2. misc-audio
  3. 135979-20253

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
vintage_heath
17 posts
 

I admit I have a less than purist attitude when it comes to tone control. I have different audio setups in different rooms. Different turntables, cartridges, tape decks, speakers, pre-amps, amps, etc. Tube and solid state. Depending on the source material, volume level and which equipment set is being utilized, I use different tone control settings. I will openly admit I process the heck out of everything, all the time, on every system, without exception. Dynamic range expansion, variable notch filter noise reduction, reverb, graphic equalizer, along with all the preamp tone controls, use of loudness contour, etc. You name it, I use it to get the sound I desire. In some cases, I mix the use of tube equipment and solid state equipment in the signal path. The sole purpose is to get what sounds good to my ears based on the system in use. It doesn’t matter what the artist, recording engineer or anyone else wanted at the time of recording or during playback. Once that recording enters my house, it’s my rules and those of no one else. When I go to live concerts, that’s when the artist and sound engineer gets to demonstrate what their vision is. Of course, if I could process that in real time before it reached my ears, I would probably make some tweaks! :-)


oranfoster's avatar
oranfoster
128 posts
 
Hey Vintage Heath, good for you. I like your keep-it-fun attitude! 
handymann
383 posts
 
When first starting out in what may be considered higher end equipment, I was told EQ is a four letter word. After years of incorporating different room treatments and still having issues with too much mid bass, I decided to try a Samson S curve 231. It's helped tremendously. I know it's best to have as little equipment in the signal path as possible, but for me, it's really helped. 
vtvmtodvm
66 posts
 
After 5+ decades of heavy DIY audio experience, I conclude that conventionally implemented (preamp) tone controls introduce too many inaccuracies to prove generally acceptable. Virtually all such circuits cause significant channel tracking imbalance, and some add other phase and distortion anomalies that seriously degrade any aural benefit.

In those cases (like mine) where the primary objective is to implement convenient variable control of the low bass-to-main speaker balance, there's a better/cleaner way: Add a pair of (sealed, not ported*) self-powered subwoofers. Operate them in "bypass mode" (internal low-pass filters deactivated), and control them through an EXTERNAL active crossover (Linkwitz-Riley, 4th order) control unit, e.g. Marchand's XM66. Fully variable control of the crossover point AND the main/bass input level is then available at a convenient single, central location. This makes it easy to set/reset your desired main speakers-to-subwoofers output ratio, using accurate plus/minus 1dB stepped attenuator front panel level control switches. It's an easy, elegant, and very accurate way to control the relative low bass-to-main speaker acoustic blend—and you can alter or restore a desired mix with optimum convenience.

*Sealed-subs can be more accurately phase-matched with your main speakers than when using ported subs. It's also helpful to use sealed (not ported) main speakers.
erik_squires OP
16,200 posts
 
Virtually all such circuits cause significant channel tracking imbalance, and some add other phase and distortion anomalies that seriously degrade any aural benefit.
vtvmtodvm:
That's pretty breathtaking in it's scope. While I do agree: I wish manufacturers paid more attention to the quality of the tone controls, in general I have to disagree. I think the convenience factor needs to be weighed in. Like loudness controls for instance, being able to "convert" my speakers from medium to low-volume listening is a good thing, not to mention transforming them into party mode speakers.

Also, placement. Being able to adjust for speakers too close or too far from the walls is a case where tone controls are a lot cheaper than buying new speakers.


*Sealed-subs can be more accurately phase-matched with your main speakers than when using ported subs.

Since the ports contribute only to the bottom end, and the phase matching must occur at the top, I don't follow your logic.

There are many who feel sealed subs have the best transient responses though. In my experience, this is more a matter of integration and EQ than any absolute technical superiority of port vs. sealed.

It's also helpful to use sealed (not ported) main speakers.

This is often true. This is what THX tried to do with the satellite specifications, and has to do with phase and amplitude matching. They were big fans of LR4 alignments, and sealed sats + 2nd order HP electrical helps achieve this rather consistently.
More to discover