Life without tone controls ... it sucks!

I rarely ever use tone controls myself - they're just too indiscriminate - but they have their place. For some people a tone adjustment is all they need to hear what they want. And that loudness switch is a neat touch for low volume. Not that I ever listen to much at low volume lol. If the source is just horrible then parametric is the way to go.

Source quality aside, IMO it's all about room acoustics primarily. If they're not right nothing's right, and I think a lot of people subconsciously adjust their hearing to lousy acoustics.

I pretend to be Joe Average, but in reality I'm a closet audiophile who just believes it's not all about how much money you spend. And I learned about sound in radio and from an audiologist so my take on audio isn't necessarily from an audiophile perspective.

 

My old systems I had years ago with 3A, Advents, turntables etc etc had parametric equalizers. I was always adjusting it. I'm not sure whether I ever got it the way I wanted it. It always had a boost in the bass and treble. Now, I play everything flat with my new gear. I think it sounds great that way and I really can't imagine putting equalization back into play again.

 

I use analog bypass for listening to LPs and CDs; I never feel the need to use the tone controls. In fact, until this thread came up, I sorta forgot I had them. On the other hand, if goosing the bass or attenuating the treble makes for a more pleasurable listening experience for others, who am I to judge? Whatever makes you feel closer to the music.

 

This is one of the reasons why I have 2 self-powered sub-woofers.

 

What if you're listening to really bad source material? Your way, you can either sit there and wince, or you can shut it down. With tone controls, maybe it's possible to tame the playback down a little bit so it's tolerable.

I still have to roll off a little of the screechy highs on certain Rhino CDs. Not a lot -- we're talking maybe -3dB @ 10K, something like that. Just enough to take the edge off.

I agree that with good recordings, on a good system, in a good room, there should be no need to have to use tone controls. And I generally listen to stuff warts and all.

 

Answered above.

 

Nothing to be sorry about - let's not forget that this is a hobby, and challenges are fun things to ... ahem ... challenge you. Imagine how boring it would be if there was no need for hearing things differently, tweaking, etc.

The store I found who paid quite a bit of attention to their room was Music Lovers in San Francisco. They had a very good room with nice acoustic treatments - not too dead and not too resonant, just right.

Alberto

 

Never use them myself.

Never liked the way they changed to sound of the recording. I have a pretty expensive pre-amp too, an Edge. Just never cared for tone controls. You and I are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

Yes, yes, yes!

I am with you some Yes recordings are really hard to take for me as well.

Mostly thin and harsh sounding.

Alberto

 

Tone controls are a must. Every room's acoustics are different...

 

I never needed (or wanted) tone controls in the vinyl era but I'm sure glad I can now digitally EQ CD rips. CDs are often so far off a flat frequency response it's not funny.

 

Quite happy with the tone controls on my Sansui AU-717 set to defeat, but glad they're there if I ever need them. A nice compromise I think, but most of the time, they're unused. That said, the sound of the 717 is fine to my ears.

 

Your Room

"Source quality aside, IMO it's all about room acoustics primarily. If they're not right nothing's right, and I think a lot of people subconsciously adjust their hearing to lousy acoustics."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So let me get this straight, either the recording itself or the listening room have issues that result in sonic problems. So we subtract from the purity of the signal and boost a frequency to compensate? Isn't that adding a distortion on top of a distortion?

Steve mentioned his Supertramp Breakfast in America album with excessive trebel. So you will subtract from the purity of the source signal by inserting a tone control which then adds a cut or a boost in an attempt to get the sound where you think it is more appropriate?

Scott

 

In most cases simple tone controls cannot compensate for problems with room acoustics.

John K.

 

Tiger, I appreciate the offer and thank you for it. But please trust me that it's not the room - or my equipment, or cables, etc. I have spent considerable time adding/removing sound treatment, moving speakers and listening position, etc. Besides, my room and system sounds amazing to me - as long as the recordings are good.

Without some tone control, the recordings I am talking about sound bad - to me - in every single system I've tried, and this includes high-end stores with rooms that have amazing acoustic treatment (e.g. isolate floors and walls) and $300K of equipment.

There's no cable, diffuser, absorber, AC conditioner, Shakti stone, Tice clock, etc., that can fix those records. But some EQ does the job.

Alberto

 

To me, the cleaner and more neutral the system is, the more tolerable recording balance problems become. If a record is a bit much on the top, at least a clean playback chain won't spit it at you. The grain and noise from lower quality electronics will make such deviations sound more harsh.

 

It's been about the same for me, my ASL 1003 30 watt has no tone controls.

 

Me too. I can vividly recall the EQ setting I used most often on my ca. 1989 JVC boombox CD player. It was basically high in the mid-bass, then back to zero for the mid-range, then ascending to a peak at the highest frequency. I had all that treble, and my hearing was better back then!

 

Alberto, dude...

plug in your Mac pre and be happy.

Nothing else matters...

 

I'd be interested in the titles of records or CDs that you feel you want to equalize on your Shindo.

 

Same here.

I don't miss tone controls at all. One benefit I get (not sure this has been mentioned yet) it allows ME to just listen to the music and not keep trying to figure out if I need to boost the mid-range or cut a little treble or whatever. It just is what it is. If I really feel I need more or less of something I turn up the volume. That always does it for me.

 

Purity of the signal? Yes, adjusting the EQ to compensate for a poorly mastered album is exactly the thing to do.

Adjusting EQ needn't introduce any significant distortion, and a pleasant sounding frequency balance will more than compensate for any minimal distortion added.

If someone finds the excessive treble to be annoying or even painful, why not tame the treble, if that sounds better? I don't get this idea of 'purity' at all. EQ adjustments are one of the major tools in a mastering engineers arsenal. I don't see any problem with messing with "the purity" of the sound of any album if it makes listening more enjoyable to me.

 

I have bypassed the volume control on my amp altogether... I win.

 

That's funny. But there is no winner here. We all have our own opinion. You love to diddle with sound after the fact or you don't. I see nothing wrong with it. I just don't diddle with my sound because I like what I hear from my system.....for the most part. It's all relative I guess. IMO thou why change what's being transferred from the physical source. That way you can compare between other recordings in a more honest light.

Good Night Rose........Good Night.....Good Night.... Rose.