Life without tone controls etc.

[BostonJack]

It's worth comparing with the JDS Labs Subjective 3, which gives you the option to buy ready-to-use, or build yourself as a kit. I built and measured a Subjective 3, posted results here.

Thanks. worthy of consideration. Note that the Loki Mini+ (current model) has what appear to me to be exhaustive measurements published at the Schitt.com site. kits are fun.

 

[MattHooper]

Tone controls make total sense, as do the ways many are using them here.

It's just interesting how the use of tone controls to "fix" the sound of specific tracks through one's system nonetheless does seem in tension with the devotion to accuracy (to the source). Like I mentioned, as soon as you start adjusting tone controls or eq for specific tracks or albums, you've left "accuracy" for "preference."

 

[0bs3rv3r]

Tone controls make total sense, as do the ways many are using them here.

It's just interesting how the use of tone controls to "fix" the sound of specific tracks through one's system nonetheless does seem in tension with the devotion to accuracy (to the source). Like I mentioned, as soon as you start adjusting tone controls or eq for specific tracks or albums, you've left "accuracy" for "preference."

Nah, you haven't left accuracy. You never really had it. It's a myth that most recordings contain accuracy to begin with. Rereleased, re-mastered recordings show just how much of the final sound is quite arbitrary (in most cases). Even the original recording is made with microphones chosen to compliment (colour) the targetted instrument's sound, and eq and other processing is used on a per-channel basis to alter the sound. Then it is mixed to taste for the final two tracks. If you ever get to spend time in a studio, especially behind the desk, you'll see how arbitrary it is.

And judging by the final results in a lot of examples, they must be targetting something other than hifi, or else they just can't be bothered too much. Some of it is changing "tastes", going by the overblown bass in a lot of modern recordings.

 

[MattHooper]

In my comments on tone control, I wasn't arguing myself for accuracy (that's another argument) but only that for anyone who's purported goal is accuracy, especially of the type often lauded here, changing the sound of tracks or albums seems in tension with this.

That said...

Nah, you haven't left accuracy. You never really had it. It's a myth that most recordings contain accuracy to begin with. Rereleased, re-mastered recordings show just how much of the final sound is quite arbitrary (in most cases). Even the original recording is made with microphones chosen to compliment (colour) the targetted instrument's sound, and eq and other processing is used on a per-channel basis to alter the sound. Then it is mixed to taste for the final two tracks. If you ever get to spend time in a studio, especially behind the desk, you'll see how arbitrary it is.

Some of us here, including me, have indeed been behind the desk (I work in pro sound for film/tv, and have also recorded in bands as a musician).

I think you are mixing up some versions of "accuracy" there.

It appears by "accuracy" you are referring to "recreating the original acoustic event that happened in front of the microphones."

I'd say almost everyone here recognizes that as a fool's errand, all aware of the deviations you've stated.

This is why the more common notion of "accuracy" around here has more to do with reproducing the signal on the recording, with as high fidelity and as little added distortion as possible. In other words, to hear the information on the recording. And if there are different masters of an album, then you simply hear the differences between those masters. If a recording was made to sound more natural, it will sound that way through your system. If it was made to sound highly stylized and colored, it will sound that way.

Now, of course, even that goal can run in to some philosophical/practical issues. But it at least provides a technical/objective "north star" which can guide someone toward that goal, even if in practice it's never fully reached. You can get further or closer to such a goal, and know it.
It's not in the same "guess-work" ballpark as trying to recreate what the recordist's heard in front of the microphones.

 

[0bs3rv3r]

Now, of course, even that goal can run in to some philosophical/practical issues. But it at least provides a technical/objective "north star" which can guide someone toward that goal, even if in practice it's never fully reached. You can get further or closer to such a goal, and know it.
It's not in the same "guess-work" ballpark as trying to recreate what the recordist's heard in front of the microphones.

My biggest problem is not liking what is actually on the record. It's either different taste or lack of skill/effort in the recording process. I do not see value in seeking something artificial that may not appeal to me anyway. I use tone and eq to improve my experience, and really missed those controls when they started to disappear.

 

[MRC01]

... appears by "accuracy" you are referring to "recreating the original acoustic event that happened in front of the microphones."
I'd say almost everyone here recognizes that as a fool's errand, all aware of the deviations you've stated.

This is why the more common notion of "accuracy" around here has more to do with reproducing the signal on the recording, with as high fidelity and as little added distortion as possible. In other words, to hear the information on the recording. And if there are different masters of an album, then you simply hear the differences between those masters. If a recording was made to sound more natural, it will sound that way through your system. If it was made to sound highly stylized and colored, it will sound that way.

Now, of course, even that goal can run in to some philosophical/practical issues. But it at least provides a technical/objective "north star" which can guide someone toward that goal, even if in practice it's never fully reached. You can get further or closer to such a goal, and know it.
It's not in the same "guess-work" ballpark as trying to recreate what the recordist's heard in front of the microphones.

I agree. This is why I give each recording a generously wide range of quality before applying correction. If it sounds reasonable, I generally don't modify it but try to appreciate the recording engineer's work/art, knowing my system is neutral so I'm hearing something close to what they intended.

My biggest problem is not liking what is actually on the record. It's either different taste or lack of skill/effort in the recording process. I do not see value in seeking something artificial that may not appeal to me anyway. I use tone and eq to improve my experience, and really missed those controls when they started to disappear.

This ^^^

With classical music I rarely use tone controls because it is almost always so well recorded. But with any other kind of music, all bets are off. Modern pop recordings are so consistently terrible, EQ can't save them and they're too annoying to listen to even if the music is good. Jazz and other genres range somewhere in between, recordings ranging from excellent to terrible.

Back in the 80s when I started this hobby, my first amp had tone controls but the fad to phase them out had already started. Over the next 20 years this purist fad surged and receded. During that time I had preamps without tone controls. If the music was so poorly mastered it made me grimace, I turned it off, or if the music was good enough to be worth it, grimaced all the way through the album. About 3 years ago I finally got a DAC/preamp that has tone controls, simple old-school twist knobs that are implemented in DSP. Like old school, only better, more precise and transparent. This has increased my enjoyment and range of music, especially for flawed vintage recordings of great music. I'm loving it!

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Tone controls make total sense, as do the ways many are using them here.

It's just interesting how the use of tone controls to "fix" the sound of specific tracks through one's system nonetheless does seem in tension with the devotion to accuracy (to the source). Like I mentioned, as soon as you start adjusting tone controls or eq for specific tracks or albums, you've left "accuracy" for "preference."

In a perfect world, all recorded music would be perfectly recorded and mixed, and without compromise. Obviously this isn't the case. I wouldn't call changing the tone of a recording simply a preference - it could be argued that it could be un-doing the compromises or bad practices of the original engineers, at least when the tone controls are intelligently applied. Cranking up the bass beyond what any recording would have is to me what a 'preference' is, verses a correction.

 

[MattHooper]

In a perfect world, all recorded music would be perfectly recorded and mixed, and without compromise.

Thanks for the comment. In to the philosophical weeds we go.......

I can't picture such a perfect world. Mostly because what could "perfectly recorded and mixed without compromise" actually mean?
The range of how the artists and engineers want something to sound is huge. If someone wants a drum or bass track to be thinned out, would that entail it is not "perfectly recorded, mixed without compromise?" Or is it not simply their artistic choice?

Just what music would this vision apply to? Rock? Pop? EDM? Electronica? Ambient? Shoe-Gaze? etc? Who could possibly decide how it all ought to be recorded and mixed, when those are artistic decisions in of themselves?

I was just listening to some prog rock - SAGA followed by Rush. The Saga album was recorded during that 80's peried when a super "hot" compressed snare and kick drum sound (typically with reverb and mixed with some distance in the track) came in (think Madonna's Like A Virgin, Simple Minds Sparkle In The Rain etc). So the SAGA drums were super hot and crispy, echoey, distant, compressed. It gave a very distinct style and sound to the whole album which I love. Then on Rush's Tom Sawyer Pearts drums were huge, rich, room filling and present. Also awesome. Which way should the drums be produced in a "perfect world?"

Obviously this isn't the case. I wouldn't call changing the tone of a recording simply a preference - it could be argued that it could be un-doing the compromises or bad practices of the original engineers, at least when the tone controls are intelligently applied. Cranking up the bass beyond what any recording would have is to me what a 'preference' is, verses a correction.

But how are you to make the call between a "bad practice" and an engineer's advised choice, or that of the artist?

I don't see the distinction. The artist signed off on the recording, if you change it...it's to your preference. You don't know you are changing it to the preference of the engineer or artist. (Unless...in some rare cases, you actually had that information).

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Thanks for the comment. In to the philosophical weeds we go.......

I can't picture such a perfect world. Mostly because what could "perfectly recorded and mixed without compromise" actually mean?
The range of how the artists and engineers want something to sound is huge. If someone wants a drum or bass track to be thinned out, would that entail it is not "perfectly recorded, mixed without compromise?" Or is it not simply their artistic choice?

Just what music would this vision apply to? Rock? Pop? EDM? Electronica? Ambient? Shoe-Gaze? etc? Who could possibly decide how it all ought to be recorded and mixed, when those are artistic decisions in of themselves?

I was just listening to some prog rock - SAGA followed by Rush. The Saga album was recorded during that 80's peried when a super "hot" compressed snare and kick drum sound (typically with reverb and mixed with some distance in the track) came in (think Madonna's Like A Virgin, Simple Minds Sparkle In The Rain etc). So the SAGA drums were super hot and crispy, echoey, distant, compressed. It gave a very distinct style and sound to the whole album which I love. Then on Rush's Tom Sawyer Pearts drums were huge, rich, room filling and present. Also awesome. Which way should the drums be produced in a "perfect world?"







But how are you to make the call between a "bad practice" and an engineer's advised choice, or that of the artist?

I don't see the distinction. The artist signed off on the recording, if you change it...it's to your preference. You don't know you are changing it to the preference of the engineer or artist. (Unless...in some rare cases, you actually had that information).

Being a musician does not automatically endow great appreciation for audio quality! Engineers have to take the final delivery medium into account - in the 60s and 70s this was cheap phonographs and car radios, so the bass was rolled off, the highs were rolled off, and what was left was compressed.

Today engineers compromise in a similar way with brick wall compression and excessive high frequency presence to cater to the perceived playback environment.

In the 50s and 60s with classical music, engineers rode the gain to manually 'compress' the dynamic range into the 50dB or so dynamic range of the tapes of the day such as Scotch 111. HiFi manufacturers like Fisher made 'expanders' to try to restore the compressed dynamic range of these recordings. Dynamic filters were also marketed to deal with disc noise.

Not all of these can be dealt with by an EQ in the hands of an end user, but certainly overly aggressive high frequencies can, and recordings with rolled-off bass can.

An example of recordings which have 'no compromise' would be ones from some audiophile labels like Chesky, but then as good as the engineering might be, the music is usually un-listenable after a couple plays.

But in the end, who gives a damn? If the recording doesn't suit a listener, anything really goes. It shouldn't be a debate.

 

[Gregss]

Tone controls make real sense. Rooms vary hugely. Speakers vary hugely in their response and patterning. Positioning in the rooms of the speakers, furniture and listeners varies hugely. Having some, given limited, way to compensate helps.

 

[egellings]

I have the Yamaha C-70 preamp, and that has excellent parametric tone controls that allow for a large adjustment range and choice of frequency the controls act at, and they can be bypassed with a push of a button. Whatever tickles my nun-handles goes!

 

[jsrtheta]

In a perfect world, all recorded music would be perfectly recorded and mixed, and without compromise. Obviously this isn't the case. I wouldn't call changing the tone of a recording simply a preference - it could be argued that it could be un-doing the compromises or bad practices of the original engineers, at least when the tone controls are intelligently applied. Cranking up the bass beyond what any recording would have is to me what a 'preference' is, verses a correction.

Even a little time spent in recording studios and watching mixes being made can be enough to terrify the hell out of you.

 

[richard12511]

I’m not sure what escksu meant in referring to DACs etc as the source, but I take his basic point as a good one. It’s been made here before: Many people on a forum like this claim to want accuracy to the source as their ideal. Well, that’s what you essentially get once you have set up an accurate system.

Once you start playing with tone controls to “fix” certain tracks because you don’t like how they sound, you’ve departed from that stated goal and now it’s about personal preference.

I disagree with this. Important to remember that at low frequencies we hear the room far more than we hear the speakers. So, you can't just buy neutral speakers/amp/dac and be listening to neutral sound. Buying neutral gear only gets you accuracy above 700-800Hz or so, below that, attaining accurate sound requires buying an 'accurate room', which most of us can't afford and/or don't have the knowledge to construct. Like it or not, EQ is the only realistic option for those who want accurate/realistic sound within and below the transition range.

 

[MattHooper]

I disagree with this. Important to remember that at low frequencies we hear the room far more than we hear the speakers. So, you can't just buy neutral speakers/amp/dac and be listening to neutral sound. Buying neutral gear only gets you accuracy above 700-800Hz or so, below that, attaining accurate sound requires buying an 'accurate room', which most of us can't afford and/or don't have the knowledge to construct. Like it or not, EQ is the only realistic option for those who want accurate/realistic sound within and below the transition range.

Yes of course. That’s why you’ll see I was very careful each time to specify I was taking about EQing for specific tracks or albums. Not about EQ or DSP used to mitigate room interactions.

 

[egellings]

You could use a so-called loudness control to do that, which is a tapped log pot. Once the slider gets past the tap, the F.R. flattens out. Before the slider reaches the tap, you get boosted bass and sometimes added treble to go with that.