To tone control or not to tone control

Hi Artemus, wish I could help more. As Dekay, I never used this in my system. Sonically, the mid-range darkened only by a tad, the bass was boosted and the highs became more pronounced and a bit harder -- but at least, one got a simulation of highs... I remember (may be wrong on this) the x-tone being connected between source component & line input; this setup may sound better than going thru the tape-loop.
Not much to go on, I'm afraid.
But, do play around with your adcom, as bruce & dekay suggest, it may offer an acceptable solution.

Perhaps I'm a bit daft, but the logic of the prevailing "straight wire with gain ... equalization=distortion" paradigm really mystifies me. The underlying premise that I read in most of the above thread is that EQ violates the purity of the source material.

Throwing caution about being flamed to the wind, may I ask a simple question? What happens in the mixing studio -- if it is a "straight wire with gain" kind of process, then why is it called a MIXING studio? Don't they equalize the bejabbers out of the performance that is being recorded? And if so, does equalization only become pernicious after that point?

To me, this is the logical equivalent of my local municipality refusing to treat the water that they pump from the river because they don't want to adulterate the purity of it. If indeed the water were pure, this would make sense but it doesn't because every upstream municipality dumps their treated sewage water into the river. How does this differ fundamentally from equalizing that which has already been equalized?

Just curious :-)

Perhaps I'm a bit daft, but the logic behind the prevailing "straight wire with gain ... equalization=distortion" paradigm really mystifies me. The underlying premise that I read in most of the above thread is that EQ violates the purity of the source material.

Throwing caution about being flamed to the wind, may I ask a simple question? What happens in the mixing studio -- if it is a "straight wire with gain" kind of process, then why is it called a MIXING studio? Don't they equalize the bejabbers out of the performance that is being recorded? And if so, does equalization only become pernicious after that point?

To me, this is the logical equivalent of my local municipality refusing to treat the water that they pump from the river because they don't want to adulterate the purity of it. If indeed the water were pure, this would make perfect sense but it doesn't because every upstream municipality dumps their treated sewage water into the river.

So ... is there "good" equalization and "bad" equalization? Is it solely dependent on when it is done or who does it? What rules are we going to invent to help us out of this logical predicament?

Just curious :-)

Doc, you are correct to a point. Many (most?) recordings are equalized and processed. This is especially true with pop and rock recordings that are recorded to many tracks and then mixed down to 2. A lot of these are equalized and compressed to sound better on car radios so they don't always sound so good on a high end system. However, there are a large number of recordings that are recorded directly to 2 tracks with little or no processing. That is I why I advocated putting the tone control in the processor loop so it could be switched in and out as needed.

Bruce, your suggestion is a novel one offered in the face of necessity, and I agree that it is a good one. I myself have no qualms about, gasp, dialing in some bass equalization when it is needed. I also agree that being able to defeat any equalization is also a desirable feature.

What irks me is that we have to cook up work-arounds like this because the audio industry, in their ongoing orgy of greed and stupidity, has failed us so miserably as consumers. The references to the availability of EQ on gear such as Cello and Accuphase convinces me that EQ is not an inherently inferior thing. The fact that such a basic feature as tone control is only available on such astronomically priced equipment is what raises my blood pressure.

I've heard this "straight wire with gain" crap from so many dealers and have seen it promoted so frequently in the audio press that I think many have simply accepted it as fact. IMHO, this is an excuse invented by the manufacturers for deleting tone controls from most gear. After all, including this basic feature at a reasonable price would require careful design and execution. Why not perpetuate illogical hooey instead, operating on the premise that consumers are so stupid that they will not only buy it, but help perpetuate the myth? This way, you can include this most basic of features on only the most exclusive gear and charge obscene prices for it.

I honestly believe that this is how the majority of high-end manufacturers think and operate. It is also the reason that they have nearly killed the high-end market. If you doubt what I say, try to imagine what PC's would be like today if they were made by high-end audio manufacturers.

Rather than 128 meg of RAM we would still have only 64K, and 20 meg hard drives would be the norm. But these devices would run so well because all internal connections would be gold plated. Our printer cables would cost $2000 because of the claimed superiority of their super-hetero-hedron-hyperlitz configuration, and our CPU towers would rest on some queer pucks that had set us back $200 for the set. And can you imagine the groovy gold anodized casings that all this gear would come in? OOOh, what if they could go back to using vacuum tubes as well? I think that you get my point.