Tone control

[jsrtheta]

Thisone is long out of production. I'd rather go for the Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 (measured here) which can do many many (many) more things.

Thanks for the tip!

 

[Dimitri]

I'm buying a new amp 1.5K-2K budget for music only and there is always a compromise at this price point. But the one thing I would not compromise on is tone control

It would be great if increasing pring points were inversely proportional to compromise levels when it comes to audio equipment selection.
But they are not.
There is science and there is adjusting to taste.
I'm (almost) sure that a person with perfect hearing, listening to a perfectly balanced recording in a perfectly "correct" listening space would not "need" tone controls.

At some point "high end" preamps stop offering tone controls claiming "signal purity".
Some of us saw it as a way to reduce design and manufacturing costs plus the added "benefit" of differentiation from the "low end units offering tone controls".

For me, no tone controls - no sale.

 

[LouB]

It would be great if increasing pring points were inversely proportional to compromise levels when it comes to audio equipment selection.
But they are not.
There is science and there is adjusting to taste.
I'm (almost) sure that a person with perfect hearing, listening to a perfectly balanced recording in a perfectly "correct" listening space would not "need" tone controls.

At some point "high end" preamps stop offering tone controls claiming "signal purity".
Some of us saw it as a way to reduce design and manufacturing costs plus the added "benefit" of differentiation from the "low end units offering tone controls".

For me, no tone controls - no sale.

I did buy a Marantz PM8006 "open box" for 1100 bucks & was on the fence about returning it due to the "compromise" of some digital features found on other amps. But after back to to back comparing the Marantz to my Yamaha I decided to keep it, in truth there is very very minor differences in the sound.
On the tone control your spot on with recording quality being a factor. I was rolling through a bunch of CD's I hadn't listen too in years and 95% of em sounded great in "direct mode" (EQ bypassed) didn't hear or feel any need to EQ them. There were a few bad ones where the vocals sounded so harsh it hurt my ears, I just rolled off the mids a bit and it really helped. Hard to believe those cd's were released with that poor mastering mix, also some internet radio stations really benefit from a little EQ.
So all in all I gained tone control a great phono stage & a simple well built great sounding amp. Gave up an inboard DAC, digital inputs & possible room correction (although at 1100 bucks probably not gonna get decent room correction). Going to fix what I comprised on with an SMSL DAC.

 

[OldHvyMec]

I read most of the post. I started with tone control in the 60s and tried a Krell HT 5.1 in the early 80s (close) I had a heck of a time wrapping my head around no tone controls AND having a sub out with volume control. I don't think there was a ballance, I can't remember. I hated it. WHY? Simple I had always used Mcintosh/Marantz
I even used a Spec Stack for a while. The guy was gone for a few years and I was welcome to it. The very nice feature of a SUB out with a remote and the DAC was something I really did like. Brushed machined aluminum. It STILL has weight and works better than any remote I use. The question was how do I get both (DAC and
sub out control) and the best remote I have ever used?

Not all tone control or how they are implemented is the same. I like the idea of the tone control being added by a simple loop switch in analog. Without, it is
a line stage.

What about 78s, LPs, Reel To Reel, cassette and early CDs. They are recorded well? It's like saying zippers don't break. Some do, all will. Voyager has a gold record
record, Right? I wonder if they will use tone control. Three eyes and one ear or 3 ears and one eye? Alien tone control. We come in peace, we offer you
TONE CONTROL, you needed it on the LP you sent. Smart ass, smug, Vulcans! Some smart S$$ from earth with a line stage preamp and start a war. Screw up
the whole Gene Roddenberry LSD trip he had for the original Star Trek.

Digital preamps that have a bypass/playthrough work the best for me. I like the color of different valve manufacturers. Using a Mcintosh C2500 in bypass with
a Cary SLP-05 gives me all the sweetness I can stand, that combo drips with everything I ever wanted with and WITHOUT tone control. The bummer is
I still didn't get that Krell remote with the sub out volume control and a DAC that (to me) was/is perfect for what it did, and still does. I can't hear any difference
in a DAC. I can hear a difference in what and how they implement the DAC. I'd like to say I could hear a difference in most of the new gear, but to tell the truth
I'd be living in one noisy world. You would have to live with earplugs IN and muffs on.

The only reason they removed tone control was cost. The linestage crowd can say what they want. I'm surprised some don't even like volume control. LOL
You move closer and further away for volume control. Your seat and speakers are on an analog cable system. As you push back to lower the volume
the speakers tow out (slightly). I'm sure there is a cable tweak from someone.

I need to start a thread. "What is a perfect sound system to you" Please limit the response to 100 words and please think outside the box. No sucking up.
No limits. Well some limits. No a lot of limits, why did I say that?

 

[mr-audio]

It’s a bit puzzling to me that variable loudness hasn’t caught on as a common feature, especially given the modern infatuation with room correction tech like DIRAC. Simple bass and treble, or even 7 band equalizers, would seem outmoded versus using a room correction software WITH a variable loudness option.

I have not heard of anything doing this or maybe I am completely out of the loop. If anyone does know of such a capability I’d love to hear it. (P. S. I am a fan of variable loudness but I’ve not experienced much success using DIRAC)

 

[ahofer]

It’s a bit puzzling to me that variable loudness hasn’t caught on as a common feature, especially given the modern infatuation with room correction tech like DIRAC. Simple bass and treble, or even 7 band equalizers, would seem outmoded versus using a room correction software WITH a variable loudness option.

I have not heard of anything doing this or maybe I am completely out of the loop. If anyone does know of such a capability I’d love to hear it. (P. S. I am a fan of variable loudness but I’ve not experienced much success using DIRAC)

RME DAC does it. Also Buchardt speakers, I hear. (these are both variable and *automatic*, after calibration setting)

 

[levimax]

It’s a bit puzzling to me that variable loudness hasn’t caught on as a common feature, especially given the modern infatuation with room correction tech like DIRAC. Simple bass and treble, or even 7 band equalizers, would seem outmoded versus using a room correction software WITH a variable loudness option.

I have not heard of anything doing this or maybe I am completely out of the loop. If anyone does know of such a capability I’d love to hear it. (P. S. I am a fan of variable loudness but I’ve not experienced much success using DIRAC)

Many Yamaha integrated and pre-amps have variable loudness and have for years. https://hub.yamaha.com/audio/music/louder-isnt-always-better/

 

[Maciekw]

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I couldn't imagine listening to music without bass and treble correction. This was in large part due to the imperfections of sound sources and the shortcomings of individual components of the electroacoustic track. The bass boost compensated for the poor processing of the bass by the speakers. The treble boost masked the harmonic distortion of the fundamental tones and compensated for the drop in the higher frequencies resulting from various causes (imperfections in the sound source, the falling frequency response of the speakers, etc.). Over time, improvements in amplifiers, speakers, and sound sources have made me feel less and less the need to compensate for bandwidth extremes. And after a while, any equalization began to feel as something false. Today I use equalization only in the boom box. There it still works perfectly well.
It is different with digital room correction. Here we can precisely compensate for any acoustic defects in the room, which is never possible with a bass and treble equalizer.
If you feel the need to compensate for treble and bass, then perhaps you'd better investigate what causes it. And correct it. This will give much better results than desperately turning knobs.

 

[Trell]

If you feel the need to compensate for treble and bass, then perhaps you'd better investigate what causes it. And correct it. This will give much better results than desperately turning knobs.

My use of tone controls depends on the source material, and is for my own enjoyment. The source material is what it is, so what kind of corrections do you have in mind?

 

[Maciekw]

I expressed my opinion on the need to use tone controls in the amplifier. While in the past, many years ago, it could be justified for objective reasons, today there is no such need. On the other hand, for subjective reasons (I like it), everyone can do what they want. Even use a triode single ended amplifier sowing beautiful harmonic distortion. Whatever one likes. I wish you pleasure in listening.

 

[Trell]

I expressed my opinion on the need to use tone controls in the amplifier. While in the past, many years ago, it could be justified for objective reasons, today there is no such need. On the other hand, for subjective reasons (I like it), everyone can do what they want. Even use a triode single ended amplifier sowing beautiful harmonic distortion. Whatever one likes. I wish you pleasure in listening.

Of course there is a need for tone controls as I wrote in my post that you replied to: correct for (perceived) defects in the source material.

My Genelec monitors/subwoofer have room EQ applied, btw.

 

[LouB]

I expressed my opinion on the need to use tone controls in the amplifier. While in the past, many years ago, it could be justified for objective reasons, today there is no such need. On the other hand, for subjective reasons (I like it), everyone can do what they want. Even use a triode single ended amplifier sowing beautiful harmonic distortion. Whatever one likes. I wish you pleasure in listening.

The 1st 4 words your post holds true for your entire train of thought, to say there is no need for tone control is only correct for you. There is a need for tone control IMO and many others that buy & sell amps.

 

[CapMan]

I used to buy into the purist view that tone controls are bad for the signal (along with many other HiFi misconceptions that have unnecessarily cost me £000s).

Now I would not be without them to make a final tweak to the balance for my room. It’s like that last bit of salt that makes a meal so much more tasty.

I have a tiny little bit of upward tilt on the treble and the same on the bass and it makes all the difference in my room with my speakers and listening arrangements.

The tone controls are implemented digitally in my amps.

 

[Willem]

Traditional tone controls were a good idea but had their limitations. The objections against them were crackpot nonsense.The Quad Tilt control was a further sensible improvement. However, with perfect full range digital sources and more accurate speakers the imperfections of the room have come to the foreground. For that dsp room eq is really mandatory. I also greatly appreciate the fully adjustable dynamic loudness option on my RME ADI-2.

 

[CapMan]

Traditional tone controls were a good idea but had their limitations. The objections against them were crackpot nonsense.The Quad Tilt control was a firther sensoble. However, with perfect full range digital sources and more accurate speakers the imperfections of the room have come to the foreground. For that dsp room eq is really mandatory. I also greatly appreciate the fully adjustable dynamic loudness option on my RME ADI-2.

I agree 100% - that gives me an idea for a new thread …

 

[Willem]

As consumers we can now measure the in-room response of our system without spending a fortune and a lot of time. The results are usually quite sobering. And with dsp room eq we can quite easily implement corrections, even if advanced systems like MSO remain a bit of a challenge.

 

[CapMan]

Two other pieces of perceived HiFi wisdom were
1. source first - spend disproportionality more on the front end. That is so backward in my experience , unless perhaps we are talking specifically about vinyl playback.

2. Spend 10% of your budget on cables

I routinely read and heard these silly things in dealers and in magazines. I am grateful to finally be better informed and as you rightly state, to have the technology to measure for myself in my room.

 

[Willem]

Indeed. A $50 DVD drive or a Chromecast Audio into a decent modern DAC (or maybe even their analogue output) will beat any turntable. So yes, sources are important, but no longer a bottleneck. Cables are just a fraud. In fact, within reason electronics are no longer much of an issue either. Speakers are the least perfect link in the chain, and will inevitably remain so. The room is usually the biggest problem, and can now be dealt with to a fairly high level compared to what it was, and without spending a fortune.

 

[witwald]

Two other pieces of perceived HiFi wisdom were
1. source first - spend disproportionality more on the front end. That is so backward in my experience , unless perhaps we are talking specifically about vinyl playback.

It doesn't even apply to vinyl playback. A decent, well made turntable–tonearm–cartridge combination isn't all that expensive.

 

[witwald]

Traditional tone controls were a good idea but had their limitations.

That's very true, and many manufacturers have tried to offer improved solutions to the frequency response equalisation problem.

For example, the Pioneer SX-1980 receiver had twin bass and treble controls. The bass had a "50Hz" main control (±10dB) and a "100Hz" sub-control (±5dB), while the treble had a "10kHz" main control (±10dB) and a "20kHz" subcontrol (±5dB).

The Marantz 2325 receiver included a midrange tone control, as well as the usual bass and treble tone controls. The frequency response curves of these controls are shown below.

The more recent Marantz PM7003 amplifier has the following behaviour for its bass and treble tone controls.

The Quad Tilt control was a further sensible improvement.

Below is a diagram that shows the effects on frequency response offered by the classic QUAD tilt control. The single tilt control works on the low and high frequencies simultaneously, providing a bass boost–treble cut or a bass cut–treble boost. The rotation point of the tilt is at about 830Hz, and the boost/cut effects are limited to ±3dB at the frequency extremes.