Life without tone controls ... it sucks!

Tone Controls

The only tone controls that I thought were of any value were the ones included on the Quad pre-amps (Quad the British Audio company). Even when I still used Quad I used them very little, if at all. I have not had tone controls or loudness controls on audio components that I own for decades.

My current equipment is top notch and it doesn't even occur to me to modify the sound with any tone controls, not that I have any to modify!

Scott

 

life is too short.
use your mac preamp.
every day.
tweak the tone.
be happy.

 

Record is a hard thing to make sound good... so much variations, but I have learned that a great phono preamp really makes a world of difference... In my experience... from Rega MiniFono to Rega Fono is a major major difference... a lot of my LP came alive and exciting.

Phono preamp is something I didn't see in your list too.

 

I used to have a 2 band parametric and it did wonders. I think its a great teaching tool also to really find and pinpoint minor peaks or valleys in the final sound. I found myself though missing tone controls on some other stuff I own. Its not that its used all that much, but its that not having it and wanting to make a tiny ( 1-3 db change say) cant be done at all.

Id rather say I have them but rarely use them, rather than I want to use them on occasion and have none.

 

Tiger, I did not put all the equipment in the list (since the signature limits the number of characters.) I have, and have had, my fair share of great phono stages - including an EAR and some very good built-in phono stages. My current favorite is my Bottlehead. While most bad recordings are CDs, there is also quite a bit of vinyl that can benefit from some correction. Even some classical recordings can sound very harsh or thin to my ears, some Deutsche Grammophone recordings in particular.

Alberto

 

IM sure you are being somewhat humorous as there is the ability to move the control tiny amounts also. Smiley faced assumes you are using the full 10-12 db of boost. You can boost or cut 1-3 db and make something thats close to ideal, actually ideal.

I so rarely use them, but still feel they are almost essential, not only for recording variances, but for more importantly perhaps, my own personal preferences. Some days I just want to cut or boost something a few db, cause I want to

 

Same here. I build a system to sound correct for it's intended use and environment. That said, there are some odd recordings that are so pathetic as to draw attention to them but they are so few and far between (and I just can't be bothered with adjusting for every disc) that it isn't an issue.

I've had loads of different preamps and going way back, receivers which had tone controls and loudness switches or even variable loudness controls. They all added noise and created phase problems and the ones that had a switch to bypass the controls were my favorites. I've also used separate EQ units and as others have said, I I needed one for whatever reason, a parametric would be the ideal unit. They still add noise. Every graphic EQ that I've used added noise even when set flat and gain adjusted to unity if it had gain adjustment. Pressing the bypass button always yielded better sonics.

As with everything in audio, there are trade-offs. I do have some desire on occasion for a loudness feature but that is also rare and the trouble with them seems to be that they vary in quality by preamp design. The variable ones are interesting but I find the farther that I turn them up, the noisier and more muted the sound which evidently does more than just softly reduce highs and gently increase bass as I would have desired. For me, I'd just rather not fool with it if it isn't capable of doing exactly what I want it to. I'll live with a cleaner, more transparent sound and keep the transients intact rather than make sweeping tone adjustments on demand.
-Bill

 

For example, I own the remastered David Crosby album (CD+dvd-audio), If I Could Only Remember My Name, and while it's not overly compressed and overall sounds quite good, the top end is much too bright to my ears (and I'm someone who like speakers that have a slightly "lively" upper treble!). Turns out the original engineer who worked on this 1972 album also did the remastering back in @2006, and my theory is that his hearing in 2006 may be rather insensitive to those frequencies and to compensate for that - and possibly the hearing of the people in the age group this album would probably be bought by - he tweaked that particular portion of the spectrum.

So to make this album listenable for me, I have to use my system's tone controls. Fortunately my receiver's treble control is centered way up at 20kHz so its effect is subtle but is still able to create a softer/warmer sound, while leaving most of the detail intact.....so cymbals for example still have a nice metallic sound, but without the unpleasant (to me) tinkly and sizzly personality that's on the disc.

 

Even if you move them physical in tiny amounts, the swaths they can can be wide.

 

Did you have the one that Nelson Pass designed?

 

I think my older HK receiver (( HK-350i )) had those kinda tone controls. I havent had it in use recently though so I cant remember.

My now gone Yamaha Pre-amp had the 2 band para, and I remember always trying to resist cutting the 500-say 800 hz range a tad. When I did pink noise, it always sounded a bit better removing that slight barrel type sound on some stuff. Still it was quite nice being able to go down to 32Hz and add a touch of thump on some recordings..

 

I want to be able to modify the “tone” of my system if and when the recording makes it necessary. For me though, conventional tone controls are too limited in their operation.

I suppose the best solution is to have a switchable loop in the preamp to switch in a parametric EQ in when needed and out when it’s not.

Even better would be if the para-EQ was remote controllable. Sony had remote controllable para-EQ built into some of their digital ES preamps from the 80s and 90s. I wish I still owned one of those. A lot of the surround processors have remote EQ built in, but the ones I’ve looked at are graphic and too much trouble to re-EQ for each recording.

I find a remote balance control of great value too as I’m very sensitive to channel imbalance. It amazes me how many recordings benefit from .5 to 1db of balance correction added.

 

I agree with the OP. My McIntosh preamp has both tone controls and variable loudness, and while I rarely use either, I greatly value having the option to do so when I wish.

 

Most of the gear I've owned had bad tone controls. As I recall, they rarely dealt with the specific problem—usually the horribly mastered seventies Columbia LP reissues of the fifties and sixties classical titles—and never had the "right" settings. As regards the treble side of the equation, the Scott controls are either too much or too little and seem to drift further away from the clarity of the center position. But the bass control works very well. As I can't switch it out, figure I might as well use it. In any case, the treble of the little Scott amp is so fine and so detailed you wouldn't want to mess with it anyway.

 

I think what i've highlighted is it. I've learned to take the source recording for what it is. I want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly. I want to hear as much truth as I can.

But, if I do encounter a recording that hits my tolerance level, i'll rip it into the computer and fix it with parametric EQ and create a new copy.

 

I use the tone control on my McIntosh mc220 preamp to slightly reduce the treble on bright, poor sound cds. It is the only way I can listen to certain cds. I am in the process of making 19 bass traps to improve my two listening rooms. The tone controls on my Mac preamp is a handy feature. I can bypass tone controls with one button.

 

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Voltaire

 

+1

 

Very true. Boosting 6db at 100hz is akin to boosting the overall gain by 6db. If you don't have the headroom for that than you can easily cause an overload.

 

Same here, I have a McIntosh MA6200 integrated amp, and I like having the options for adjusting. I haven't used the tone controls but I do use the loud knob when I listen at low levels.

 

About a year ago, after years of cheap-o systems, I finally splurged on my first modest-but-decent entry level system, based on NAD (cd, integrated) and B&W (speakers, sub). The NAD has tone controls with a bypass option.

I thought for sure I'd be using the tone controls all over the place, as I always had. But now that I actually like the basic sound of my system when it's set to flat - which was never the case before - I (surprise...) no longer use them. And on the occasions where a recording is inadequate, and I've experimented with bringing the tone controls back into the equation, the results just don't sound right.

Generic revelations, for sure, but I'm happy to have gotten to this point.

 

Hi Bill,

I agree that tone controls have an impact but my conclusion is that in the case where I feel the need for tone controls, the impact of phase shifts is minor compared to problem they address. Frankly, I've never said to myself "urgh, those phase shifts sound awful" but I often think "urgh, those highs are unlistenable."

For me the ultimate test is: "Am I enjoying this album more or less with some tone control fix?"

I am listening at this very moment to a Doors CD that, without some taming of the treble I would never play. But with a 5-6db cut in treble (and a 3-4db boost in base) it sounds delicious.

I might be introducing some phase and other distortion, but compared to whatever was in the signal path when this was recorded, mastered and remastered, I suspect that they are minor offenders.

Alberto