View Full Version : Tone controls? Digital?
dave2010
06-05-2010, 04:36
I've been reading posts here for a while, and noticed that no-one has discussed tone controls in recent times. I suspect these two words might be considered dirty, and very possibly with good reason.
However, it occurred to me when reading posts from others mentioning that some kit is overbright or maybe dull that some tonal adjustment could modify the sound perhaps beneficially. There'd be at least two forms of adjustment - one to adjust the kit and one to modify the recording.
Conventionally this is done using analogue tone controls, but it might be much better to do everything digitally. I'm reasonably sure that good results could be obtained in off-line mode by processing a digital file to change its tonal characteristics, but it would be a time consuming business.
I'm wondering if there are devices which do tonal adjustment in real time which are essentially digital. Of course there's a clear existence proof, as many of the software players (e.g Winamp) do have some form of filter bank/tone control setup, but are these high quality? I don't know. Digital filters can be designed to give pretty accurate results, though to be really useful the characteristics required may need to be defined rather preciseely. I'm interested to know what others think about this.
The Vinyl Adventure
06-05-2010, 10:31
Behringer deq2496... That the sort of thing your talking about?
I bought one a while a go, tinkered with it a bit but haven't got around to using it properly yet... When I was asking about it the general concensus was it was best used in digital
Rare Bird
06-05-2010, 11:21
I've been reading posts here for a while, and noticed that no-one has discussed tone controls in recent times. I suspect these two words might be considered dirty, and very possibly with good reason.
We had an almight ding dong regarding EQ's a while back, tone controls were part of it :lolsign:
Stratmangler
06-05-2010, 11:42
It was discussed here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5007&highlight=graphic+equalizer and here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5030&highlight=graphic+equalizer .
The forerunner was here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4049&highlight=graphic+equalizer
As Andre has said, things did get quite heated:lolsign:
The Grand Wazoo
06-05-2010, 20:08
That legendary immovable object did indeed have a bit of a prang with the jolly old irresistable force.
dave2010
07-05-2010, 07:32
It was discussed here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5007&highlight=graphic+equalizer and here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5030&highlight=graphic+equalizer .
The forerunner was here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4049&highlight=graphic+equalizer
As Andre has said, things did get quite heated:lolsign:Seems like a lot to read there! I'm less than 10% through one of these. I'm a bit surprised at the costs of the kit which does exist. A lot of correction could be done with a computer running suitable algorithms, but some of the costs might be for extra analysis equipment plus easy to use software (or hardware) interfaces.
dave2010
07-05-2010, 07:49
Hamish
Behringer deq2496... That the sort of thing your talking about?Could well be.
I bought one a while a go, tinkered with it a bit but haven't got around to using it properly yet... When I was asking about it the general concensus was it was best used in digitalCould you let us know your experiences with this? Looking at online sites seems to be available for around £250 - which I as a consumer would argue is not cheap, but there's a lot in the box, and if it can raise the SQ in a room significantly then it might actually be a lot cheaper than replacing/upgrading other kit. It probably isn't intended for a consumer market anyway, in which case it's really cheap!
How useful it might be could also depend on the acoustics in the room.
Can it easily be used to shape the sound? I'd imagine that you'd first try to get the room acoustics improved. There is some evidence that some rooms can be tweaked very successfully, particularly in the bass region, though this might be more significant in poor rooms. This isn't really too big a problem in my room I think because of the furnishing and carpet - it's certainly not boomy.
Once the room has been more or less fixed, can it then be used to tweak the sound of a recording which is say over bright, or dull? I'm sure it can, but my question relates to ease of use.
Lastly, does it have digital inputs and digital outputs, and is all the processing done digitally? This is where I started?
The Vinyl Adventure
07-05-2010, 09:38
Try whybuynew.com £149 graded! I got mine a behringer 8000 mic cables and some neutric conectors for less than £250
yes digital in and out - optical and xlr
I used it only digital but last time got my self in a bit of a muddle sometimes I liked what it did somtimes I didn't, I need to have another play with it really!
It is a little confusing to use, but it's not ao bad once you get your head round what applys to home use and what doesn't... There are a lot of people who use them on here for various things, most report it as a novelty, a few seem to think used right it can be very effective! ... If you search my name you will find a thread about it... Although I don't think I said much about my experience many did!
mattmerr
07-05-2010, 12:32
I always assumed that pure high fidelity was against tone controls/equalizers and using them was bad move, and I avoid them as much as I can, which is why I have come to conclusion that I need to upgrade my kit rather than modify the recording.
To me it doesn't make sense that an artist/producer/engineer would spend hours in the studio adjusting their recording just so, for it to be ruined by someone at home whacking up the the bass/treble that covers a fistful of frequencies, but I think i may be in the minority.
The Vinyl Adventure
07-05-2010, 14:30
all thier hours of wor could be ruined by your room emphasising the bass though... thats the sorta point of these things in audiophile terms, to make the room have a closer to flat response
mattmerr
07-05-2010, 15:03
That comes down to how serious you are about your speaker/furniture placement, it’s easy to maintain a flat response in your room if you are serious about the sound quality, you will live with an awkward difficult layout and forgo the most aesthetic listing/living room.
dave2010
09-05-2010, 09:04
I always assumed that pure high fidelity was against tone controls/equalizers and using them was bad move, and I avoid them as much as I can, which is why I have come to conclusion that I need to upgrade my kit rather than modify the recording.
To me it doesn't make sense that an artist/producer/engineer would spend hours in the studio adjusting their recording just so, for it to be ruined by someone at home whacking up the the bass/treble that covers a fistful of frequencies, but I think i may be in the minority.I've not used an amp with tone controls for 20 years or more. I have been led to believe that using controls would reduce the SQ, but occasionally I've heard other people's kit with such controls, and in fairness the best of them sound fine to me. The issue then of course is whether the controls can actually be used usefully.
My post was prompted slightly be another boarder who seemed to be experiencing some problems with new kit, which he said - at the time - was dulling the sound. I believe that some very careful use of digital filters can make a difference, and sometimes this might be beneficial. An analogy might be in photography. Two places I went to - one the Grand Canyon, the other some towns in China. Using filters on the photos I took it's possible to remove most of the haze in the Canyon and see detail. Quite likely the detail was not visible at the site. The Chinese photos are even more problematic. In one town (Pingyao) it was barely possible to see from one end of the street to the other because of the smog/fog. In photos the red, green and gold on the buildings look dull - not at all National Geographic standard. Using filters it is possible to remove most of the smog/fog effects, and it is also possible to brighten up the colours considerably. Filters can definitely work.
Whether you should use them depends on whether you want a representation of reality or something more colourful and vibrant. I'd say that a dull photo just does look dull, and uninteresting - and under represents reality, but many colourful ones have been tweaked too far to give a more acceptable impression, but not a realistic one. Personal preferences come in here obviously.
The issue re tonal adjustments has to take into account at least three factors 1. Original recording 2. Kit used up to the speakers 3. The listening room. Whilst having one all embracing adjustment for 1-2-3 will work, it might be easier to have control over the shaping at each stage, or at least an interface which would make it appear that way.
Regarding the artists/producers etc., sometimes they just get it wrong:rolleyes:
Rare Bird
09-05-2010, 13:03
Tone controls are fine & are without a doubt something that is needed with modern equipment! My stereo has never sounded better with both Tone controls & EQ's..Others obviously don't share my views.
Sophisticated frequency adjustment, like the Behringer DEQ2496 I can still see a use for, but the plain old bass and treble tone controls on the integrated amps and receiver? They should be banished to the bin of complete obsolescence. You know, like the loudness button:)
Those bass and treble controls were useful when hifi was still young and you had to deal with the rumble of the record player, the limited frequency response of the cassette, speakers which were lucky to respond reasonably down to 40 Hz, NR like Dolby and DBX, etc etc. All these analog audio technologies had weaknesses which took a significant bite out of the sound. Bass and treble controls were like trying to use a hammer as a surgical instrument. Given the limited capability of older hifi, the bluntness of the instrument was not so apparent.
Remember how most cassettes, unless recorded by a Nakamichi, couldn't even dream of getting to 20 Khz? And struggled to get down to 20Hz? Frequency response measurements were taken at minus 20db with a give and take of plus or minus 3db! Who recorded a cassette at -20db? We had to push the recording levels well past 0 db to fight the hissy noise floor. And at 0db recording levels the frequency response was a dismal 40 Hz to 13Khz. So, hell yeah we needed tone controls back in the day.
Today we live in a digital age. An MP3, CD, SACD will produce 20 Hz just as strongly as 20Khz, plus or minus 0.2 db across the whole audible frequency range. Ruler flat. We are much closer to the original source than ever before. Tone controls could be used, maybe, to make an already good sounding system better, if they are need at all.
Lastly, while the tone control may add a bit of treble or bass, it is also adding another circuit path for the audio signal, therefore it is also taking you a bit more away from the entire audio signal. If I engage a tone control I always sense a veil coming over the music, and do anything I can to avoid that.
CD
mattmerr
09-05-2010, 19:51
Well, it seems to be a case of like most things Audiophile, each to their own. I just think that with every extra switch/pot/slider or digital process some degradation in sound quality is going to take something away from that precious electrical signal.
If we look at the Photography analogy and the camera is the front end the tone controls are the photoshop/lens filters and the printer is the speakers, you know you can photoshop an image as much as you like but if the camera you use isn’t good enough and no matter how expensive the printer it will come out looking bad.
They built the hubble telescope in space because our atmosphere distorts light waves, if filters really worked they could have saved quite a penny.
It’s just common sense and physics the more the signal is processed the worse it will be at the other end, you can’t add to or improve something that isn’t already there.
Just like using filters on an image to bump up the saturation tone controls are just sugar coating for the ears.
Rare Bird
09-05-2010, 20:00
most all your precious recordings have been met with EQ at somepoint..At the end of the day the person who chooses to use EQ & Tone controls is the one listerning to his music not you, who cares if hi-fi buffs say this & that, just who cares.. :lolsign:
most all your precious recordings have been met with EQ at somepoint..At the end of the day the person who chooses to use EQ & Tone controls is the one listerning to his music not you, who cares if hi-fi buffs say this & that, just who cares.. :lolsign:
EQ at the recording stage is completely different than tone controls at the receiver. At the recording stage, all the instruments and voices tend to be recorded on separate tracks. So if the drum needs a bit more bounce, bump up the 40 Hz on that track only. if the lead vocalist seems too throaty, dial back 1khz to 2.5 khz, again, on that track only.
Now, because the audio signal has been summed together for the consumer into 2 channels or multi-channel, when you use the tone controls on the receiver and, say, bump up 50 Hz, you are adding a 50 Hz bump to the vocal, bass, drums, trumpet, everything.
Nuff said:)
CD
mattmerr
09-05-2010, 22:12
most all your precious recordings have been met with EQ at somepoint..At the end of the day the person who chooses to use EQ & Tone controls is the one listerning to his music not you, who cares if hi-fi buffs say this & that, just who cares.. :lolsign:
Then you might as well change this website to The Art of Gadgets, because what you are saying/listening to isn’t art of sound, Andre keep calm, its a discussion. lol
mattmerr
09-05-2010, 22:24
Best scrap your phono stage (with it's EQ) & buy a gramaphone
I don’t understand what this means, is it a put down. Are you really getting personal and reducing this thread to a tit for tat?
I don’t have a phono stage.
Rare Bird
09-05-2010, 22:33
I'm not getting personal, no..
Like i said i use tone control because i want to & it's my ears that are getting pleased, i choose to use vintage gear, EQ's, tone controls etc because it gives me more enjoyment than modern boring bleeched systems..
mattmerr
09-05-2010, 23:50
Today we live in a digital age. An MP3, CD, SACD will produce 20 Hz just as strongly as 20Khz, plus or minus 0.2 db across the whole audible frequency range. Ruler flat. We are much closer to the original source than ever before. Tone controls could be used, maybe, to make an already good sounding system better, if they are need at all.
Lastly, while the tone control may add a bit of treble or bass, it is also adding another circuit path for the audio signal, therefore it is also taking you a bit more away from the entire audio signal. If I engage a tone control I always sense a veil coming over the music, and do anything I can to avoid that.
CD
That’s my point exactly, do we really need tone controls in systems that can now capture the full frequency range, there shouldn’t really be any need to adjust anything anymore, if my speakers can’t go down to say 35Hz and I have a AIFF of modern digital/electronic music that goes below that range, boosting the bass wont help me to hear what my speakers cant produce.
My last point is, on my amplifier I have a bypass tone controls button, why is it that even when the bass and treble are set to zero and the bypass button is switched off there is still a change in sound, its obvious something is going on, the signal is being adjusted somewhere in the path.
@Andre, I understand that you are a vintage hi-fi fan and probably you do need to use tone controls, if I remember rightly I used to when I was listing to vinyl and cassette, i have nothing against that, but i thought the point of the original post in the The Digital Impression was regarding tone controls being used within the digital domain, not analogue.
That’s my point exactly, do we really need tone controls in systems that can now capture the full frequency range, there shouldn’t really be any need to adjust anything anymore, if my speakers can’t go down to say 35Hz and I have a AIFF of modern digital/electronic music that goes below that range, boosting the bass wont help me to hear what my speakers cant produce.........
TOTALLY, Dude:)
I've grown to appreciate also, that what makes great music so great, is the harmonics, the representation of all the other frequencies besides the primary frequency.
There's this track I really love, "Finck it up" from the Phillippe Saisse Trio. It has a wicked and lively bass track. No ordinary bass, though.
David Finck plays a double bass. Because you "pluck" the strings, the bass note it produces is different from the usual suspects. As my stereo system has become more resolute, I've been able to hear more and more of this special instrument and it has made me all the more appreciative. The double bass has this "twang" that can only be appreciated fully when you deliver the music with the flattest frequency response, preserving the levels of its harmonic frequencies. Adding bass via tone controls emphasizes too strongly one frequency, making this sound boomy and less sophisticated.
CD
Andre if tone controls work for you then thats great I am just as happy without tone controls and using valves and no bleeched sound. They are just different paths
I've said this before, I'm sure:
The discussion about EQ, room correction put aside, and high fidelity resumes to this:
If you're not the mastering engineer of each album, then you don't know how the music you listen to was meant to sound. Let alone if it's more "accurate".
Accuracy is a personal sight of things, and who can tell whether +2dB at 150Hz is actually nearer to the performed instrument ? I can't.
So, it's all personal.
Nevertheless, a lot of people (me included) consider that the mastering engineer meant to have the material reproduced by the flattest reproduction system possible.
If this is true for most albums, then it's better to leave EQ aside.
In any case, I was not there, I know nothing of how most of what I listen was actually recorded and mixed. So, why bother ? :)
In other words, we're probably all "accurate" from a floating subjective point of view. ;)
dave2010
12-05-2010, 06:52
It’s just common sense and physics the more the signal is processed the worse it will be at the other end, you can’t add to or improve something that isn’t already there.
Just like using filters on an image to bump up the saturation tone controls are just sugar coating for the ears.In theory you are right, but in practice not. What you are saying is that you can never improve the data by filtering, and I agree with that. There will nearly always be a loss of information.
However ..... when we are dealing with perception, there can be a significant change - an improvement, and sometimes that's worth having. I'll construct an example for you as a counterexample. I make a new digital recording. Maybe I'm a modern composer, or maybe I'm just a hopeless recording nut - you're not sure. My recording has 1. a high quality digitally recorded piece perhaps from CD 2. Clicks at random time intervals 3. A high pitched whistle at a fixed frequency known to me. 4. Some low frequency bumping noises.
If you assume I'm a composer, then removing the high pitched whiistle, the bumping noises and the clicks reduces the fidelity of my "composition". If you assume that I just made a bad job of sticking things together but you want to hear the piece, then removing all the extraneous noises can sometimes be done well (very) and improves one's appreciation of the music.
I know someone who is very good at digital photography touch up. I've sent him pictures which I'd already played with, yet on nearly every occasion he produced much better results. The argument that he was removing data recorded by the camera is OK, but the results speak for themselves.
Common sense must also take into account experience.
dave2010
12-05-2010, 07:10
Dimitri
I've said this before, I'm sure:
The discussion about EQ, room correction put aside, and high fidelity resumes to this:
If you're not the mastering engineer of each album, then you don't know how the music you listen to was meant to sound. Let alone if it's more "accurate".
Accuracy is a personal sight of things, and who can tell whether +2dB at 150Hz is actually nearer to the performed instrument ? I can't.
So, it's all personal.
Nevertheless, a lot of people (me included) consider that the mastering engineer meant to have the material reproduced by the flattest reproduction system possible.
If this is true for most albums, then it's better to leave EQ aside.
In any case, I was not there, I know nothing of how most of what I listen was actually recorded and mixed. So, why bother ? :)
In other words, we're probably all "accurate" from a floating subjective point of view. ;)I don't disagree with you totally, and I normally use equipment without tone controls.
Sometimes, with older recordings there are aspects which I think can be tweaked by the end user to give greater pleasure, or at least less distress.
There is subjectivity in recording and listening, and if an end user wants to play around to produce a sound which he/she likes should that person then be told "but that's not what the engineer wanted"? Anyway, shouldn't it be the musicians who decide? Or the composer?
Back to my photograph analogy. If I showed you the pictures of (say) Pingyao as they came out of the camera, you'd find them really dull - as I do. Most people would like them tweaked a bit. It's perhaps possible to tweak them to the extent that you wouldn't realise that the place really had very poor visibility, and you might think that the colours were really vibrant (er ... no!).
You're right about personal preferences, but whose should they be? The end user surely in a domestic environment. Re what is realiity - we can't tell.
In some recordings we can make some assumptions about how things were done, and if we find that we like to tweak things a bit isn't that OK?
The reason I don't use tone controls is that on the whole I find the sound quality much better without them. For listening to older recordings (e.g remastered 78s transfered to digital or even original 78s) it does seem that there may be a range of preferences - usually a balance between hiss levels and "liveliness". Such recordings may be reissued by different companies, and it seems to be accepted that the reissues sound different, with sometimes a fairly clear general preference for one over others. There are still some older recordings which are worth listening to.
The Vinyl Adventure
12-05-2010, 07:24
This is how I see it - as a photographer I understand the photography analogy so I shall continue with it
as an "artist" I take a photo with the knowledge that I'm going to process it, I have a high end digital camera that is set to take pictures that look flat. This gives me a much greater scope to improve the image - take a dynamic image and risk loosing highlight or shadow detail - take a undynamic image and the contrast can be added if it's needed.
If I create a picture and then someone else messes with it and tells me it's better I'd probably take offence (unless they had asked if it was ok first).
So I agree in those terms eq is bad!
But of someone took my image and looked at it in a room lit with blue light it would look wrong, if they took my image and added a filter to warm it up so it looked right in that blue lit room then I would concider that fine... Now they might not get it to how I intended but they were trying to get more enjoyment out of it in that particular room ... You follow my analogy I'm sure!
If eq is required to increase the enjoyment of music in a room that otherwise hinders that enjoyment, then I see no problem as long as the intention was to return the nutrality and not something else
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 07:59
But of someone took my image and looked at it in a room lit with blue light it would look wrong, if they took my image and added a filter to warm it up so it looked right in that blue lit room then I would concider that fine... Now they might not get it to how I intended but they were trying to get more enjoyment out of it in that particular room ... You follow my analogy I'm sure!
If eq is required to increase the enjoyment of music in a room that otherwise hinders that enjoyment, then I see no problem as long as the intention was to return the nutrality and not something else
Hamish has identified and perfectly described the crux of the biscuit (to paraphrase FZ). You may (like me) not have a use for it yourself, but there's no denying that there are certain circumstances where this is a compromise to fidelity that must be conceded to, in order to create a more acceptable presentation. This is the point that the anti- crowd refuse to accept.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 17:06
I take a photo with the knowledge that I'm going to process it, I have a high end digital camera that is set to take pictures that look flat. This gives me a much greater scope to improve the image - take a dynamic image and risk loosing highlight or shadow detail - take a undynamic image and the contrast can be added if it's needed.
Therefore you might as well say I’m buying this CD with the intention of equalizing it as I wont be happy with the sound if it’s flat, adjusting it to suit your ears disregarding the true sound of that music.
That’s not what true Hi-Fi is about, it’s about keeping that original image how it was the day you took it, if the shadows aren't to your liking tough, its as it was on the day, a true representation of that time and space, just like the un-equalized audio recording.
If you are unhappy with the sound in your room, then your room is at fault not the recording. I fail to see why anyone would spend huge amounts of money on Hi-End equipment stick the speakers against the walls and use tone controls to turn down the boomy bass. Where is the sense in that?
There seems to be people here tripping over their own feet to justify the use of tone controls. If you are after true High-Fidelity then tone controls are not the answer, they never have been and never will, we all read the magazines, articles, reviews, better equipment is the answer for a system that is lacking.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 17:12
there are certain circumstances where this is a compromise to fidelity that must be conceded to, in order to create a more acceptable presentation.
I don’t see the point of adjusting the tone controls for each CD you listen to so they represent the right amount of treble/bass your ears require?
The music isn't at fault, the system/equipment is.
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 17:15
If you are unhappy with the sound in your room, then your room is at fault not the recording...............better equipment is the answer for a system that is lacking
.........maybe so, but not for a room that is lacking.
Some folks can't change the room they use at a whim. Are you going to condemn them to owning a system they don't like the sound of? That's just preposterous.
I fail to see why anyone would spend huge amounts of money on Hi-End equipment stick the speakers against the walls and use tone controls to turn down the boomy bass. Where is the sense in that?
What do you suggest for the person who only has the room they have? Set up their gear in the garden? Knock out a few walls? Buy an ipod?
The Vinyl Adventure
12-05-2010, 17:24
Therefore you might as well say I’m buying this CD with the intention of equalizing it as I wont be happy with the sound if it’s flat, adjusting it to suit your ears disregarding the true sound of that music.
eh? No... You have missed my point. I'm the artist, I take the photo and I use my kit in a way that I expect the customer to not want to edit it. Buying a cd doesn't make me the guy that made the music does it
That’s not what true Hi-Fi is about, it’s about keeping that original image how it was the day you took it, if the shadows aren't to your liking tough, its as it was on the day, a true representation of that time and space, just like the un-equalized audio recording.
crap! Tell that to Ansel Adams
If you are unhappy with the sound in your room, then your room is at fault not the recording. I fail to see why anyone would spend huge amounts of money on Hi-End equipment stick the speakers against the walls and use tone controls to turn down the boomy bass. Where is the sense in that?
no sence, but if you have done everything you can with your chosen equipment in the room, then why not try to get a bit more out of it? I'm not saying it's for everyone, but bloody hell there is no harm in trying is there?
There seems to be people here tripping over their own feet to justify the use of tone controls. If you are after true High-Fidelity then tone controls are not the answer, they never have been and never will, we all read the magazines, articles, reviews, better equipment is the answer for a system that is lacking.
To be honest I couldn't give 2 wet shits what the magazines say! If I want to try an equaliser in my system to see if it makes an improvment then that's my business and not really for anyone else to tell me otherwise! It's my hifi, my house, my money and my life! If someone doesn't like it ... Then Tough!
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 17:31
.........maybe so, but not for a room that is lacking.
Some folks can't change the room they use at a whim. Are you going to condemn them to owning a system they don't like the sound of? That's just preposterous.
What do you suggest for the person who only has the room they have? Set up their gear in the garden? Knock out a few walls? Buy an ipod?
I thought this was The Art of Sound, not The Art of Make Do. This isn’t about peoples have’s and have not’s, we are talking about High Fidelity and trying to reach that goal. If you can’t because of whatever reason then don’t try to justify the use of tone controls because you have to. That’s nonsensical.
Rare Bird
12-05-2010, 17:35
I thought this was The Art of Sound, not The Art of Make Do. This isn’t about peoples have’s and have not’s, we are talking about High Fidelity and trying to reach that goal. If you can’t because of whatever reason then don’t try to justify the use of tone controls because you have to. That’s nonsensical.
Reach what goal, a lot of hifi products sound worse than they ever did. Isnt this one of the reasons a lot of people buy valve amps with rehash old circuits? Also i don't think people realise how many buy classic gear to listern to over modern gear becuase they are dissatified with new...
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 17:42
Did you read and/or understand this?
.............You may (like me) not have a use for it yourself, but there's no denying that there are certain circumstances where this is a compromise to fidelity that must be conceded to, in order to create a more acceptable presentation. This is the point that the anti- crowd refuse to accept.
Yes you are correct, this is the 'Art of Sound', but what it is not is 'The Art Of Cutting Your Nose Off To Spite Your Face'.
I thought this was The Art of Sound, not The Art of Make Do. This isn’t about peoples have’s and have not’s, we are talking about High Fidelity and trying to reach that goal. If you can’t because of whatever reason then don’t try to justify the use of tone controls because you have to. That’s nonsensical.
You're probably right.
Nevertheless, any room (except some studios) acts like a EQ. So, how do you justify listening to "High Fidelity" in a non-linear environment ? ;)
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 17:46
Do you think that if the performer and producer/engineer who worked on your hypothetical CD heard it replayed in such a way as it became unlistenable because of the effects of the room, they'd say "..........Oh well, that's how it was meant to sound, we'll just have to live with it"?
Of course not, they'd do something about it.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 17:52
crap! Tell that to Ansel Adams
I don’t think this analogy is working for you, you are a bit to precious about your love of photography/ers to be rational.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 17:56
Do you think that if the performer and producer/engineer who worked on your hypothetical CD heard it replayed in such a way as it became unlistenable because of the effects of the room, they'd say "..........Oh well, that's how it was meant to sound, we'll just have to live with it"?
Of course not, they'd do something about it.
What? this is crap, do you really think engineers sit in the studio equalizing everything to suit a living room?
What do you listen to where you though, phew I’m glad that part was pulled back in the recording or that would have really hurt!
The Vinyl Adventure
12-05-2010, 17:56
Eh? My analogy is spot on and so is the ansel Adams referance!
I would say that buying kit and making my own mind up on sound quality is a damn slight more rational than taking what magazines say as gospel!
And why make it personal, saying I'm too precious to be rational, irigardless of my hobbys I'm being completely rational and using my own ears and eyes to decide what's best for me!
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 18:00
You're probably right.
Nevertheless, any room (except some studios) acts like a EQ. So, how do you justify listening to "High Fidelity" in a non-linear environment ? ;)
You buy a sound meter/software and experiment in obtaining a flat response in your room, isn’t that more sense than just throwing more money at equipment or equalizing the record?, I know its cheaper. ;)
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 18:06
What? this is crap, do you really think engineers sit in the studio equalizing everything to suit a living room?
........erm, no that's not what I meant at all. I'll rephrase that & I apologise for any anguish or torment it may have caused you.
"..........Oh well, that's how it was meant to sound, you'll just have to live with it"?
What do you think the recording engineer or performer would suggest as an appropriate course of action to the hapless owner of their shiny new CD?
"Forget about it you're obviously not committed or purist enough to listen to our music"....?
Rare Bird
12-05-2010, 18:11
What? this is crap, do you really think engineers sit in the studio equalizing everything to suit a living room?
No they do everything to suit what they hear at the time & expect us to put up with it!
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 18:13
........erm, no that's not what I meant at all. I'll rephrase that & I apologise for any anguish or torment it may have caused you.
"..........Oh well, that's how it was meant to sound, you'll just have to live with it"?
What do you think the recording engineer or performer would suggest as an appropriate course of action to the hapless owner of their shiny new CD?
Forget about it you're obviously not committed or purist enough to listen to our music?
You’re starting to make no sense and are way off topic, what has this got to do with anything relevant? I’m glad to see your condescending attitude is helping you through this though, well done.
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 18:19
Well, if you think I'm no longer discussing tone controls or EQ, then I'd suggest we both leave it be.
.........and I do apologise if my attempt at trying to keep things light hearted appeared to you to be patronising.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 18:25
This is exactly what is it, a discussion, but it seems to be a to many people are getting to precious about it to be rational. I’m not expecting you to stop discussing it, I don’t want to you, I like listening to others opinions. But lets keep it relevant to the for or against the use of tone controls.
I want to hear one good reason for the use of tone controls in the realm of Hi-Fidelity sound to convince me I’m wrong, but as yet there have been none, its just a preference to each person and that’s not a reason at all.
The Vinyl Adventure
12-05-2010, 18:28
Why are we being precious? We are saying it's not for everyone but might help some! Ie open minded about the subject!
Sayin it's not "hifi" is being precious about the hobby!
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 18:32
All I'm trying to do is to reinforce my view that I've stated before that there is a specific and justifiable purpose for sensitively and appropriately applied EQ in certain circumstances.
I'm not recommending that you or anyone else should go out & buy an EQ as a matter of course. I'm merely suggesting that you might try to understand that point of view.
You buy a sound meter/software and experiment in obtaining a flat response in your room, isn’t that more sense than just throwing more money at equipment or equalizing the record?, I know its cheaper. ;)
Can you develop, please ? I fail to understand how I can obtain a flat response in a room just by moving my speakers around or by any other way (except an EQ, of course).
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 18:39
Why are we being precious? We are saying it's not for everyone but might help some! Ie open minded about the subject!
Sayin it's not "hifi" is being precious about the hobby!
It’s the truth, its fact, in theory and in practice, every amplifier manufacturer will tell you, why do you think some amps come without or/a tone control bypass switch? if you prefer to use tone controls go for it, I’m open minded to it, but don’t call it high fidelity sound when physics and common sense says otherwise.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 18:46
Can you develop, please ? I fail to understand how I can obtain a flat response in a room just by moving my speakers around or by any other way (except an EQ, of course).
You move furniture/layout, more/less cushions heavier curtains, curtaining walls to stop reverberation/echo, or add accordingly.
You move furniture/layout, more/less cushions heavier curtains, curtaining walls to stop reverberation/echo, or add accordingly.
:) Well, I'm sorry to inform you that without a heavy treatment (that is turning your listening room into an anechoic room) any furnuture/speaker/whatever will make things better but never ever give you a flat response.
For instance, this is a response curve of a well treated room:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe-treated.gif
Figure 3: This graph shows the full range response at seven locations one inch apart in a large room well-treated with broadband absorption and bass traps. With bass traps the response at low frequencies varies much less, but the mid and high frequencies still change drastically over very small distances.
So ? Next ?
The Vinyl Adventure
12-05-2010, 18:52
It’s the truth, its fact, in theory and in practice, every amplifier manufacturer will tell you, why do you think some amps come without or/a tone control bypass switch? if you prefer to use tone controls go for it, I’m open minded to it, but don’t call it high fidelity sound when physics and common sense says otherwise.
ok fine, but why should I listen to amp manufactures either.. Of course they think their amps don't need tone controls they made them to sound the way they made them!
I might loose some detail but gain neutrality, maybe I prefer a more neutral sound to a detail one... Again my desision about what's best for me!!
Well, all this to say, that a flat frequency response is not absolutely necessary for a HiFi to me. Without exaggerations, of course: 15dB @ 100Hz is not a good thing.
But, as Matt says, some proper speaker placement, and some basic room treatment does most of the work. The rest is not necessarily important.
Distortions, for instance, are more important to me. Not necessarily a very low THD%, but the absence of some particular distortions.
At least, that's how I see it.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 19:58
:) Well, I'm sorry to inform you that without a heavy treatment (that is turning your listening room into an anechoic room) any furnuture/speaker/whatever will make things better but never ever give you a flat response.
That’s kind of obvious, no one can achieve a true flat response in their living room. What I’m saying is most people will use tone controls and try upgrading their system without even thinking of how the room is the problem, wasting more money.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 20:02
I bet that a number of people here that are pro tone controls would use them less if at all if they actually looked at how their speakers are interacting with the room.
The Grand Wazoo
12-05-2010, 20:37
Just a question Matt.
Have you ever heard a properly implemented EQ?
Well OK a few questions then.........
If so, what system was it being used in, what was the unit and exactly what was it that you didn't like about it when compared to the unprocessed signal?
I bet that a number of people here that are pro tone controls would use them less if at all if they actually looked at how their speakers are interacting with the room.
This is a very good advice. I agree that a proper speaker placement is essential to really take advantage of any system.
I personally spend several days adjusting position every time I change speakers. Or amplifiers.
mattmerr
12-05-2010, 23:42
ok fine, but why should I listen to amp manufactures either.. Of course they think their amps don't need tone controls they made them to sound the way they made them!
I might loose some detail but gain neutrality, maybe I prefer a more neutral sound to a detail one... Again my desision about what's best for me!!
You're not understanding the question as a whole, which was the use of tone controls in digital systems as a necessity or not.
You are taking your own personal preference to seriously, of course that’s going to be different for everyone, we might as well discuss the best flavor of ice cream, rather than the best ingredients used.
mattmerr
13-05-2010, 00:04
Just a question Matt.
Have you ever heard a properly implemented EQ?
Well OK a few questions then.........
If so, what system was it being used in, what was the unit and exactly what was it that you didn't like about it when compared to the unprocessed signal?
I used to work for TAG Mclaren Audio when they took over Audiolab back in 97/98. I produced all the packaging and printed materials for the systems from the instruction books to the silk screening on the units. I heard so many different combination's, while i was there, eq’ed and clean. The pre-amp mono block combination connected to wilson benesch speakers would win hands down every time, but this was from CD, way before digital format.
The Vinyl Adventure
13-05-2010, 10:05
You're not understanding the question as a whole, which was the use of tone controls in digital systems as a necessity or not.
the threads question was really about the use of digital equalisers in a digital system, and not as a necessity but whether or not they could be beneficial!
You are taking your own personal preference to seriously, of course that’s going to be different for everyone, we might as well discuss the best flavor of ice cream, rather than the best ingredients used.
I have never stated my preferance for or against them!
I have one that I used with varying results in my room before I recently realised I could have my room laid out differently (something my fiancée had previously not wanted us to do)
the most important thing to point out was that when I did use my digital parametric eq in the digital chain (between source and dac) when it was set flat it had only the slightest effect on the sound that I struggled to hear at all!
I don't use it now as my system sounds better in the room as it is now... But if I hadn't been able to move it round I would have happily used the eq to solve the problems...
I'm not stateing a preferance, I'm talking from direct experience of kit I have used in my house not more than a month ago!
I used to work for TAG Mclaren Audio when they took over Audiolab back in 97/98. I produced all the packaging and printed materials for the systems from the instruction books to the silk screening on the units. I heard so many different combination's, while i was there, eq’ed and clean. The pre-amp mono block combination connected to wilson benesch speakers would win hands down every time, but this was from CD, way before digital format.
Cd is digital, but I am asuming from that comment that you mean they were using analoge tone controls... This whole convo has been from the start about DIGITAL tone control ... Like I was using - inbetween cd player and dac.
mattmerr
13-05-2010, 13:32
Cd is digital, but I am asuming from that comment that you mean they were using analoge tone controls... This whole convo has been from the start about DIGITAL tone control ... Like I was using - inbetween cd player and dac.
My mistake, I meant digital as in Computer files/formats, Hamish your defensive attitude is starting to tire.
Ouote... but why should I listen to amp manufactures either..
Come on, please! if you are to going to be serious about this be serious and don’t just argue for the sake of it, this has clearly touched a nerve with you, lets keep it civil.
mattmerr
13-05-2010, 13:39
Cd is digital, but I am asuming from that comment that you mean they were using analoge tone controls... This whole convo has been from the start about DIGITAL tone control ... Like I was using - inbetween cd player and dac.
That post was an answer to Chris’ earlier question, the conversation here has been flitting from analogue and digital, I was stating my experience. Next?
The Vinyl Adventure
13-05-2010, 14:10
i think we have been talking at cross purposes then matt, in which case soz, i thought you were just talking about digital...
i can accept that analogue tone controls these days are probably are only beneficial in a very small amout of circumstances... i have always been talking about units like this (what the op was about)
http://cachepe.samedaymusic.com/media/quality,85/brand,sameday/deq2496_big-e68379fcdad18d7b989bc47ab7970e73.jpg
it can be used with entirely digitally and it has little effect on detail etc
im not argueing for arguments sake though... my view still stands - why should i take any notice of amp manufactures if they tell me not to do something ... its my hifi!
i did actually talk to the guy who built my amp about getting the deq2496 and he said that if it works for me then thats fine... he mearly suggested i use it between source and dac and not between the pre and power he built
Matt,
As someone who has just trawled through this thread, and with nothing much to add as I haven't used any sort of EQ (digital or otherwise) for over 15 years, I am however wondering why you are being so antagonistic towards the people contributing to this thread that don't share your views - especially as you have only been here for a few days, and your introductory post was, shall we say "brief" ("I'm Matt from London" for those that missed it.)
I am not a moderator here, just a confused member who is wondering if you are maybe someone who has an axe to grind, either with the forum or some of it's members - have we met you before?
Apologies if I am out of line, but usually when I join something new I tend to see how the land lies, get to know people, join in the fun - not immediately start arguing with every member I can!
Perhaps I'm being unfair, but you're not endearing yourself to the members, I would suggest, and I'm just curious as to whether you may have been here before in a "previous life" - I hope I'm wrong, and look forward to being proved so.
mattmerr
13-05-2010, 22:40
Matt,
As someone who has just trawled through this thread, and with nothing much to add as I haven't used any sort of EQ (digital or otherwise) for over 15 years, I am however wondering why you are being so antagonistic towards the people contributing to this thread that don't share your views - especially as you have only been here for a few days, and your introductory post was, shall we say "brief" ("I'm Matt from London" for those that missed it.)
I am not a moderator here, just a confused member who is wondering if you are maybe someone who has an axe to grind, either with the forum or some of it's members - have we met you before?
Apologies if I am out of line, but usually when I join something new I tend to see how the land lies, get to know people, join in the fun - not immediately start arguing with every member I can!
Perhaps I'm being unfair, but you're not endearing yourself to the members, I would suggest, and I'm just curious as to whether you may have been here before in a "previous life" - I hope I'm wrong, and look forward to being proved so.
Antagonistic? This is a forum isn’t it, a place for healthy discussion, I don’t know who you are referring to in your past, nor wish too. If you have trawled through this thread like you said, you would have surely read some other members have agreed with me as well as disagreed, I have no beef with anyone here as you have read that I have been the first to say lets cool it when its been getting too heated and personal.
I have nothing personal against Hamish, Dave, or anyone, they are quite happy to stand firm like I am.
I am merely interested in finding a honest answer to my original discussion for the pros of using tone controls bar the users personal preference.
It’s not my intention to cause any upset to any sensitive knob twiddler’s here I’m merely looking for answers, read it all again Alex, are you telling me that no one has been antagonistic towards me? Or is it you are just taking the side of you friends and being biased? If you think my posts are from someone with an axe to grind I think it must be the latter.
But seeing as you have posted and not made any contribution to the discussion apart from show your grievance towards me, it puts you in a light of making matters worse. Or making a point out of something that isn’t there. No?
Or is this how you always introduce yourself to a newcomer that has only been here a few weeks? Touché? LOL
Or is this how you always introduce yourself to a newcomer that has only been here a few weeks? Touché? LOL
I'd already said "Hi Matt" an appropriate response to your introductory thread given the effort you had put in ;) You'll see that most newcomers get far more from me (and far more people pop in to say "hi") because as Themis quotes in his signature "If you want to sit in front of the fire, you have to get up and put a log onto it." :)
Healthy discussion, even heated discussion is of course what this forum is about, but I guess the problem with the written word is that sometimes you can see things that aren't there - I just got the feeling some of your phrases were subtle put-downs, and maybe you were spoiling for a fight - but apologies if I have misread you, and that's just your way.
Spectral Morn
14-05-2010, 07:19
Okay everyone lets chill please.
In regard to comments about your post in the welcome section "Hi I am Matt from London" does not provide enough info. Can you please go back and add to it. System details, taste in music and a bit more about your self...you were asked at the time for more info.
Regards D S D L
Indeed.
Matt, please provide the information requested in your welcome thread before contributing further to this discussion.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers :cool:
Marco.
Steve Toy
14-05-2010, 11:36
I think Matt's got some reading material to get through too, notably in the Ethos and also the Welcome area for suitable templates.
This is a forum with the human touch (imagine the person you are exchanging with is in the same room as you...)
mattmerr
15-05-2010, 20:10
I think Matt's got some reading material to get through too, notably in the Ethos and also the Welcome area for suitable templates.
This is a forum with the human touch (imagine the person you are exchanging with is in the same room as you...)
(imagine the person you are exchanging with is in the same room as you...)????? and you refer to Matt in the third person? Hello!!!!!
I think a few of you need to stop licking each others dicks personally, you want me to stop adding to a threat unless I tell everyone what music i listen too.
You clearly take yourselves too seriously, I‘m not here to kiss arse, I came here to get a decent discussion about serious audio, but I find that sorely lacking from everyone apart from Codifus.
Does anyone here actually have any passion? You all wear slippers!
I've been reading posts here for a while, and noticed that no-one has discussed tone controls in recent times. I suspect these two words might be considered dirty, and very possibly with good reason.
Behringer deq2496... That the sort of thing your talking about?
I bought one a while a go, tinkered with it a bit but haven't got around to using it properly yet... When I was asking about it the general concensus was it was best used in digital
zzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!
Some intelligence/passion pleassssseee..
Block me, Ban me, i really don’t care, at least one of you have some decent discussion to say without being scared to tread on anyone's toes, jesus Alex, some of my messages are subtle put down?
crap! Tell that to Ansel Adams
Originally Posted by Andre View Post
Best scrap your phono stage (with it's EQ) & buy a gramaphone
And those quotes are?
You all really need to grow up me thinks.
Matt,
Comments such as this (and most of what you've written above):
I think a few of you need to stop licking each others dicks personally...
...are completely unacceptable on AOS.
Either you re-write your last post in more acceptable language, showing some respect for the community you've recently joined, and change your attitude, or I will delete the whole of your last post and ban you for a week.
The choice is yours - here's hoping you make the right one.
Marco.
mattmerr
15-05-2010, 20:16
This forum isn’t that important, it seems to be a place for knob twiddling gadget fans, If anyone of you have had a true Hi-Fidelity system that sounded as good as you have ever heard you would still not be happy and want to add some garbage to it, and yes probably Tone Control it.
What a joke, honestly, get over yourselves.
mattmerr
15-05-2010, 20:17
I would rather you just deleted the whole thread.
There is no freedom of expression here?
It's not your thread to delete!!
Now, are you going to remove your inflammatory remarks and behave, or shall I just ban you now and save everyone a lot of grief?
Marco.
What a rude and disrespectful idiot. Clearly "Matt" had no intention of contributing constructively and was just here for a wind-up.
We don't need that grief or nonsense, and it won't be tolerated! :rolleyes:
Marco.
The Vinyl Adventure
15-05-2010, 20:45
I think you just veiw hifi differently to me and other here matt, to say I'm not pationate is just not understanding my passion. You don't know any of us to say we lack passion!
I can never understand how people can be so rude when not knowing someone, forums are for heated discusion, but some people just seem to make it porsonal and take it too far.
Steves point about people here treating each other like they are in the same room is valid. That's what this place is about, if you don't like it then just don't post, bitching a moaning just makes you look foolish and like you have nothing better to do... Or like an axe grinder... As I think alex pointed out a while back
I can never understand how people can be so rude when not knowing someone, forums are for heated discusion, but some people just seem to make it porsonal and take it too far.
Spot on, Hamish :)
AOS has been successful largely because we provide a friendly environment and a sense of community where people feel relaxed and can be themselves when discussing any aspect of hi-fi and music. Those values are at the very core of what AOS stands for, and we will not allow some obstreperous oik to upset the feeling of camaraderie and community spirit we've all worked so hard to create.
If anyone wants to join with the deliberate intention of upsetting the applecart, then they will be given the short shrift they deserve!
Marco.
Steve Toy
16-05-2010, 14:54
In any case, we really do not advocate using tone controls here. That's more reading for the rugrat to do before he passes comment on this place.
Rare Bird
16-05-2010, 15:46
In any case, we really do not advocate using tone controls here.
:steam:
:lolsign:
Steve Toy
16-05-2010, 16:34
Well not really anyway.
Apart from cables, that is.....
I'll just get my coat. :rolleyes:
:lol:
What is for sure, there's loads of humor in AoS. :)
Apart from cables, that is.....
I'll just get my coat.
We've been here before, lol! :eyebrows:
Out of interest, Mike, do you consider tube-rolling or component upgrading in equipment, also as a form of tonal manipulation?
Marco.
Out of interest, Mike, do you consider tube-rolling or component upgrading in equipment, also as a form of tonal manipulation?
Hmmm... Yup, I guess so! :eyebrows:
Not just the 'tone' though, stacks of other stuff too. Just the same as swapping and changing any part of a system. Or even the room.
I agree; that's why I think it's always important to consider the bigger picture with these things... :)
Marco.
Nightmares with work for the last week so hardly been at home let alone AoS - however I am really not surprised this thread ended up the way it did... I had a bad feeling from "Matts" #1 introductory post, and sadly turned out to be right. Hey ho, that's life, I'll get me slippers. ;)
I applaud your instincts, Alex :)
It shows how dedicated you are that as soon as you're home, and near a comp, you come and say hello :cool:
Marco.
Room correction is all the rage these days and with good reason. Unlike the other posters so far (I think)I use an Onkyo 875 av amp which has Audessey room eq built in. My findings show its room and kit dependent. My old speaker setup was a pair of Ruark Talisman II fronts with Ruark centre which never got on with my new house when I moved something was missing. Running Audessey helped match the tonality and improve the sound field. At least that was when the calibration was done properly as its far from simple getting an accurate picture of a room.
I then changed to those white things in my Avatar and found that bypass mode worked better when listening to stereo especially. I then re ran the room correction and once I followed direction to the letter from Neil (http://www.avforums.com/tv/index.php?videoid=196) I found little difference between the two with Audessey edging it. I concluded that my old Ruark setup was far more room sensitive.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.