who wants tone controls on your next preamp?

Tgrisham,

"It is a fact that at low volume our ears are less sensitive to low frequencies hence the loudness compensation."

Or could it be the system is not in balance with only a fraction of a watt?

Theo, Dynaco introduced that circuit in 1966 with the Dynaco Pas 3X preamp.

I do . . . actually a modern, high-quality tone control arrangement is something I've been working on for some time.

Herman is quite correct in the fact that high-quality equalisation is a necessity in many parts of the recording chain, and anybody that has experience with top-shelf professional equalisers can attest to the fact that equipment indeed can be designed that sacrifices nothing in transparency, detail, noise, distortion, musicality, etc. etc. in order to perform its task. But these units are also available in seemingly endless configurations, each suited to specific applications and engineers' preferences, and virtually all of them must be used skillfully and judiciously to get positive results.

The challange in a high-end audio context is to get just the right amount of adjustability in just the right ways . . . so that the desired, significant improvement can be made the vast majority of the time in just a few seconds. I've used several graphic and parametric mastering EQs in my various systems over the years, as well as a smattering of recording-console channel strip EQs, all semi-parametric in some fashion or another. From this I come to the conclusion that the "knob-count" should be 3-5, settings should be easily repeatable (especially for frequency/turnover), and work identically on both stereo channels. More than five controls starts getting really fiddly, and fewer than three . . . you might just as well have the Baxandall circuits.

I also feel that some frequency-variability is necessary . . . simple five-to-seven-band graphics (i.e. McIntosh) never seem to have the bands quite where they're needed, and using two adjacent bands together usually starts messing things up. Narrower graphics with variable-slope or "constant-Q" filters also IMO start sounding heavy-handed.

Meyer Sound used to make a simple 1U EQ called the VX-1 that was my favorite of the bunch, although it has dual-mono controls and everything's continuous (no repeatabilty). Five knobs . . . low/mid/high with variable turnovers, all constant-slope single-order (6dB/octave). It had sensible range (+6 to -12 IIRC) that precludes the need for making master gain adjustments.

.
If someone could make a transparent EQ for my Ref3 I'd love it. I love my preamp just the way it is, but if an EQ could improve things I'm all for it.

A lot of times in high end audio we do things just because "it's always been that way". There are those among us that immediately dismiss the thought of an EQ in a system. Well maybe 20 years ago. But if the technolgy is here today, to hell with tradition and audio snobbery, let me see the new stuff. And if it works let's move forward. Nothing has slowed progress like being stubbornly stuck in longtime traditions.
.

This is the classic study done in the 50's regarding perceived loudness in relation to frequencies. I think this justifies tone controls.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/gallery/image_full/79/

Now, this begs the question of how to do it. "Spatial computer" has begun to build into the computer the software to adjust the sound to your room. It is a beginning. And it may be the future. In the meantime, having some adjustment to compensate for loudness or poor recordings is reasonable. In a perfect world we have a perfect room with perfect material and is played back through a perfect system. Now, back to reality!

If we can put a man on the moon, we can build gear with tone controls that help when needed and not distract when not. Gear done right may be able to get along without them 90% of the time, yet would be nice to have. The better brands that have them and include such things as headphone output offer that much more value and a real world approach to their products.