We give up perspective to avoid tone controls

Almarg  gotta toss im OHM Walsh to the list of time coherent designs and their sound definitely reflects what you described.    

The room correction used by Lyngdorf is something that has helped take my room out of the equation.  I would never be without now that it has spoiled me. I suppose the use of this unit is on topic.  I also use Roon’s DSP EQ some at times to compensate for recordings that need a little tuning.  

I find it hard to believe that if one had a high-end system that sounded like it needed some equalization of frequency response, and they put a Manley Massive Passive EQ in their system(as an example), that said EQ would 'hurt' the sound. Note: I'm not talking about a system that does not need equalization, but one that does.

 This is potentially the most important thread that could have possibly been started on any forum anywhere in the HEA world.

Thanks for your kind words, Michael, but I feel like this is probably just covering old ground. :) 

Best,


E

@steakster 

The biggest things HEA is ignoring right now are subwoofers, real bass management (I.e. a true active crossover built into the preamp or integrated amp to high pass the mains, low pass the sub, and correct for distance and phase) and room correction.  

I’ve hear Lyngdorf’s Roomperfect is great, but their units fail on other counts by refusing to integrate a sub out and bass management.   Anthem is doing it right with their STR series, and DEQX has room correction and bass management, but from what I’ve read their units aren’t capable of handling automatic distance and phase correction for subwoofers, which seems like a major oversight.  

These are are all basic things that have been in $500 AV Receivers for years, how hard are they to integrate into 2-channel gear?

Hi Erik

I'm going to go back and read through the posts here, but first wanted to give you my first impressions. This is potentially the most important thread that could have possibly been started on any forum anywhere in the HEA world. The timing of this is just as important.

The paradigm shift that is taking place as we speak in this hobby is completely based on what happened to HEA when we went to audio systems with only a volume control.

Sir, I totally and full heartedly applaud you for starting this!

Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net

I’m not a fan of the broad ‘bass’ and ‘treble’ knobs because they’re too imprecise, like trying to perform eye surgery with a sawzall.  

On the other hand, I’m a big proponent of digital room and speaker correction.  I use a Dirac-enabled MiniDSP DDRC-22D in my home system and it’s a solid improvement over the uncorrected signal.  It corrects for phase, timing, frequency response, impulse response, undesired room reflections, and more.  

The biggest improvement is in the bass, making everything tighter, clearer, more detailed, and more ‘nimble’, but it also helps with imaging, soundstage, and removes some harsh room reflections.  

I do do plan on adding some physical room treatments in the future to take things to the next level as well. 

An interesting phenomenon I’ve found is that improving the time coherence of a speaker via well implemented DSP (digital signal processing), "time coherence" automatically implying "phase coherence" as well, can eliminate or at least greatly lessen the need to utilize tone controls or equalization to make poor recordings more listenable.

For example, while I’ve always preferred to listen to good sounding recordings via my Daedalus Ulysses speakers rather than via my Stax Lambda Pro electrostatic headphones, prior to a couple of years ago I often preferred to listen to poorly engineered classical symphonic recordings, typically having excessively bright sounding massed strings, as well as many strident sounding 1960s pop recordings, via the headphones. Even though I would have to say that the headphones provide more emphasis of the treble region compared to my speakers, not less emphasis.

It seemed in the case of those poor recordings that the time coherence of the headphones resulted in the upper midrange and lower treble sounding less homogenized, with increased detail and improved definition. Which in turn resulted in the brightness and stridency being less objectionable. That belief was pretty much confirmed a couple of years ago when I purchased a DEQX HDP-5, which among its many DSP-based functions can bring any speaker that is not time coherent (which means the great majority of speakers, including all multi-way speakers having a crossover that is not 6 db/octave) closer to being time coherent.

That feature of the DEQX has improved the listenability of the kinds of poorly engineered recordings I described to such an extent that I find myself almost never using its powerful and extremely flexible equalization capabilities.

The only multi-way dynamic speakers I am aware of that are intrinsically time coherent are those made by Vandersteen, Green Mountain Audio, and (at least formerly) by Thiel. A member here, @Bombaywalla, has been a strong advocate of time coherent speakers, and a few years ago suggested in either the long-running DEQX thread or the Sloped Baffle thread that time coherence provides benefits along the lines I’ve described. My experience with the DEQX has convinced me he was right.

Regards,
-- Al

@ieales...……………………………

"As far as "seriously missing out", it's true. Without tone controls we're missing:
 - detail loss and masking
 - frequency dependent channel balance
 - non-linear frequency response
 - phase shift"

If the tone controls are designed properly, you will miss nothing.

Kind of related to this, was the old Theta Casanova. Like the Casablanca, the Casanova was really an all-digital preamp. All analog signals were converted to digital first. Then DSP was used to do bass management. And honestly, that was a great little pre/DAC. Way ahead of it's time and still available for around ~$300. 

I believe there may have even been an EQ card available  (not sure if it was planned, but not implemented). 

It's a shame in many ways that this approach hasn't taken off, and that Theta is still chasing the installer only markets. << sigh >> 

Then we could be living in pure digital EQ world all our lives. :) 

Best,

E

Tone controls are like ketchup. Great on fries, not so much on most everything else. I became hooked on tone-less preamps by db and Dayton-Wright.

Only a miniscule number of discs require any EQ surgery and degrading the many for the few does not make sense. Adjusting level a db or two can often as not change adjust the tonal balance to make listenable enough and usually not much worse than tone controls that have their inflection points too far removed from the problem area.

As far as "seriously missing out", it's true. Without tone controls we're missing:
 - detail loss and masking
 - frequency dependent channel balance
 - non-linear frequency response
 - phase shift

Like most everything, there's no free lunch and we all have to choose our poison.

My pre-has electronic tone controls but I've not used them.  Yet, my computer based music server playback software has an EQ and I have used it on a few albums that have great music but were poorly engineered/mix.   

I look at the subject this way.  It's my music, I paid for it and I'll listen to it anyway I want.  

@erik_squires

Definitely. It was when I used the tone controls on my integrated and then asked about it, thinking I’d solved my problems and liking the results, that "they pulled me back in," like Pacino said in Godfather III.

All the best,
Nonoise

@nonoise 

And this is kind of the problem. I mean, we give up any alleged "damage" for the sake of purity. Aren't we a little obsessed, to the detriment of our actual enjoyment and experience? 

Best,

E

Thanks @ieales. 
I just want to do the least amount of damage to the signal before it gets to the speaker. 

It totally depends on the location of the control in circuit. It could simply pad a driver to reduce level, change the xo frequency or a combination of both.

That being said whether they would be of any particular use in a given room totally depends on the romm

I asked about using the tone controls on my Marantz integrated a while back and for the most part, the consensus was to not use them. Being me, I used them anyway until I got my system dialed in and it is definitely better without them.

The controls that come on my JBL 4319 speakers are a different beast. Using just slight adjustments can result in noticeable results, altering the sound in a way that’s different and better than from the integrated.

Until I settled on my preferred speaker cables, they were most useful in tailoring the sound to my tastes without upsetting the audio applecart, so to speak. I’m now at a general setting that works for most recordings but if need be, a slight tweaking of the control rights things without adverse effects. I’m still slowly experimenting.
I’d like to add that although there is a considerable range to work with, I’m talking about very slight adjustments that make a difference in my room.

Can anyone chime in if they know that tone controls at the speaker end of the equation are of benefit for room interactions?

All the best,
Nonoise

Tone controls is what drew me to McIntosh.  I am much happier now that I am able to make some of the unlistenable Rock CD's listenable again by using a light hand on the tone controls.  For those that do not have them, you are seriously missing out.

When working as a recording engineer, I tried to use as little EQ as possible, preferring to change/move microphones, cables and musicians.

Most consumer tone control circuits are poorly implemented with corners in the wrong place and less than stellar tracking. Futzing with a balance control and EQ is a royal PITA.

Fully parametric EQ would be a nice addition, but it gets very expensive for accurate tracking between channels. The additional wire and circuitry is audible in bypass and I'd prefer not to color the many for the few.

Most problem discs have far more egregious faults than can be fixed with EQ.

If I really want to hear the music and it's really bad, I'll rip it and fix it if possible. Sometimes it's just too far gone.

EQ may regain some favor as digital devices add features.

Most rooms would benefit from some equalization to compensate for dimension and decor effects, especially if no room treatments are used.
Don't know many people who listen in an anechoic chamber at home.
I guess one reason to eschew at-home equalization is to avoid adding more circuitry into the signal path, as it might dilute the micro detail of the music.  But using tone controls to boost or cut signals at different frequencies is itself a form of distortion.
But some might prefer such personalized distortion effects.