uses no tone controls, not much if any sound quality loss there. But I thought NAD did a nice job implimenting them on their older preamps from the late eighties because they still sounded spectacular.

Too many variables,,give me tone controls!

Funny Ray.

Should add that when I was an audiophile I wouldn't have dared to use tone controls but since I stopped putting music on such a high pedestal, I am not afraid of altering the sound anymore. What do all those recording engineers know anyhow?

I also have defeatable tone controls and there is little degradation in the sound with them "in" vs. "out". But a big improvement in overall balance with them "in".
Am now going one step further with digital parametric equalizer now.

My Adcom GFP 715 preamp has defeatable tone controls that work swimmingly...I use 'em on a second amp driving speakers I use for occaisional outdoor (from windows) use, and drive my main speakers with the "bypass" output. All sound great.

I saw this thread when it was just getting started and wanted to comment, but I was at work and well... First off, I want to congratulate Elizabeth for bringing up the subject. She has some great questions and I feel they are very important. When I started over again with a new system three years ago, if I couldn't have had tone controls, I would have stayed with my then current gear. No matter the arguement, not all music is recorded the same. Having tone controls that can help make a bad recoding a bit more bearable and a good recording even better is a real plus. Here's another example. When I bought my system, I heard it with all the pieces I bought (at that time). I listened for two or three hours and the system sounded really great (and best) with the tone controls set at zero. But when I brought it home, it did not sound the same. Needed some help from the treble control. I'm sure its my room (the vaulted ceiling). But the point is without tone control, I would be very unhappy. Personally, if they make no difference when turned off, then why not; they should be included. They will provide a great benefit when you need it. And I doubt that the cost to add them is very significant. Finally, hearing a recording the way an engineer wanted you to. I'm not sure they deliberately engineer a recording that is bass heavy or bright. I bet that's not the intent or the intended product. It just comes out that way. (Just look at your music collection and you'll probably note that not all of your music sounds great (I bet). If I bought music that only was recoreded well, my collection would be pretty small. With tone controls, I can help those pieces that need it and turn the controls off on those that don't. -Thanks Elizabeth for addressing a great need in this high-end audio market. Very interesting thread for sure. BTW, it would be great if tone controls could also be controlled by a remote.

To hear recordings way as intended would be possible only if we have an ideally universal standard sound/system calibration method. As well, similar taste, preference and listening environment as some have suggested.. imo.

Rleff - Most of hi-end preamps don't have tone controls while practically every cheap system has them. It suggests to me, that it is very inexpensive to make it cheap and very expensive to make it right.

I also suspect that nature of recording (or system) deficiency is more complex than "Treble" and "Bass" and using tone controls (that affect whole harmonic structure) can do more harm than good.

I want to hear bassy record bassy and bright recording bright - the way it was intended and not to adjust/normalize them to sound the same.

I do not need one and I agree with Almarg 100%;a point I never thought of was the extra cost.

I would love a well-executed bass and treble control for my Connie-J PV-11. My purpose is simply to make bad recordings more tolerable. I do not restrict myself to audiophile recordings - I like what I like. But, as my system has evolved, and become more resolving, listening to poorly recorded CDs has become more of a challenge (even as well-recorded albums have become more pleasureable). Presently, I have a Behringer T-1951 parametric EQ in one tape loop. It is wonderfully flexible (and it has tubes!), but a recent speaker upgrade has exposed the T-1951 as much less than transparent. I like my PV-11 a lot. Preamp options with tubes and balance (which I need for several good reasons), bass & treble controls are either used, McIntosh, or Van Alstine. I am not sure that anything other than the top-line Macs would be a real step up from the C-J, and I can't afford that. I am pondering having the C-J modded, which means a long-term committment to it, or looking at something like a used Mac C220. I must have a full-function preamp, with tape loops and phono section (at least MM). I wouldn't mind a remote, either. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Thanks to the O.P. for bringing up an important, if polarizing, topic.

Too many variables,,give me tone controls!

Kijanki, Still Lost, especially after that post -lol

"This hobby is supposed to be about enjoying your favorite music"

There are different forums for that. My late relative really enjoyed the music on really bad transistor radio.

"with or without tone controls is just a means to an end"

That's exactly what Audio Forum is about - "means".

No problem. I'm on the same page with the uncertainty. I work on medical electronics for a living and taught it before that. One of the first things we would discuss when talking about measurements was that in order to measure anything you must disturb it or extract energy from it which alters what it is you are trying to measure.

I also agree that the realization of the absolute sound in the sense that is 100% the same is most certainly impossible. Another factor often ignored is that unless you are blind or have your eyes closed a live event is a visual experience too, not to mention the odors that wafted through the venue when I attended rock concerts in the 70's and 80's and the feeling of being jostled about in huge crowd.. Recreating that would be a neat trick.

.

Herman,
I have not tried to be condescending so don't take offense. The issue that I have with the "note" example that you site is that it is not occurring in a perfect anechoic chamber and therefore is subjected to the forces of it's environment; therefore you must first re-create that same environment in order to attempt to reproduce it faithfully. If we are talking about the "absolute" note. Otherwise you will have the convulsion of the environment in which it created with the environment in which it is being playback. The principles that I sited simple states that in every measurement, controlled or not, there is a certain measure of uncertainty, which therefore does not allow you to be 100% certain that what you have measured in space and time has stayed static during the measurement.

Listen I know the point that you are trying to make, which is that in theory, you should be able to re-create an event. Unfortunately when it comes to music reproduction/playback there are too many variables that make this task simply impossible in the here and now and in foreseeable future.

I apologize if I was out of line, that was certainly not my intention as you have proven to be a worthy opponent.

I will try to find the time to post my system this weekend so that you can see where I'm coming from.

Carlos, I have been very civil. No need to be condescending.

The pursuit of the absolute sound is trying to recreate perfectly what was being played elsewhere. Nobody has said or even hinted that it has been done. You have listed a lot of reasons why it is at the very least extremely difficult and probably can't be done, but that completely misses the point. The fact we haven't come close to doing it doesn't mean it can't be done or isn't a worthwhile pursuit. A note played on an instrument does create compressions and rarefactions in the air that theoretically we might be able to perfectly reproduce. I doubt it can be and you are convinced it can't be done but you can't logically argue that the sound never existed. It most certainly did no matter what principles you apply.

Herman,
Do I need to bring "Schrodinger's Uncertainty Principle" into this discussion? I'm trying for your sake not to take the discussion too deep as it will inevitably lose some of the audience. Check-Mate!

Bob P.
"How the trumpet is recorded is really irrelevant" Wow! You know the issue is much deeper than what I have presented above. To truly faithfully reproduced the trumpet in ones own listening room, you would have to recreate the same environmental conditions in which recording was made, down to the same acoustical characteristics and temperature; and this is all on top of having an "ideal" recording chain that is not only neutral but also able to capture all the information necessary for one's sensory system. If you think that this is close to happening with the Audiophile "purist's" approach then I think you have swallowed the oath's hook, bait, and sinker!

Carlos, you are absolutely correct. The recording IS part of the ideal. How could it be any other way? Just because it is out my control does not mean it isn't part of the equation. Given a perfect signal which perfectly encodes the sound of a trumpet an ideal system would decode it and sound exactly like that trumpet. It doesn't matter that I didn't hear the original sound. If I had not I wouldn't be able to tell you if it was exactly like the original, but either it is or it isn't.

When I cook something from a Julia Child recipe does it taste exactly like hers? I have no way to know but just because I have no way to confirm it either way doesn't mean it definitely does not. I would like to think that it does :>)

So once again, yes, there is an absolute, or ideal if you wish. I seriously doubt it can be obtained, but it is there.

check, and mate.
.

I am with herman on this point. And it is an often used arguement that we hear differently therefore a standard can't be used for calibrating our listening systems, which is not true.
If my hearing accentuates certain frequencies, say at 2000HZ, therefore making a live trumpet sound more 'brillant' than another might hear it, then when a trumpet is reproduced over my system I would expect that trumpet to also sound 'brillant', if I have set up my system to be faithful to the source played through it. Others listening to my properly set up system, would also recognize the trumpet to sound as they have heard it, even though it might sound differently to them than to me.

How the trumpet is recorded is really irrelevant, since both I and others would be able to recognize if the trumpet sound is different than what is expected.

Salut, Bob P.

Herman,
So how does the "Absolute Sound" relate to "Audiophilia"? Not only would the playback, aka stereo systems, have to be ideal but the whole recording process, which is clearly out of the listeners control. I think that is a bit of a stretch! Check-mate!

Don't need them. Just got a pair of Katans and have my DBX 14/10 EQ for sale. Things (amp, preamp, sources, wires, ic's and speakers) must match up and that's a lot harder to do than using a good eq.

Naive? please. You completely missed the point of my post.

The poster stated that since you and I hear differently then there is no absolute. I was refuting that idea, not that we would know what all original performances sound like. I stated that if we heard the exact same thing, even though our auditory systems might process it differently, if we heard the exact same thing again we would recognize it. That has nothing to do with traceability to the original performances of my recordings.

So yes, there is an absolute, or ideal as you put it. If our systems were ideal then we would be able to record a trumpet player standing in front of the room or any other sound and play it back and it would sound exactly the same. Jumping from that idea to assuming I though I would be able to know what every original performance sounded like is a bit of a stretch.

.

No doubt, every recording we have is an altered version of reality, an altered version of the absolute. That wasn't my point. My point was if we could reproduce the original sound exactly then hearing differences don't factor in.

The argument that was presented was that the pursuit of the absolute is pointless because we all hear differently. I say that makes no difference. If we hear the same source then even if we hear it differently we should be able to tell when it changes. Your absolute and mine may differ, our brains may interpret the sound of a trumpet being played in front of us in a different manner, but we should both be able to tell when the sound of that particular trumpet changes.

/.

HErman,

That's fine but one can argue that that is not what you hear in reality with most recordings. You hear a transformed version that sounds the way the producer wants it to sound. The producer also had all kinds of gadgetry to use in order to get it to sound the way he wants.

If you think you can make it sound better, then tone controls, processors and such are the tools that enable that.

If.....

Herman,
That type of mental exercise is a little naive as the only ones who have that type of traceability to the original performance where those who were there. How many of your CD's/LP's have you been a witness to their original recording/performance? You are obviously not familiar with the recording process, mixing and the mastering process. How do you know that the microphones pickup the entire spectral spectrum and spatial cues? You owe it to yourself to get the Stereophile Test CD1, which has the pickup of many different microphones on the same live person/speaker being switched real-time; it will shed some light on the effects of the recording chain. Ideals are only that!

This is not a hobby, for me; this is a way of life. I am in pursuit of the most celestial music any musician ever created, reproduced on the best equipment ever engineered without "Tone controls".

I disagree. Let's say you have somebody in your room singing a song. Even if we all hear it differently we are all hearing the same thing. If you could record it and play it back so the exact same sound waves were produced (absolute sound) then we would all say we were hearing an exact copy even if we all heard it differently.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with altering the sound to suit personal taste, but it would be nice to start with an exact copy of the original.

.

Seriously, the biggest problem I have always had with tone controls (done well) is that I am too lazy to try to tweak things to perfection all the time. Recordings are too variable to ever even attempt this even if one had the tools. You'd spend all your time tweaking and little listening. I prefer things the other way around.

However, on the occasions I have attempted to tweak sound to perfection using tone controls, signal processors, etc, the results are generally superior to what I started with.

"Some recordings just have an off stereo balance"

Daverz - I noticed that. Most often they move to the left but I don't mind (I'm a democrat).

Carlos269 - It depends how you approach it. I wouldn't adjust bass on my bass heavy or bass light CDs because it changes character of performer/performance. Some CDs are recorded darkish and some with too much treble and again, I don't want to adjust anything to equalize it.

I can see value of high quality equalizer to compensate for the room acoustics if it cannot be done by treatments but don't have any experience with that. Simple tone controls are just not for me. I don't mind them as long as I can bypass them and don't have to pay for them.

05-21-10: Carlos269
...this whole concept of "Absolute Sound" (the basis for Audiophilia) is so bogus as we all perceive sound slightly differently due to anatomical differences.

Bullseye.

Someone should Permaplaque that statement.

Balance controls are just as bad. Just move your head.

Kijanki,
I'm not surprised and that's why this whole concept of "Absolute Sound" (the basis for Audiophilia) is so bogus as we all perceive sound slightly differently due to anatomical differences. It kind of lends even greater value to such devices doesn't it?

I'd love to have these implemented well on a piece that didn't cost as much as a used car. By the way I tried what I thought was my dream piece, an Avalon AD2055 parametric and it did not work out in my system, disappointingly. Luxman and Accuphase integrated tone controls have always been attractive to me; both have exceptional reputations. I was always intrigued about trying both. I almost bought a McIntosh preamp, almost....

If you are in this hobby to enjoy music, good tone controls of some sort is the way to go. However, it cannot and should not be use as band-aid to correct flawed tonal balance of a system.

Many good reasons and opinions have already been voiced above. IMO, when done right, and everything else is in order--It simply lets one enjoy and explore more varieties of music--bearing in mind the diverse recording quality releases in the market, even to this day.

"balance and timbre back to what our experience indicates sounds real."

Don't go there - there was another thread few hundred posts long where nobody at the end could agree what is real (including musicians):

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ymisc&1257469878&read&keyw&zzneutrality

Orpheus10,
I'm afraid that this discussion may be too hard for you to grasp as no one is talking about messing anything up, but rather using signal processors to bring the tonal balance and timbre back to what our experience indicates sounds real. Philosophically speaking, it is no different than one's component and speaker selection or choice of cables, but in a more intelligent way.

The posts on this thread are driving me into "coniptions". You buy music created by people who have been inspired by the Gods, and you want to mess it up with "Tone controls".