POLL: Tone controls - What do you reckon?

[Macca]

Just wondering what the spread of opinion/use was here.

[struth]

Many will say they are only needed if somethings wrong, i still like to have the opportunity to use them if i want. Good if you can also bypass them..best of both worlds, although this attitude will no doubt horrify the purists lol

[Sabaselfsit]

I don't use the treble and bass knobs. But have an old pre amp (NAD 1130) from late 80'ies which I use deliberately because it both have loudness button and bass eq button.

The loudness button was as we all know found on most amps from the 70'ies/80'ies and boost the bass and slightly the treble to compensate for the human ears diminished sensitivity to low frequency sounds at low to medium volum levels.

The bass eq button boost the lowest bass frequencies below 60Hz.

I am sure many audiophiles would say this is like swearing in church, but I use both these buttons to restore subjectlively correct tonal balance at low volume levels. And having my 6 monts old son crawling around the livingroom it allow me to still enjoy music at low levels. :wave:

[YNWaN]

I haven't used them, or missed them, in over thirty years.


100% Analogue

[walpurgis]

I haven't used them, or missed them, in over thirty years.

Same here.

[Barry]

I never used the Baxandall type of tone controls, but I do find the judicious use of the 'Tilt' control of the Quad 44 useful for some recordings. For example: Shirley Collins 'For the Roses' is, I find, a rather 'thick' recording. A -1/+1dB upward tilt of the frequency response helps. Using any more sounds artificial.

However these days I use gear which eschews tone controls - and I have to admit I don't miss them.

[struth]

I only use them if and when i hear an improvement. I am not interested in flat responses or perfect on paper equipment tbh. Im into audio for a good sound for me

[Sabaselfsit]

I am not interested in flat responses or perfect on paper equipment tbh. Im into audio for a good sound for me

x 2!

[struth]

I never used the Baxandel type of tone controls, but I do find the judicious use of the 'Tilt' control of the Quad 44 useful for some recordings. For example: Shirley Collins 'For the Roses' is, I find, a rather 'thick' recording. A -1/+1dB upward tilt of the frequency response helps. Using any more sounds artificial.

However these days I use gear which eschews tone controls - and I have to admit I don't miss them.

Not heard that name for years Barry. Peter Baxandall,s tone circuits won many plaudits.

[OD1]

My 1st system in 1979 had tone controls that I used at the same time with a 7 slider graphic equalizer, my dealer could not understand why I kept blowing the tweeters on my Wharfedale E50's !!!

I just loved the enhanced treble when listening to Lee Scratch Perry tunes :D

[Macca]

Pal of mine used to build reggae sound systems back in the late 1960s

We were listening to some dancehall round at my place one time and he wanted the top end dialled up a bit - he was horrified to learn that I had no tone controls.

[danilo]

Real Men / Real Audio Weenies.. Do Not have tone controls.. those are for newbies :lol:
Currently I'm thinking that Not having tone controls is the real affectation .
Reality, as long expounded by dr f toole, is that recordings are Mostly crap mixes.
Based on the outputs of whatever "monitor" speakers in the studio /control room. His view is that 90% of those are Laughable speakers..inadequate to purpose.
Monitor is the instant identifier of worthless/do not buy.. Yet Adverts sell it as advantage. Marketing ..always on the leading edge :rolleyes:
Ranting aside, resultant recording mixes.. are all over the map.
Consequently a decent set of Tone controls is Mandatory.
Adjusting sounds to make the Music listenable, for us pore sods on the receiving end..Is important.
I'm currently trying to deduce How to aquire /fit a decent Tone stack.
Far too many of My recordings require it.

[Macca]

I think the opposite which is that almost all professional recordings and mixes range from competent to very good. Mixing desk loudspeakers are there to make a mix with not to judge 'tone' or the overall feel of the recording. That's why most studios have a pair of good big 'uns somewhere to hand as well.

Laziness also plays a part in that I am not prepared to remix every album, or indeed every track to my own taste. Also you don't go to an art gallery and get your biro out to 'improve' the works on display. Accept it for what it is and take it or leave it on that basis is my philosophy.

[struth]

Most albums will be similar throughout, bar the odd track, is my finding. Some days my ears are different to last time I listened as well, but my TC's are pretty close to level mostly; maybe a slight tweak on some records, or some speakers for that matter. If its widely out then there is likely something wrong

[Arkless Electronics]

Real Men / Real Audio Weenies.. Do Not have tone controls.. those are for newbies :lol:
Currently I'm thinking that Not having tone controls is the real affectation .
Reality, as long expounded by dr f toole, is that recordings are Mostly crap mixes.
Based on the outputs of whatever "monitor" speakers in the studio /control room. His view is that 90% of those are Laughable speakers..inadequate to purpose.
Monitor is the instant identifier of worthless/do not buy.. Yet Adverts sell it as advantage. Marketing ..always on the leading edge :rolleyes:
Ranting aside, resultant recording mixes.. are all over the map.
Consequently a decent set of Tone controls is Mandatory.
Adjusting sounds to make the Music listenable, for us pore sods on the receiving end..Is important.
I'm currently trying to deduce How to aquire /fit a decent Tone stack.
Far too many of My recordings require it.

Sounds like you need a Cello Audio Palette.... cheap at half the price:D

[danilo]

well we disagree on this.. I thought similar re quality of Recordings.
The dr Toole lecture was a bit of an eye opener though.
Capable recording pros 'tune' their sounds to suit/compensate for their Studio Monitor's sounds and most significantly shortcomings.
Upward tilts to compensate for dull frequency limited monitors. Added bass bias where 6" cones can't deliver. Forward mids where the speaker has a weak output.
The engineers Are doing yeoman work.. unfortunately overworking to compensate for dross gear.
His position is that (again) 90% of those 'monitors' are inadequate to purpose... his testings suggesting that the typical studio monitors are V Poor performing speakers indeed.
Remember there is NO standard for Studio speaker performances.. Nada, None it's a free for all.
Small wonder that recordings are even as consistent as they are.. Not very.
This from the man who has done most to analyse/develop speaker testing methods than any one before him.
One cannot dismiss his views as trivial.

[danilo]

Sounds like you need a Cello Audio Palette.... cheap at half the price:D

No idea what that is tbh.
But anything that may suit needs is well worth considering.
Be so kind as to point me in that direction?
cheers .

[walpurgis]

Not sure how one would 'guess' compensation for inadequate monitor speakers. Surely it would be more realistic to use speakers that have a suitable balance and quality in the first place?

[Wakefield Turntables]

Contrary to popular believe they can be a good thing if they help YOU get the sound YOU want, screw everyone else.

[Macca]

I think I have seen the lecture you talk about although a while ago. Or maybe I am getting mixed up with one by Neve.

Obviously 'Monitor' is marketing bollocks, at best they are saying it has a flat anechoic response. Which in the real world of actually using the things in a room is nothing more than a technical benchmark.

Re the tone controls - Looking at the votes so far the majority either use them sometimes or miss having them.

[karma67]

maybe that why there's so many ditton 66's have been put up for sale over the last 3 months?

[Macca]

Why? What is the connection?

[Arkless Electronics]

Considering how many enthusiasts seem to want anything but accuracy I would have thought tone controls would be vastly more popular than they are...:sofa:

[karma67]

Obviously 'Monitor' is marketing bollocks, at best they are saying it has a flat anechoic response. Which in the real world of actually using the things in a room is nothing more than a technical benchmark.
.

:)

[Macca]

Considering how many enthusiasts seem to want anything but accuracy I would have thought tone controls would be vastly more popular than they are...:sofa:

Most want a good sound and don't care about accuracy. Which makes perfect sense. Unless you take the view that the 'good sound' is on the disc or the file and the only thing the kit does is screw it up to a greater or lesser degree.

if you are using tone controls to compensate for what you view as a weakness in the recording, as opposed to the kit, you won't subscribe to that.

[Macca]

:)

Oh I see. I'm personally a fan of the 66 and have thought about getting some on many an occasion. But not because they are 'monitors', because they are good. And cheap for what you get.

[Arkless Electronics]

Most want a good sound and don't care about accuracy. Which makes perfect sense. Unless you take the view that the 'good sound' is on the disc or the file and the only thing the kit does is screw it up to a greater or lesser degree.

if you are using tone controls to compensate for what you view as a weakness in the recording, as opposed to the kit, you won't subscribe to that.

Hence My saying that I'm surprised tone controls are not much more popular! Personally accuracy is everything and IMHO if this is not ones aim then ones aim is not hi fi.... All sorts of stuff can be made to sound "nice", "impressive" etc by use of tone controls/graphic EQ etc.
How often does one see op's starting with things like "can anyone recommend some speakers with plenty of bass weight" or "... with a subtle top end as I can't stand any harshness or brightness"... a simple tweak on the tone controls, sorted.

[struth]

If that's your claim to hifi folk and the rest are just music lovers then this place will either become very quiet due to lack of members or it'll need to be renamed

[Macca]

Hence My saying that I'm surprised tone controls are not much more popular! Personally accuracy is everything and IMHO if this is not ones aim then ones aim is not hi fi.... All sorts of stuff can be made to sound "nice", "impressive" etc by use of tone controls/graphic EQ etc.
How often does one see op's starting with things like "can anyone recommend some speakers with plenty of bass weight" or "... with a subtle top end as I can't stand any harshness or brightness"... a simple tweak on the tone controls, sorted.

That's because you can't fix that problem by just turning down the treble. Unless the speakers are crap or broken then the problem is further upstream but someone always recommends adjusting the toe-in or tissue paper over the tweeter. Which are/were the substitutes for not having tone controls on your hairshirt amp - and they didn't work either.

[r100]

On my HiFi I usually don't use the tone controls. Most of the time they are set to neutral or non existant depending on the pre amp in use. On the other hand I have a small Fender Mustang 1 guitar amplifier with a bunch of DSP circuits and a whole lot of tone controls and it is quite amazing how the sound can be shaped to whatever flavour is desired. As much as I like "the pure approach" in HIFI, it is impressive how good theses circuits can sound in a sub 200$ guitar amp (not considering the noisiness of such amps of course).

[Arkless Electronics]

If that's your claim to hifi folk and the rest are just music lovers then this place will either become very quiet due to lack of members or it'll need to be renamed

Look up the definition of hi fi ;)

[Arkless Electronics]

That's because you can't fix that problem by just turning down the treble. Unless the speakers are crap or broken then the problem is further upstream but someone always recommends adjusting the toe-in or tissue paper over the tweeter. Which are/were the substitutes for not having tone controls on your hairshirt amp - and they didn't work either.

I largely disagree with that... but know what you mean.

[walpurgis]

Oh I see. I'm personally a fan of the 66 and have thought about getting some on many an occasion. But not because they are 'monitors', because they are good. And cheap for what you get.

The Ditton 66 is not a 'monitor' speaker. It was not marketed as such. It was 'top of the range domestic'. Although I've no doubt some would have made it into studios.

[walpurgis]

Look up the definition of hi fi ;)

DIN 45500

[Barry]

Look up the definition of hi fi ;)

I have done - they're all vague and unhelpful. How would you define "hi fi"?

[Macca]

With the 'hi fi' thing it depends on how far you want to take it. One little tweak on the bass dial and it is no longer hi-fidelity? Nah, too extreme.

[walpurgis]

I have done - they're all vague and unhelpful. How would you define "hi fi"?

It's probably easier to judge when something is not Hi-Fi.

[karma67]

The Ditton 66 is not a 'monitor' speaker. It was not marketed as such. It was 'top of the range domestic'. Although I've no doubt some would have made it into studios.

i beg to differ,from their own sales burb

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj548/jamiecreig123/877426551_o_zps5pxrjwv7.jpg

any way moving on.....

[Macca]

The Ditton 66 is not a 'monitor' speaker. It was not marketed as such. It was 'top of the range domestic'. Although I've no doubt some would have made it into studios.

This Celestion advert from 1973 does list it as a 'studio monitor' along with the 44 as a 'monitor'. So I humbly beg to differ ;)

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Celestion+ditton+66+brochure&view=detailv2&qpvt=Celestion+ditton+66+brochure&id=47857DAF08C38FAEB11CE43E15036138CC52949E&selectedIndex=0&ccid=GKj3P2dF&simid=607993548583405375&thid=OIP.M18a8f73f6745b74ee76b5b017aee1d91o0&ajaxhist=0

[Macca]

LOL Jamie beat me to it.

[walpurgis]

I have the large Ditton 66 colour brochure with no mention of 'monitor' in it.

[Jimbo]

I miss my loudness button I used to have on a big old Sony receiver, sure did boost the lower frequencies through some Leak sandwich speakers ! :eek:

[Macca]

Interesting that they distinguish between 'monitor' and 'studio monitor' - and what about the rest of the range? Not any kind of 'monitor'. All nonsense really.

[Arkless Electronics]

I have done - they're all vague and unhelpful. How would you define "hi fi"?

Quads old slogan of "the closest approach to the original sound" sums it up nicely. What hi fi certainly isn't is "the sound you most like after messing with it".
Sure yer pays yer money and makes yer choices etc but if you've got speakers pushed into the corners to bring out the bass boom, a graphic Eq and a SET amp with 6% distortion then that's your choice and you may well love it but please don't call it hi fi cos it ain't!

[karma67]

LOL Jamie beat me to it.
ha ha 2 great minds....
im looking at my 66's now and it even says studio monitor on the badges!

[struth]

And remember it's only your opinion

Change a cable from the cheap ones that come with a lot of stuff and it's not hifi

Move your speakers in a way jez doesn't like it's not hifi
Geez a break man

[Barry]

Quads old slogan of "the closest approach to the original sound" sums it up nicely. What hi fi certainly isn't is "the sound you most like after messing with it".
Sure yer pays yer money and makes yer choices etc but if you've got speakers pushed into the corners to bring out the bass boom, a graphic Eq and a SET amp with 6% distortion then that's your choice and you may well love it but please don't call it hi fi cos it ain't!

As a big fan of Quad gear, I've always thought that "The closest approach to the original sound" was a neat and elegant marketing slogan. But it does beg the question "What is the original sound?" and how do you define (and quantify) what you mean by "closest"?

[Macca]

Well take a QUAD 303 - even in top spec there are clearly better power amplifiers out there. And the 33 pre amp can no way be classed as a straight wire with gain. It wasn't even the closest approach back then - if we are going to be all 'Jez' and absolutist about it. ;)

[Macca]

And the 'closest approach' in absolutist terms would be to replicate the exact studio kit for each recording, and the acoustic in which it was listened to. Good luck with that.

[Arkless Electronics]

I've had this argument more times than I care to remember and I ain't about to go round in circles again... Hi fi is about reproducing sound, usually music, in the most accurate and life like manner possible. It is not about making the sound as nice as possible to your own ears and preferences... that is something entirely different. If the eye was the judge it would be about the most accurate photo of something and not some impressionist art rendition of the same object, even if it looks more pleasing to your own eye.

[Macca]

I've had this argument more times than I care to remember and I ain't about to go round in circles again... Hi fi is about reproducing sound, usually music, in the most accurate and life like manner possible. It is not about making the sound as nice as possible to your own ears and preferences... that is something entirely different. If the eye was the judge it would be about the most accurate photo of something and not some impressionist art rendition of the same object.

I agree. But individual preferences as to what is 'accurate and life like' differ quite a bit I have noticed. We are re-playing a recording, that is all, and the theoretical perfect signal ends at the point that it enters the speakers in any case. So until someone comes up with some perfect speakers a tone control is a mere bagatelle.

[The Black Adder]

In a way, you could argue that the QUAD engineers back in the 60's would have known what's what. Let's face it, QUAD amps were used in Abbey Road as well as Decca to name just a couple of studios. And Pink Floyd's DSOTM was mastered through QUAD mono's and Tannoy Monitors.

So, I would trust and use some old, nicely maintained mono's as a benchmark sound. But yes, their slogan did beg the question.

[struth]

The whole point of a record is its mastered to sound the way the engineer and maybe the artist wanted it to sound. But it was heard by them on a system and a room that will be way different to what we may have. so playing it back in a dead level flat response system is unlikely to be how the wanted you to hear it. That is the crux, and no humming and hawing can change that. As we dont know what they used and dont have their room(or their ears for that matter) we are unlikely to replicate what they heard, so why try? set up your system to hear it the best it sounds to you(which is all the engineer did tbh)...job done. Thats my opinion and tbh Most of the folk I knows too. Gary has a superb set amp, and I am sure he thinks its hifi, as did the maker.

[struth]

In a way, you could argue that the QUAD engineers back in the 60's would have known what's what. Let's face it, QUAD amps were used in Abbey Road as well as Decca to name just a couple of studios. And Pink Floyd's DSOTM was mastered through QUAD mono's and Tannoy Monitors.

So, I would trust and use some old, nicely maintained mono's as a benchmark sound. But yes, their slogan did beg the question.

Precisely my point, so if you dont have quad amps and tannoy speakers like the ones in the studio then it aint gonna sound the same as original intentions

[Barry]

Precisely my point, so if you dont have quad amps and tannoy speakers like the ones in the studio then it aint gonna sound the same as original intentions

Nor will the acoustics of your listening room be the same as those of the studio mixing room etc. .......

[Jimbo]

Nor will the acoustics of your listening room be the same as those of the studio mixing room etc. .......

And the acoustics of the room will determine what you hear even more so than the equipment.

[struth]

Nor will the acoustics of your listening room be the same as those of the studio mixing room etc. .......

Maybe why some cheaper set ups sound so good. if music isnt mastered on flat response equ then its gonna sound poor being replayed on such. So do you accept this or do you tweak to make it sound better? like the engineer did ;)

[Audio Al]

I don't use them , some of my amps have them but I use the sauce direct button
Other amps don't have them at all :)

[struth]

I don't use them , some of my amps have them but I use the sauce direct button
Other amps don't have them at all :)

brown I hope :eyebrows:

[Audio Al]

brown I hope :eyebrows:

Nope , always chilli :)

[walpurgis]

No Ketchup? :D

[struth]

No Ketchup? :D

Satan's juice. Like a bit tof tomato myself at times; Branson do a nice one . Not the Balloon guy though :lol: or is it brandson?

[struth]

Nope , always chilli :)

have you tried Maggie's sweet chillie sauce Al? its really good

[realysm42]

No tone controls in my hardware to be seen. On my PC I use Dirac DRC and wouldn't be without it now. On some recordings it makes very little difference and on others, the stereo image literally 'snaps' into reality when on and falls to pieces when off.

This tool is more about the speakers interaction with the room than how each track is mastered. I measured the room, compensated for it and left it at that.

[OD1]

In 2012 I attended the Whittlebury Hall hi fi show, and while walking in the hallway between dem rooms I heard some music & my brain instantly recognised that it was live, even though some of the systems in the other rooms were very high end.

This got me thinking (yeh bad idea I know !), is something present in live music that our brains can detect, that is missing once recorded & played back :scratch:

That is when I decided to start tailoring my system to the sound that I like, rather than the highest fidelity I could afford.
So if Mr Croft decides to offer tone controls I would first in the queue I guess :eyebrows:

[Yomanze]

In 2012 I attended the Whittlebury Hall hi fi show, and while walking in the hallway between dem rooms I heard some music & my brain instantly recognised that it was live, even though some of the systems in the other rooms were very high end.

This got me thinking (yeh bad idea I know !), is something present in live music that our brains can detect, that is missing once recorded & played back :scratch:

That is when I decided to start tailoring my system to the sound that I like, rather than the highest fidelity I could afford.
So if Mr Croft decides to offer tone controls I would first in the queue I guess :eyebrows:

It's not necessarily absent with playback. Live albums indeed can have a much more 'real' ambiance about them & I very much enjoy the well-produced ones on my HiFi.

As for tone controls I've never used them.

[Macca]

So far 59% of 37 people are not interested in having tone controls. Including those using digital EQ and 'other'. I've set this up as an 'eternal' poll so it will stay open and hopefully we will get a bigger sample.

[paulf-2007]

I can take them or leave them, not bothered one way or the other. Don't have them in my main kit but the office set up of 1980's Akai has them but I have rarely needed to play with them. With my now sold active tri-amped set up I made a one off tone adjustment and left it at that.

[struth]

surprised its not been more tbh.

[Macca]

So what did you vote?

[struth]

have and use when I want to, or need to. Not a lot needed at moment but not averse to using

usually shows what you voted but this one doesnt... sorry it does in italics I was the first one

[RobbieGong]

Never thought i'd see the day I had a system without tone controls. Previous set up even had a separate equaliser on board. That all changed when I got the Sansui AU 919 Integrated amp - different league all together, an audiophile high fidelity amplifier in the true sense of the word that sounds sublime with tone defeat engaged ;)

[DSJR]

The Quad 33 tone controls and filters have been useful on one or two occasions, but the controls on the Crown IC150's are too vicious at too low and high a frequency for me to use. I do use the 'Panorama' control for headphone listening though, as it can narrow the image down to fit in one's head...

By the way chaps, all you people tube-rolling - what are you doing exactly? ;) Altering the 'tone' of your valve gear to suit your tastes perhaps... :)

[Marco]

Hence My saying that I'm surprised tone controls are not much more popular! Personally accuracy is everything and IMHO if this is not ones aim then ones aim is not hi fi....

Yes, but define "accuracy" in relation to the noise emitting from your speakers best representing that created by a real musical instrument ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

By the way chaps, all you people tube-rolling - what are you doing exactly? ;) Altering the 'tone' of your valve gear to suit your tastes perhaps... :)

The differences in valves can be equated to those between DACs or cables. In their application, they each (allegedly) do the same job, but the effect on the resulting sound will vary (as you know full well Dave :D)

By the way, are you using an IC150? I had one years ago and found it a bit coarse at the top. I much preferred the Quantum I also had at the time.

[Macca]

Yes, but define "accuracy" in relation to the noise emitting from your speakers best representing that created by a real musical instrument ;)

Marco.

Hi-fi in it's purest definition is about fidelity to the recording, not the instruments in the recordings. A subtle but important difference.

[struth]

Bollocks ;). Its about hearing the music the way the engineer heard it

[Marco]

Hi-fi, for me, is about achieving a sound, as emitted from my loudspeakers, that *I* (based on my judgement criteria) consider best represents that of real instruments and voices (presuming that's what the recording I'm listening to was created for), and as such is enjoyable to listen to, not generating some artificial notion of 'accuracy', based on a readout on test equipment.

Leave that bit to the designers. Once he or she is happy that the equipment they've produced is 'accurate', I'll let my ears be the judge of that in my system, and make adjustments if necessary!! ;)

Oh, and even though I'm not a fan of tone controls (and never use them), if it takes the use of them to achieve what I've outlined above, then carry right on ahead....

At the end of the day, the job of a hi-fi system is to provide enjoyment and listening pleasure for the listener, with his or her favourite music, not to mimic a sound based on some arbitrary notion of 'accuracy'.

Marco.

[Marco]

The differences in valves can be equated to those between DACs or cables. In their application, they each (allegedly) do the same job, but the effect on the resulting sound will vary (as you know full well Dave :D)


Indeed...

As I've just posted, if the sound produced by a piece of audio equipment, deemed as 'accurate' by the designer, doesn't sound 'accurate' (or correct/enjoyable) to the LISTENER (the most important person in the whole equation), then he or she is perfectly entitled to alter that sound, via any available means, including tube rolling or using tone controls, in order to rectify the matter to their satisfaction.

The point is, in the final analysis, when judging the musical output of a hi-fi system, who's to say what best represents as 'accurate'? In that respect, is the judgement of the person who built the equipment necessarily any better than yours? I think not....

Moreover, how can the designer know what influence the partnering components, contained in your system, or that of the room itself, has on the equipment they've designed, and its original 'accuracy'?

It's rather like going into a restaurant, ordering a fish pie, and when it comes to the table, seasoning it to your tastes by adding more salt and pepper, over and above what the chef had already applied in the kitchen, which he'd considered as 'perfect'...

Whose taste buds are necessarily the more 'accurate' or 'correct': yours or the chef's? Above all, who has to eat (and enjoy) the dish?? ;)

And so it is with hi-fi (at end user level)......... Let the designers worry about 'accuracy', and if you disagree with their notion of that in the final analysis, add some 'salt and pepper' to taste!

Simples :)

It certainly won't automatically result in a less 'accurate' sound - how could it, since so many parameters have changed (in terms of the influence of the user's partnering components) since the designer measured the equipment concerned on his or her test bench? It would merely be different, and subjectively better or worse, according to the listener.

At the end of the day, we're judging SYSTEMS, not individual components!

Now if the equipment designer was adopting that approach from the off, and playing around with 'flavours', rather than sticking strictly to what he or she considered was 'accurate', and measured as such, then that would be a different matter...............

I trust that one can see why different rules apply in both situations.

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Hi-fi in it's purest definition is about fidelity to the recording, not the instruments in the recordings. A subtle but important difference.

Yes that's a good point Martin, in terms of the playback side anyway.

[Arkless Electronics]

The Quad 33 tone controls and filters have been useful on one or two occasions, but the controls on the Crown IC150's are too vicious at too low and high a frequency for me to use. I do use the 'Panorama' control for headphone listening though, as it can narrow the image down to fit in one's head...

By the way chaps, all you people tube-rolling - what are you doing exactly? ;) Altering the 'tone' of your valve gear to suit your tastes perhaps... :)

I would expect the IC-150 to be transformed by some modern op-amps etc ;)

[Marco]

Yes that's a good point Martin, in terms of the playback side anyway.

Absolutely, but since none of us are privy to the fidelity of that recording in its purest state (i.e when it left the studio before being adulterated by the sonic signature of playback equipment), we cannot realistically use it as an arbiter for 'accuracy'.

Instead, all we can do is judge the final sound that emits from our speakers, and in that respect, whether a guitar sounds like a guitar, or a piano like a piano - or even if we enjoy the sound produced as a whole - and if it doesn't (or we don't), most of us will make suitable adjustments until it does (or we do) ;)

And that's where tube rolling, internal component changes or even cable swapping can have a beneficial influence. As music lovers and audio enthusiasts (not equipment designers), nothing is ever considered as 'right'/'accurate' until *our ears* deem it as such.

At the end of the day, for us, that's all that matters. 'Scientific facts' and/or measurements are of little importance :)

Marco.

[DSJR]

The differences in valves can be equated to those between DACs or cables. In their application, they each (allegedly) do the same job, but the effect on the resulting sound will vary (as you know full well Dave :D)

By the way, are you using an IC150? I had one years ago and found it a bit coarse at the top. I much preferred the Quantum I also had at the time.


I have inherited TWO IC-150's, one drives the amp downstairs (currently the insensitive Krell as I need to give it some use before I consider moving it on) and the other my headphone rig in the workroom. In stock form, and now over three samples as manufactured (hifi dave's is the third and we compared it at length to a Croft Micro 25 and 25R) I found myself in further comparisons here that the sound off the output sockets is the same tonally as the input and the only 'flaw' these days in 'as supplied' units is a slight flattening of dynamics, a kind of 'sat-on' quality. No harshness, or roughness of any kind unless it's there in the input... The phono stage is something special I found - I'm very happy with it anyway...

Crown recommended the gain on the power amps to be turned down and the preamp run almost flat out 'for lowest noise and distortion' but see below...

These days (confirmed in the Ken Rockwell review if anyone's interested), a pair of modern op-amps (I used OPA134's and slightly reset the rail voltages which are adjustable) sorts out clarity at very low volumes but also, the four 1uF tantalum caps in the signal path need to be replaced in my opinion, although it's a royal pain to do. I currently have Nichicon FG's doing the job and all I can say *now* is that driving less sensitive power amps (than the NVA's), the IC-150's I have are practically as benign on the music as my passive NVA unit, with nothing of note added or taken away, for me at least.

I have to say that in the late 70's, I believe the move went away from benign audio items to non-adjustable ones with character aplenty. In the US, the once respected Crown-style preamps seemingly gave way to coloured, soft-n-soggy sounding (IME) valve products (CJ and ARC are two such brands I'm familiar with) and I remember the all-IC Rappaport preamp (flavour of a few months in 1977) being soft and smooth/bland toned. Put that in a sympathetic stereo set and compare with the IC-150 and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Crown wasn't found to be harsh...

[Marco]

Hi Dave,

How would you say the Crown compares with the NVA amps you've heard and/or built? :)

Does the Crown sound more 'transistory', as I suspect it might?

Marco.

[Macca]

Absolutely, but since none of us are privy to the fidelity of that recording in its purest state (i.e when it left the studio before being adulterated by the sonic signature of playback equipment), we cannot realistically use it as an arbiter for 'accuracy'.

.

But the finished recording is our starting point. The fidelity of the recording to the actual performance is irrelevant. Boston 'Third Stage' (for example) has guitars that sound like violins. So where do you go from there?

My view is that for playback we need only concern ourselves with minimising noise and distortion in the playback chain. Obviously this dos not preclude the use of tone controls. Attempting to do anything else with playback (like adding 'good' distortion) is a fool's errand, and you end up with a playback system that sounds fantastic with some recordings and makes others unlistenable.

[DSJR]

Hi Dave,

How would you say the Crown compares with the NVA amps you've heard and/or built?

Does the Crown sound more 'transistory', as I suspect?

Marco.




They sound surprisingly similar to each other with a good apparent purity of tone and both involve me in the music deeply. The Crowns do not sound as you suspect because they were not designed for powerful PA use - they had other models for this and back then, the 'D' series were studio monitoring amps, mine in non-bridged form being used for headphones I understand, as brick-walled 40W wasn't enough for loud monitors, even JBL's, which were usually used with DC300A's. That's as honest an answer as I can give you! I LOVE this series of Crown D series very much and am happy to use them almost daily, making sure that amps I make up come to this standard at least - I'm shocked I can speak of both ranges in the same breath, frankly, although others would disagree possibly. The Krell, even warmed up and to a lesser extent, the HH I was given, sound far more 'transistory' if my definition of your adjective is correct and there's a slight 'flatness' about them in comparison.

[Marco]

Interesting, and fair do's... I thought that the NVA might sound more 'musical', given how the designer is known for 'voicing'/building his components in an (arguably) unique way :)

Marco.

[Marco]

But the finished recording is our starting point. The fidelity of the recording to the actual performance is irrelevant. Boston 'Third Stage' (for example) has guitars that sound like violins. So where do you go from there?


I guess listen to it 'as is' or attempt to 'improve' the sound in a way you consider as being beneficial/more enjoyable/more 'accurate' [delete as applicable]. The fact is, in doing so (as none of us has access to the full and unhindered fidelity of the original recording), you *could* be successful in achieving the latter, as well as the former.

I mean, for example, who's to know how much or how little the guitars should 'sound like violins'? ;)


My view is that for playback we need only concern ourselves with minimising noise and distortion in the playback chain. Obviously this dos not preclude the use of tone controls. Attempting to do anything else with playback (like adding 'good' distortion) is a fool's errand, and you end up with a playback system that sounds fantastic with some recordings and makes others unlistenable.

I know where you're coming from, and to an extent agree. However, for me, the real "fool's errand", as an end user of equipment, is to get too wrapped up in the notion of 'accuracy'. Far better instead to concentrate on that which sounds most enjoyable and/or seems more realistic to YOUR EARS.

That's what I do - and as you know have succeeded to assemble a rather good system :)

The interesting thing is that, in terms of minimising noise and distortion, my love of valves and vinyl doesn't seem to have marred the results I've achieved too much!! So what does that tell you? ;)

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

I have a couple of DC-300A's and wouldn't describe as being anything special overall.... Fantastic bass but everything gets grainier as the frequency goes up. They can sound great on something that requires mainly lots of power and teutonic bass control but it all falls apart on some other materiel.
The phono section of the IC-150 is all discrete and looks like it should sound good btw.

[Marco]

I have a couple of DC-300A's and wouldn't describe as being anything special overall.... Fantastic bass but everything gets grainier as the frequency goes up. They can sound great on something that requires mainly lots of power and teutonic bass control but it all falls apart on some other materiel.


I can't comment on the unit Dave's got, but that's certainly my opinion of any 'professional' SS amps I've heard to date, in comparison with the best ones, produced by bespoke/specialist companies, such as yourself :)

That's why I'd have expected NVA amps to have been notably better, certainly sonically, than anything Crown could make.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

I remember the all-IC Rappaport preamp (flavour of a few months in 1977) being soft and smooth/bland toned.

My Rappaport Pre2 was far from soft, smooth and bland. I found it very lucid and open, with a nice tight bottom end, just the very vaguest hint of forwardness at the extreme top. It was good enough for me to keep for twenty years, driving an Audio Concepts 'Legend' P300 power amp. Excellent combo those two!

[Arkless Electronics]

I can't comment on the unit Dave's got, but that's certainly my opinion of any 'professional' SS amps I've heard to date, in comparison with the best ones, produced by bespoke/specialist companies, such as yourself :)

That's why I'd have expected NVA amps to have been notably better, certainly sonically, than anything Crown could make.

Marco.

Whilst it was a professional amp it wasn't aimed specifically at PA use etc but was intended as just a very powerful and accurate (and expensive!!) amplifier for any application that required these properties, industrial use as a shaker table amp, for monitoring in recording studios, sound reinforcement and yes it was also sold as being an "ultimate" home hi fi amp for the well heeled (it was probably around £5K+ in todays money in its early days!). It is the only power amp to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
A mate of mine uses (haven't seen him for a few years so maybe not now) one to drive IMF RSPM's

[Arkless Electronics]

My Rappaport Pre2 was far from soft, smooth and bland. I found it very lucid and open, with a nice tight bottom end, just the very vaguest hint of forwardness at the extreme top. It was good enough for me to keep for twenty years, driving an Audio Concepts 'Legend' P300 power amp. Excellent combo those two!

I remember those well from Harrogate shows back in the day, with the C10 pre amp. I've still got a brochure I believe! I've never seen one apart from at hi fi shows though... good to know they sold some!

[DSJR]

Interesting, and fair do's... I thought that the NVA might sound more 'musical', given how the designer is known for 'voicing'/building his components in an (arguably) unique way :)

Marco.

The NVA range does sound more musical, open, pure and 'honest' than almost anything out there for sensible money, even taking LS2 speaker cables (at least) into account and I firmly believe there's little to touch them at the price for getting the listener instantly and deeply involved in the reproduced music. I heard a newish Rega Elicit on Thursday, which was powered playing music all day and great as it undoubtedly is, I stand by my feelings.

I've never ever said it was the 'only' amp range to do this and these old D series are also bombproof and very well protected in case of failure, the replacement Power Line models too, the last to use this particular circuit overall I believe. If there's a 'sound' at all, it could be said to be very slightly 'creamy' at very high frequencies, but not as 'encased in velvet' as well warmed-up Quads are, in my opinion. They're very old now and so many have been caned to death. Amazing they still work, let alone as well as they can do still. Critical components were selected and matched and this may have something to do with it for all I know. For their time, something very special and there were only three UK dealers in the early to mid 70's, London had REW, KJ were then only in Watford ;) and a dealer in Sheffield I think. Nobody else sold them domestically back then as they were hugely expensive for the times.

[Marco]

Whilst it was a professional amp it wasn't aimed specifically at PA use etc but was intended as just a very powerful and accurate (and expensive!!) amplifier for any application that required these properties, industrial use as a shaker table amp, for monitoring in recording studios, sound reinforcement and yes it was also sold as being an "ultimate" home hi fi amp for the well heeled (it was probably around £5K+ in todays money in its early days!). It is the only power amp to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!
A mate of mine uses (haven't seen him for a few years so maybe not now) one to drive IMF RSPM's

Yet, according to you, they don't sound like anything special (also "grainy") - if it's the Crowns you're talking about? I don't give a monkey's bollocks how 'accurate', expensive, 'ultimate' or 'desirable' any piece of equipment is. If it doesn't sound good, to my ears, when reproducing recorded music, then it's not fit for purpose!

:exactly:

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

The NVA range does sound more musical, open, pure and 'honest' than almost anything out there for sensible money, even taking LS2 speaker cables (at least) into account and I firmly believe there's little to touch them at the price for getting the listener instantly and deeply involved in the reproduced music. I heard a newish Rega Elicit on Thursday, which was powered playing music all day and great as it undoubtedly is, I stand by my feelings.

I've never ever said it was the 'only' amp range to do this and these old D series are also bombproof and very well protected in case of failure, the replacement Power Line models too, the last to use this particular circuit overall I believe. If there's a 'sound' at all, it could be said to be very slightly 'creamy' at very high frequencies, but not as 'encased in velvet' as well warmed-up Quads are, in my opinion. They're very old now and so many have been caned to death. Amazing they still work, let alone as well as they can do still. Critical components were selected and matched and this may have something to do with it for all I know. For their time, something very special and there were only three UK dealers in the early to mid 70's, London had REW, KJ were then only in Watford ;) and a dealer in Sheffield I think. Nobody else sold them domestically back then as they were hugely expensive for the times.

If they go wrong they have an unfortunate habit of taking out the speakers with them!

[DSJR]

My Rappaport Pre2 was far from soft, smooth and bland. I found it very lucid and open, with a nice tight bottom end, just the very vaguest hint of forwardness at the extreme top. It was good enough for me to keep for twenty years, driving an Audio Concepts 'Legend' P300 power amp. Excellent combo those two!

You have the advantage over me Geoff, as I only heard it in the shop on dem forty years ago, so it probably wasn't matched as well as you were able to get it and I never tried it at home. We only ever sold one or two, as I believe it was gone fairly quickly. Had the IC-150's been sub standard here for my needs, I'd have banished them to the loft and probably sold them on eventually, but I had two established references here until just recently, as well as a Quad 33 I updated, so I hope I'm not too way off in my description. As said above, they're old and the special volume pots cannot be got when they wear out (you have to faff in fitting an attenuator and hard wiring it to the frail main board as there are extra tappings used).

The pic below is the stuff of nightmares, even to me right now as I've not had the opportunity to play it for long periods. A very interesting and for me, a low cost stop-gap on my way onwards and upwards (downwards probably in my case ;))

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/DSJR_photos/DSCF0236_zpsjymo9ff6.jpg (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/DSJR_photos/media/DSCF0236_zpsjymo9ff6.jpg.html)

[walpurgis]

I remember those well from Harrogate shows back in the day, with the C10 pre amp. I've still got a brochure I believe! I've never seen one apart from at hi fi shows though... good to know they sold some!

I had the C10 pre-amp with my P300, bought the pair of ex-review examples, as new. Didn't think a lot of the pre. The Rappaport was in a different league.

I still have the brochure too, which also shows their incredibly rare KEF based big active studio monitor, which used a mono version of the P300 power amp in each.

[Arkless Electronics]

I had the C10 pre-amp with my P300, bought the pair of ex-review examples, as new. Didn't think a lot of the pre. The Rappaport was in a different league.

I still have the brochure too, which also shows their incredibly rare KEF based big active studio monitor, which used a mono version of the P300 power amp in each.

Ah yes the mighty KM1's :eek: (think crocodile dundee and "call that a speaker""....) If I'm thinking of the right ones here as the KM1's had much more power and amplification than that... 1200W per speaker rings a bell...

The C10 was a bog standard op amp jobby IIRC.

[Arkless Electronics]

Just googled KM1's and found "Internal Amplifiers: 4 x 100W (bass), 2 x 350W (midrange), 1 x 400W (treble)" This is per speaker and they have 4 x 12" woofers per side!
I remember it said somewhere that they could prevent a studio door being opened due to the bass SPL...

[Barry]

Indeed...

As I've just posted, if the sound produced by a piece of audio equipment, deemed as 'accurate' by the designer, doesn't sound 'accurate' (or correct/enjoyable) to the LISTENER (the most important person in the whole equation), then he or she is perfectly entitled to alter that sound, via any available means, including tube rolling or using tone controls, in order to rectify the matter to their satisfaction.

The point is, in the final analysis, when judging the musical output of a hi-fi system, who's to say what best represents as 'accurate'? In that respect, is the judgement of the person who built the equipment necessarily any better than yours? I think not....

Moreover, how can the designer know what influence the partnering components, contained in your system, or that of the room itself, has on the equipment they've designed, and its original 'accuracy'?

It's rather like going into a restaurant, ordering a fish pie, and when it comes to the table, seasoning it to your tastes by adding more salt and pepper, over and above what the chef had already applied in the kitchen, which he'd considered as 'perfect'...

Whose taste buds are necessarily the more 'accurate' or 'correct': yours or the chef's? Above all, who has to eat (and enjoy) the dish?? ;)

And so it is with hi-fi (at end user level)......... Let the designers worry about 'accuracy', and if you disagree with their notion of that in the final analysis, add some 'salt and pepper' to taste!

Simples :)

It certainly won't automatically result in a less 'accurate' sound - how could it, since so many parameters have changed (in terms of the influence of the user's partnering components) since the designer measured the equipment concerned on his or her test bench? It would merely be different, and subjectively better or worse, according to the listener.

At the end of the day, we're judging SYSTEMS, not individual components!

Now if the equipment designer was adopting that approach from the off, and playing around with 'flavours', rather than sticking strictly to what he or she considered was 'accurate', and measured as such, then that would be a different matter...............

I trust that one can see why different rules apply in both situations.

Marco.

To a point I would agree, but what would the chef think if something they had spent time on, balancing the herbs and spices, ended up with the customer pouring brown sauce or tomato ketchup over it, because in their opinion it tasted better?

Tone controls (of the Baxandall type) are really too crude to be useful. With some recordings a very small amount of lift or cut may be useful, but any more than about 2dB sounds artificial. The only 'tone controls' I have found to be of any benefit are the 'tilt' type as used on the Quad 34 and 44 preamps. I have found a -1/+1dB upward tilt to help a couple of rather "thick" recordings I have, but those are the only instances where I have used them. Most of the time the tone controls are in cancel or by-pass mode, or as with my current preamps, not there at all.

I think one can become a bit too po-faced and purist about the use of tone controls. Yes they introduce additional circuitry, can bugger up the phase response if the slopes are too steep, but if it means turning an unlistenable recording into something that one can enjoy - then so be it.

In an ideal world, all the components of an audio system would be tonally neutral or flat - with no emphasis of any part of the frequency spectrum. Sadly we live in the real world when components are not neccessarily flat (transducers especially), so it make sense to partner pick-up cartridges with speakers so that the deviations of each (albeit small, hopefully) are cancelled as best as they can.

[Arkless Electronics]

To a point I would agree, but what would the chef think if something they had spent time on, balancing the herbs and spices, ended up with the customer pouring brown sauce or tomato ketchup over it, because in their opinion it tasted better?

Tone controls (of the Baxandall type) are really too crude to be useful. With some recordings a very small amount of lift or cut may be useful, but any more than about 2dB sounds artificial. The only 'tone controls' I have found to be of any benefit are the 'tilt' type as used on the Quad 34 and 44 preamps. I have found a -1/+1dB upward tilt to help a couple of rather "thick" recordings I have, but those are the only instances where I have used them. Most of the time the tone controls are in cancel or by-pass mode, or as with my current preamps, not there at all.

I think one can become a bit too po-faced and purist about the use of tone controls. Yes they introduce additional circuitry, can bugger up the phase response if the slopes are too steep, but if it means turning an unlistenable recording into something that one can enjoy - then so be it.

In an ideal world, all the components of an audio system would be tonally neutral or flat - with no emphasis of any part of the frequency spectrum. Sadly we live in the real world when components are not neccessarily flat (transducers especially), so it make sense to partner pick-up cartridges with speakers so that the deviations of each (albeit small, hopefully) are cancelled as best as they can.

like Barry says.

Too much brown sauce... yeah I'm sure many of us will have heard systems where there is maybe bugger all bass and a top end that could brake glass from 10 paces... or the opposite, and other variations. Usually this is due to excessive use of tone controls/EQ or unfortunate choice and use of fairly "out there" equipment and there is no way it could be described as in anyway realistic or life like. We all hear real life sounds of voices, background noises, live music sometimes if we are lucky, on a daily basis so instinctively know what sounds real by a process of continuous calibration of our ears. Just as eg we know how green a grass field looks cos we see them everyday and so can tell if the colour is too high or low on the telly when watching countryfile or footy...

[Marco]

To a point I would agree, but what would the chef think if something they had spent time on, balancing the herbs and spices, ended up with the customer pouring brown sauce or tomato ketchup over it, because in their opinion it tasted better?


Lol.... Well, as they say, the customer is always right - or rather they're entitled to enjoy (to maximum effect) what they're paying for, so if adding brown sauce or ketchup to the recipe delivers that experience best, then so be it! I might talk about them in the kitchen, though ;)

And it's exactly the same with the use of tone controls in a hi-fi system: at the end of the day, it's about what works best for the user and what pleases his or her ears - nothing else matters.

The main point I'm making, however, is that I believe its largely a "fool's errand" for an end user of equipment to fret over notions of 'accuracy'. Leave that to the designers, or 'measurists', who get turned on by such things.

All I care about is how good/realistic my favourite music sounds, based on *my* judgement criteria, no-one else's - least of all that of an inanimate object [a piece of measurement apparatus] :)

Marco.

[Barry]

The secret of course is not to have sauce bottles on the table. I have frequented many top-notch restaurants in my time, and in some even the condiments were absent from the table - and quite right too.

[Marco]

You don't get 'condiments' on the tables of any genuinely top restaurants, and like you I've been to a few; merely some salt and pepper, if you're lucky! :)

For me, a restaurant is a business, like any other, and that means it must make money. In that respect, I'd rather have a dining room full of happy brown sauce-users (if they asked for it), than one full of disgruntled customers, unlikely to return, because you're trying to tell them how they should or shouldn't eat ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Just googled KM1's and found "Internal Amplifiers: 4 x 100W (bass), 2 x 350W (midrange), 1 x 400W (treble)" This is per speaker and they have 4 x 12" woofers per side!
I remember it said somewhere that they could prevent a studio door being opened due to the bass SPL...

Ah, well there you go. My recollection is hazy. I've not even looked at the brochure/handbook for years.

[walpurgis]

Too much brown sauce... yeah I'm sure many of us will have heard systems where there is maybe bugger all bass and a top end that could brake glass from 10 paces... or the opposite, and other variations. Usually this is due to excessive use of tone controls/EQ or unfortunate choice and use of fairly "out there" equipment and there is no way it could be described as in anyway realistic or life like.

Like all the gormless dipsticks around here, who drive around in their cars with widows open and the 600 watt ICE volume turned up as far is it goes and bass set 100db higher than anything else.

[Arkless Electronics]

Ah, well there you go. My recollection is hazy. I've not even looked at the brochure/handbook for years.

Neither have I, It's perfectly feasible that there are other KEF monitors that used the Legend amp of course and we're talking about different speakers;)

[Barry]

You don't get 'condiments' on the tables of any genuinely top restaurants, and like you I've been to a few; merely some salt and pepper, if you're lucky! :)

For me, a restaurant is a business, like any other, and that means it must make money. In that respect, I'd rather have a dining room full of happy brown sauce-users (if they asked for it), than one full of disgruntled customers, unlikely to return, because you're trying to tell them how they should or shouldn't eat ;)

Marco.

But I go to top class restaurants precisely because of the reputation of their cusine. As such, it shouldn't need even the addition of salt or pepper.

[Barry]

Like all the gormless dipsticks around here, who drive around in their cars with widows open and the 600 watt ICE volume turned up as far is it goes and bass set 100db higher than anything else.

I thought the "100dB bass" was created by a midget trapped in the boot and desperately hammering on the lid to be let out!

[Marco]

But I go to top class restaurants precisely because of the reputation of their cusine. As such, it shouldn't need even the addition of salt or pepper.

That's fine, but what if you just like it that way? The chef and restaurant management exist to please/serve YOU, not the other way round!

Also, what is deemed as 'top-class cuisine' or a 'top-class restaurant' is as subjective, I guess, as what is considered as 'top-class hi-fi'... I go to top-class restaurants (on special occasions) because I enjoy the cuisine and/or ambience/standard of service/decor of the establishment concerned.

However, as a paying customer the most important taste buds to please are mine, not those of the chef, and so if I choose to add salt or pepper to one of the dishes presented to me, because I feel that it needs it, or I just want extra salt and pepper, then so be it.

I most certainly don't expect, and indeed would be utterly appalled, at being snootily told no, and how I should eat my food instead! In reality, however, 99% of the time I add nothing, as it's simply not necessary.

If I were the chef, though, I'd be far more interested in keeping customers happy, than massaging my ego... The same could also be said of some audio designers, who mistakenly are too wrapped up in their own self-importance to properly consider and/or satisfy the desires of their customers, and suffer the consequences accordingly ;)

I'm afraid that I don't buy into the notion of 'the chef always knows best' any more than I do 'the audio designer always knows best'.... Ultimately, it's about getting what *I* want most out of the experience, whether eating food or listening to music on my hi-fi system.

Marco.

[struth]

But I go to top class restaurants precisely because of the reputation of their cusine. As such, it shouldn't need even the addition of salt or pepper.

Chefs...bah. I'd rather cook for myself, and enjoy it than give those self important gits the pleasure of poisoning me and emptying my wallet ;)

[walpurgis]

Chefs...bah. I'd rather cook for myself, and enjoy it than give those self important gits the pleasure of poisoning me and emptying my wallet ;)

:lol:

[Arkless Electronics]

My brothers a top chef so when he lived in that London and was executive chef of The OXO Tower it was a good perk to be able to eat free there! :eyebrows:
Twat emigrated to Oz so no more free grub now.....

[Marco]

Chefs...bah. I'd rather cook for myself, and enjoy it than give those self important gits the pleasure of poisoning me and emptying my wallet ;)

Indeed. However, a few of them are talented enough to be (sometimes) worth it.

Unlike some, however, I'm certainly not frequenting their establishment to be in 'awe' of them or to massage their ego... While I'm the customer, and putting money into their pockets, I'M THE 'BOSS', and they're MY 'bitches', so they exist to pander to my (reasonable) desires, not vice versa! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[Idlewithnodrive]

A very small, very difficult room, speakers I absolutely adore (but that can be a bit bass heavy on bass heavy tracks), a penchant for heavy / psych music, a fair few less than ideal recordings, together with a pre which I love for its tilt tone controls (although I had the phono card modified) and the answer becomes glaringly obvious.

So, a big :thumbsup: for tone controls from me.

[Arkless Electronics]

Heres my take on this based on donkeys of experience etc.... If the sound you hear changes dramatically with the recording you are playing then it's probably about right... Does it always "sound like your hi fi" or does it more reflect the sound of the recording???

Another major issue is replay volume. A really good hi fi will not sound really good at low volume. Why? Because of the nature of human hearing. If it sounds really impressive, full, "filled out" and dynamic at low volume then it is probably pretty coloured with a "loudness curve " type response and will sound really bloaty, farty, "big radio gram" if played at fairly realistic volumes... of course this is what suits some people as many can't play it at much louder than they would the TV for WAF/kids/ etc and may be well happy that its that way.... it makes it sound as nice as possible at the volume you're allowed like that :doh: No problem :) But just saying....

[Marco]

Heres my take on this based on donkeys of experience etc.... If the sound you hear changes dramatically with the recording you are playing then it's probably about right... Does it always "sound like your hi fi" or does it more reflect the sound of the recording???


I like that one :)


Another major issue is replay volume. A really good hi fi will not sound really good at low volume. Why? Because of the nature of human hearing. If it sounds really impressive, full, "filled out" and dynamic at low volume then it is probably pretty coloured with a "loudness curve " type response and will sound really bloaty, farty, "big radio gram" if played at fairly realistic volumes...

I think that's also a valid point, but not necessarily always due to what you're referring to. Other systems and mine sound great at low volume, simply because they contain high-efficiency speakers, which don't need driving hard to 'come alive', coupled with (fairly) powerful amps, and a healthy gain structure.

Therefore, late at night when the ambient noise level is low, I can fill my room with sound, using position one on the volume control of my preamp - and if I turn the volume up further, the music just gets progressively 'bigger' sounding, and more 'real', in a thrillingly effortless way, much the same as one experiences when driving fast on a motorway in a car with a big engine, with plenty of reserves of power! :eyebrows:

Coincidentally, I've also noticed that when my system is played loudly (with sound pressure levels measured at say 90db+), I can still hold a conversation, quite easily, with other people in the room.... In my experience, that's a major quality of using big speakers, capable of shifting air cleanly, without stress.

Marco.

[Firebottle]

I can still hold a conversation, quite easily, with other people in the room.....

I think that is possibly person dependent, I find that the loudest 'noise' tends to mask those at lower volumes.

I've always found it a bit difficult to hear what people say in the presence of loud music.

:)

[Marco]

Yeah, sure. What I'm describing, though, I believe is symptomatic of when music is reproduced loudly (at what one could call 'realistic levels'), but cleanly, rather than when, say, a pair of 'weeny-boy WAF appeasers' are being driven beyond their capabilities, into audible distortion - and it's that 'noise' which hurts your ears more than necessarily the loudness level of the music itself.

You've been in my room, so when there's three people sat on the sofa, I can talk to others beside me without any issue, despite Rammstein being pumped out at near 'gig-like' levels :hairmetal: :fingers: :eyebrows:

It's that sense of 'effortlessness', and lack of strain, that I love about my system and others like it :)

Marco.

[technobear]

I doubt I will ever again buy an amp without some form of tone control.

The XBASS controls on the iCAN are brilliant.

Must be analogue though. DSP screws up the timing and dynamics and reduces musicality.

[Gordon Steadman]

I think that is possibly person dependent, I find that the loudest 'noise' tends to mask those at lower volumes.

I've always found it a bit difficult to hear what people say in the presence of loud music.

:)

I can't hear what people are saying even when the music isn't playing:lol:

[WAD62]

These were the last tone controls I ever had, and I didn't use them then...JVC A-S5 from about '77 ish ;)

[Macca]

Last amp I had with tone controls was a big Rotel that had a 'tilt' type system like QUAD have. That's almost fifteen years ago now. Got rid of it because it couldn't drive my speakers properly regardless of what setting I used on the tilt.

[YNWaN]

Tone controls as they are normally thought of, bass and treble knobs, do nothing of value except modify the sound in the most heavy handed manner.

[Arkless Electronics]

A separate very high quality tone control unit is certainly possible and could be of the Quad Tilt type or even a parametric EQ. This could go in a tape loop or between pre and power amp or between line level source and pre amp.

[walpurgis]

Tone controls as they are normally thought of, bass and treble knobs, do nothing of value except modify the sound in the most heavy handed manner.

I agree.

Most people have no concept of 'correct sound'. Not that any Hi-Fi system truly delivers this. Getting to where one understands how things should sound and achieving a close approach to something resembling reality, has a learning curve.

[Marco]

Tone controls as they are normally thought of, bass and treble knobs, do nothing of value except modify the sound in the most heavy handed manner.

I'm not a fan either, and haven't used tone controls for years, but for me the whole point of owning a hi-fi system is to listen to music, and if the listener (for whatever reason) prefers the sound with boosted or defeated bass or treble, which subsequently results in them enjoying their music more, then no 'sin' has been committed! ;)

Marco.

[YNWaN]

Not long ago I listened to a system where the owner had set it up so that the speakers faced the rear corners of the room rather than facing the listener - presumably this gave him enjoyment and, as you say, who are we to argue ;).

[Marco]

Indeed, rather like consenting adults, when it comes to sex! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[YNWaN]

Usually basic system setup like using speakers on rigid stands the correct height and the positioning of said speakers relative to wall boundaries (also adjusting speaker 'toe in') will address all the needs that simple tone controls can achieve - and without the negative side effects.

Edit: for reference, I wouldn't recommend pointing the speakers away from you to the rear corners of the room......

[Barry]

Usually basic system setup like using speakers on rigid stands the correct height and the positioning of said speakers relative to wall boundaries (also adjusting speaker 'toe in') will address all the needs that simple tone controls can achieve - and without the negative side effects.

Edit: for reference, I wouldn't recommend pointing the speakers away from you to the rear corners of the room......

But that's how Jimmy Hughes liked to listen to his Impulse H2 speakers.

[YNWaN]

Well, his were pointing away from him but focussed inward and, I think, facing a window. I haven't heard his but the other speakers I heard sounded just like listening to speakers facing the wrong way - unsurprisingly.

[Macca]

Well, his were pointing away from him but focussed inward and, I think, facing a window. I haven't heard his but the other speakers I heard sounded just like listening to speakers facing the wrong way - unsurprisingly.

Yep facing a floor to ceiling window, and with a full range driver out of a car stereo, not in any baffle, just propped up on the floor in the middle. Firing forward.

[Barry]

Yep facing a floor to ceiling window, and with a full range driver out of a car stereo, not in any baffle, just propped up on the floor in the middle. Firing forward.

I don't know about that, my anecdote concerned the Impulse H2 horn-loaded speakers. A friend of mine has a pair, and IMO they sound better when listened to as intended, not from behind.

[Marco]

Sometimes taking things from behind can be fun, but not in this instance! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[Macca]

That was JHs set up. I used to have an edition of Hi-fi Choice with a 2 page spread about it. With pictures. I've looked for it before when this has come up but can't find it. Would date from early 'Nineties. Dave DSJR of this parish actually had a listen to it, but I think that might have been before the car speaker was in play. He had two turntables as well, which in my youthful innocence I thought was a reckless extravagance. How much I had to learn. It's been years since I only owned two turntables.

[Bigman80]

I've discovered that the better the equipment gets, the less i need the tone controls. I think you need them on lo-fi gear to compensate for "thin speakers" or trebly carts etc.

[montesquieu]

In my opinion, modern preamps should emulate the vintage Quad preamps with their 'tilt' controls. The fact is that many recordings are pretty poor, due to all sorts of random incompetences in the production chain. The notion that what's on the record is sacrasanct and should be reproduced with minimal reshaping is touching, but doesn't stand up to reality. Tone controls done well can really enhance the appreciation of the music.

Sadly there are very few valve preamps around with tone controls - I guess technically it must be quite hard to do. I have an equalisation box for pre-RIAA mono which is effectively a tone control with settings for turnover and rolloff of the RIAA curve, but I do wish I could have something similar for stereo recordings.

I know some people like to adjust the sound of their kit through tube rolling but that's not at all what I mean here - I'm thinking more about fine adjustment required on a recording by recording basis.

[struth]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with them, and I am happy to have them even if I dont always use them. In fact for majority of stuff I dont

[YNWaN]

Every amp I've ever encountered with a tone control bypass switch has sounded noticeably better with said switch activated.

I'm sure tone controls can be done well, but the majority of people aren't prepared to pay the price needed to do the job properly.

[Macca]

Also my experience. Switch them out and you get that little bit of extra clarity.

[HackneyRF]

Last had an amp with them maybe 10-12 years ago. Can't say I miss them as such but some crappy recordings benefitted from a little tweek i remember. They can be fun but I doubt I'd ever use them again.