Tone controls - who needs 'em?

[RojDW48]

I had a look this time and I couldn't find any general discussion of this topic!

Radio Wrangler raised this interesting point in the 'Which Amplifier' current thread -

'Hifi pundits don't like tone controls and insist that not only must you not use them, amplifiers shouldn't have them. So they spend large amounts of money changing cartridges, amplifiers, speakers instead to get the sort of sound they want. If this sounds crazy, remember that the mixing desks which constructed the sound on their LPs are absolutely bristling with frequency-response shaping controls.'

I have often wondered about the 'disappearance' of tone controls some years ago on 'quality' amps and pre-amps. Back in my day Quad and Radford were the big names. You could cancel the tone controls on a Quad but not on a Radford. I seem to recall Radford and Bailey pouring scorn on manufacturers whose products were carefully designed to match the RIAA spec at the test points and insisting that their products were designed to match everywhere! Were these examples of 'active' and 'passive' tone circuits? Did manufacturers save a few pounds by leaving them out and justify that on the basis that it was in some way better?

I have to admit I feel a bit short-changed if I don't get tone controls - even if I only very rarely move them from 'flat'.

Roger

[paulsherwin]

This was hugely fashionable in the 90s and few amps with pretensions to quality had tone controls. My Marantz PM 66SE doesn't. They subsequently started to reappear, though usually with a button to bypass them. The consensus of opinion was, and to an extent still is, that tone controls degrade the sound.

Bizarrely, my PM66 has a tone bypass button despite not having tone controls! It just bypasses the tape deck switching. A look inside shows the main board to be marked and drilled for bass and treble controls but these haven't been fitted. It isn't clear if the controls were fitted in other markets or if the removal of the controls was a last minute pre production decision.

I do tend to leave the controls in the flat position when they're fitted, unless there's something odd about the speakers or source.

[G6Tanuki]

Having hearing that is very, very far-removed from "flat" I find user-adjustable equalisation to be a must-have! Even with 15dB of bass-boost I still can't hear much below 200Hz.

[mark_in_manc]

Hey, that's unusual (LF hearing loss) - normally presbyacusis (loss with age) works from the top down, and noise-induced hearing loss (resulting from broad band noise) hits 1-3kHz bands first. Were you subjected (like me) to high levels of LF noise?

Back on topic, I use tone controls on my amp most vigorously when feeding my pantry transmitter through the headphone socket. It's good to be able to pre-emphasise the spectrum about to be mangled by whatever ancient receiver is on the other end!

[Hartley118]

Take a look at a studio mixing desk; it's packed with tone controls - bass, treble, shelving or peaking, mid frequency peak/dip variable frequency, Q etc.

By rejecting tone controls as part of your home system, you're assuming that your own speakers and listening room acoustics - together with your own preferences - are identical those of the balance engineer and producer in the control room when the recording was made. That's highly unlikely, so carry on adjusting your tone controls to taste!

Of course, deprived of tone controls, our audiophile must then go on a never-ending search for speakers, cartridges, CD players, amplifiers, cables etc that can make small changes to the frequency response until he finds a combination that sounds acceptable. It creates lots to write about in the few surviving audio magazines and keeps the few remaining hifi equipment dealers in business. So perhaps we mustn't grumble.

Though a touch on the treble control one way or another would probably have given the same benefit to his listening pleasure......

Martin

[paulsherwin]

To be fair to the audiophiles, most of the response shaping will be done in the digital domain in a modern studio. The first time the signal is converted to analogue may be in your home CD player, internet streamer or DAB tuner. I'm pretty sure the Optimodding of radio is digital now.

I vaguely remember that the objection to tone controls has something to do with introducing phase shifts.

[wd40addict]

The Marantz was probably sold with tone controls in all other markets!

As the Eighties wore on woe betide any amp that a HiFi mag tested with tone controls. The last 'quality' unit to get away with it was the Audiolab, but even they removed them from later products. If tone controls were fitted the reviews just descended into two pages of whinging about it.

I still use my Audiolab because sometimes source material needs a helping hand and if it doesn't that's what the bypass button is for.

[paulsherwin]

I do have a possible explanation for the missing PM66 tone controls. At that time, Marantz normally sold three versions of their hifi separates: the bog standard cheap one, the midpriced SE one, and the audiophile KI one. As far as I know, they never marketed the standard version of the PM66, and the SE and KI versions were the only ones made. My guess is that tone controls would have been fitted to the standard 'pleb' version, but at some stage they decided not to make it because the marketing image would be wrong.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by RojDW48

I have often wondered about the 'disappearance' of tone controls some years ago on 'quality' amps and pre-amps. Back in my day Quad and Radford were the big names. You could cancel the tone controls on a Quad but not on a Radford. I seem to recall Radford and Bailey pouring scorn on manufacturers whose products were carefully designed to match the RIAA spec at the test points and insisting that their products were designed to match everywhere! Were these examples of 'active' and 'passive' tone circuits? Did manufacturers save a few pounds by leaving them out...

RIAA correction is done by inserting three time constants (made with resistors and capacitors or inductors) into the amplifying circuit (either passively or in a feedback loop). If this is done accurately (which is not all easy) the RIAA correction will be accurate at all points of interest, so it's not really a matter of "test points".
I doubt if the two Arthurs "poured scorn" on other manufacturers : that's not how things were done in those days.
Of course if the output from your cartridge is way out of whack you may need tone controls. Cartridges are lot better now than they used to be in the early Sixties.

[stevehertz]

I'm in the fortunate position of being a long term hifi enthusiast (notice I didn't say 'Audiophile') and a musician who has worked in numerous recording studios since the early and mid 70s respectively for those activities. There's not two recordings on the face of the earth that, when in their final form, are singing from the same hymn sheets frequency response wise. The studio acoustics, the monitoring system, the preferences of the sound engineer and producer and the cutting engineer - to name a few - all affect the final 'tonal signature' of the recorded piece. If people can't hear this so obvious difference in tonal qualities when playing CDs, different radio stations etc, then frankly I can understand why they don't need tone controls! I adjust my tone controls all the time in order to get the best listening pleasure from the source at that time. It's part of the fun for me, getting the 'tone' right!

A hi-fi system without tone controls is like a gourmet meal without seasoning.

[G6Tanuki]

Originally Posted by mark_in_manc

Hey, that's unusual (LF hearing loss) - normally presbyacusis (loss with age) works from the top down, and noise-induced hearing loss (resulting from broad band noise) hits 1-3kHz bands first. Were you subjected (like me) to high levels of LF noise?

Sort-of: I guess an explosion counts as a rather spectacularly-high *instantaneous* level of LF noise.

There again the upside of my hearing-loss is that pretty much all hum/ripple from poorly-smoothed 50/60Hz power supplies is well below my personal noise-floor!

[barretter]

But if the listener has no idea what the original recording sounded like, using tone controls to alter tonal balance is just a shot in the dark. Your argument actually seems to say that recordings should be homogenised to your personal taste.

[barretter]

Stevehertz's argument, that is.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by barretter

But if the listener has no idea what the original recording sounded like, using tone controls to alter tonal balance is just a shot in the dark. Your argument actually seems to say that recordings should be homogenised to your personal taste.

And why on earth not? The point of domestic hi fi is to reproduce music or speech in your room on your speakers in the way you find most satisfying. Tone (and volume) controls are tools to be used intelligently to this end. If it sounds right, it is right.

[Nuvistor]

Originally Posted by barretter

Your argument actually seems to say that recordings should be homogenised to your personal taste.

Why not, surely the reason to listen to music is to enjoy it, if that means some alteration to the tonal quality, so be it.

Frank
Crossed with Ted

[Hartley118]

All recorded and broadcast sound balance is subjectively judged by producer and balance engineer on their particular monitor speakers - they choose their EQ settings so that it sounds right to them.

In the early 1970s, many pop studios relied on JBL monitors with an over-prominent midrange, so don't be surprised if some recordings from that era sound a bit light on the midrange.

George Martin used to travel the world with his own pair of Tannoy Dual Concentric monitors so that he and Geoff Emerick could achieve a consistent sound balance in the various studios they worked in.


Martin

[PsychMan]

If you have a good quality "neutral" system, as the hifi crowd might put it, its nice to listen to an album with flat EQs. Arguably you enjoy an album or recording as a piece of art itself, the production, mixing and mastering being part of what you're appreciating.

But then whats wrong with adjusting EQs to cater for inadequcies in your system? My main setup lacks bass somewhat so I might turn the bass up a bit

[dseymo1]

Some tone controls were very badly done, and gave the concept a bad name. Even in the flat position, they introduced wierd phase shifts, which were clearly audible. The cynic might suggest that this was deliberate in the case of amps whose tone controls could be switched out, just to 'prove' the value of that feature.
It's largely a matter of personal philosophy. My own view is that the reproduced sound should approach as closely as possible what was envisaged by the artist / producer. It would be strange to view visual art through variable colour filters to match one's taste; however, it might initially be desirable to correct thé colour temperature of the lighting to match the intended viewing conditions. The analogous use of good tome controls is, IMHO, legitimate.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

And why on earth not? The point of domestic hi fi is to reproduce music or speech in your room on your speakers in the way you find most satisfying. Tone (and volume) controls are tools to be used intelligently to this end. If it sounds right, it is right.

What does "in the way you find most satisfying" really mean? How do you know "it sounds right", using what criteria? Hi-fi means "high fidelity" which implies accuracy.

[dseymo1]

As regards studio EQ, there's a world of difference between response adjustment with good parametric equalisation and domestic tone controls. Attempting to correct minor room resonances, for example, with the latter is rather like threading a needle while wearing boxing gloves.