We give up perspective to avoid tone controls


Hi Everyone,

While most of my thread starters are meant to be fun, I realize this one is downright provocative, so I'm going to try extra hard to be civil. 

One thing that is implicit in the culture of "high end audio" is the disdain for any sort of electronic equalization. The culture disdains the use of anything other than a volume control. Instead we attempt to change everything to avoid this. Speakers, speaker cables, amplifiers, and power cords. We'll shovel tens of thousands of dollars of gear in and out of our listening room to avoid them. 

Some audiophiles even disdain any room acoustic treatments. I heard one brag, after saying he would never buy room treatments: "I will buy a house or not based on how good the living room is going to sound." 

What's weird to me, is how much equalization is done in the mastering studio, how different pro speakers may sound from what you have in your listening room, and how much EQ happens within the speakers themselves. The RIAA circuits in all phono preamps IS a complicated three state EQ, we're OK with that, but not tone controls? 

What attracts us to this mind set? Why must we hold ourselves to this kind of standard? 

Best,


E
erik_squires
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
@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.
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

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. 
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