Tone controls - who needs 'em?

[Ted Kendall]

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.

In my professional capacity, my thirty years' training and experience tell me something is right, and the satisfaction of my clients and continued good reviews tell me that my work travels well.

As regards domestic replay, there are so many variables involved in reproduction, including the speaker/room interface, that judicious use of tone and volume controls is essential to getting the best results for you, the listener. This, of course, includes leaving them flat when the sound is right, but what is the point of putting up with a dull treble from your rig and leaving the tone controls flat just because it is "more accurate"? In the end, hi fi has to convey a musical experience, so set the knobs where it sounds best to you. Otherwise, what's the point?

[barretter]

Originally Posted by Nuvistor

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

I just have problems with the paragraph: "The studio acoustics, the monitoring system...all affect the final tonal signature of the recorded piece. If people can't hear this so obvious difference in tonal qualities...then frankly can understand why they don't need tone controls." If your system is good enough to reveal the differences between different recording situations, I don't see why you would need tone controls to alter the "tonal signature" That is what I meant by homogenization. A gourmet meal should have been seasoned properly by the chef before it is served. Great music is not always "pleasurable", it can be quite startling and I see no point in mitigating its effect by the use of tone controls.

[barretter]

In my professional capacity, my thirty years' training and experience tell me something is right, and the satisfaction of my clients and continued good reviews tell me that my work travels well.

I didn't mean "you, Ted Kendall", I meant people generally who have little experience of live music. I'm not posh enough to use the word "one" which is less ambiguous.

[Nuvistor]

Well perhaps that is the difference between us, I listen to music to obtain pleasure, I also have high frequency loss hearing so I turn up the treble.

I and anyone else for that matter can never hear what the artist hears so why not adjust it to something I can enjoy.
Frank

[Ted Kendall]

Unless you are setting out to be a professional sound engineer or a hi fi guru, what sound you prefer is your business entirely. He who goes to concerts regularly may adjust his system in his room to give the most convincing illusion of live music, but he who doesn't can still tweak until it sounds right to him, and if it satisfies him, what is the problem? Glenn Gould argued eloquently along these lines fifty years ago. Of course, we may hope that the listener's taste evolves towards an appreciation of a natural sound, but not using tone controls confers no virtue on the listener of itself.

It is a very brave mastering engineer who declares that his work is suitable to be played without correction in all circumstances by all customers. All he can do is to ensure that his system is tolerably neutral and of sufficient resolution to enable him to hear what is in the signal, and then do his job.

Apropos, when I was a very green sound engineer, trailing a much more experienced man, I attempted to follow what I saw as his method for setting up a mix, that is opening each fader in turn and starting to twiddle the EQ. He rapidly stopped me, saying "what have you forgotten to do?". Seeing my blank look, he explained that, though long experience tended to mask this, he listened to the sound on the channel before reaching for the EQ knobs. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it is, use the available tools as much as necessary.

[Radio Wrangler]

oooh, hell, did I start all this?

Back in the day a typical tone control circuit was a single BC109 sort of transistor stuck in the middle of a Baxandall type of feedback network. The overall concept wasn't too bad, but the implementation was disappointing, the poor transistor didn't really have enough gain to handle the boost levels of the network and still have enough left to fix its own non-linearities etc.

It was a problem that needed fixing. It needed a few devices or an Ne5534 at the core. Maybe more appropriate shapes could be engineered? Getting rid of all tone controls doesn't handle the need for them.

Let's just suppose that the mastering engineers wanted to keep you happy and they deliberately used your sort of speakers and set it up to give your sot of sound in their control room, which had been configured to match your lounge... That still leaves the issue that the response of your hearing changes with sound level. Let's say you are listening to a recording of concert which you know well and you want to create the illusion of being there. Now, if you have to listen at a different level, you will notice the differently shaped response and it will seem like the level was different to what you experienced at the event and in louder playings of the recording. So it stops you creating the illusion because the apparent level and the frequency distribution don't match the profile in your esrs, so it seems unreal.

I think the Quad tilt/step arrangement is quite good. So good I nobbled it for my own preamp.

David

[Ted Kendall]

Well said. I agree about the Quad tilt/step tone controls, too, though a good Baxandall is still useful.

[paulsherwin]

I think the objection to tone controls wasn't that they allowed listeners to mess up the original artistic intention of the recording engineer, though there was an element of that, but that tone control circuitry messed up the sound even when the controls were set for a flat response.

[Ted Kendall]

Fair point, but, as so often, it comes down to competence of design. Good tone controls, set flat, are to all intents and purposes transparent. Far be it from me to imply that some of the hair-shirt designers weren't that hot...

[RojDW48]

Gosh! That's all very interesting. Barretter, was I wrong in suggesting that there are specific points at which amp performance is measured? And that some manufacturers 'made sure' their products matched up nicely there - if not everywhere? The comment about Arthur Radford might very well be apochryphal, but he was well known for plain speaking!

Members have touched upon types of tone circuitry - could someone expand upon 'passive' and 'active' types without getting too technical? I remember greeting the domestic graphic equaliser with some joy but quickly falling out of love with it because it was such a fuss to use and introduced audible distortion (I couldn't afford a very good one). I have had several Tripletone pre-amps and integrated amps over the years and I rather liked that approach and I agree that the Quad stepped slope control was rather good.

[RojDW48]

Apologies, Dave for lifting your comments - it just got me thinking!!!

Roger

[suebutcher]

My hifi's got medium-sized sealed enclosure loudspeakers. A speaker of that type needs a small amount of bass boost, and the makers (Philips) would have assumed that they'd be powered by an amp fitted with tone controls. So even if my living room was perfect, I'd need a bass control, and a bit of treble boost helps if I want to listen while moving around rather than sitting down in front of the speakers.

[stevehertz]

My thoughts entirely, and indeed very much part of how I generally use my tone controls. Firstly, most domestic speakers just don't go down to the frequencies put out by bass guitar and kick drum (to name but two instruments), so a little boost is needed there for reality. And as I tend to listen while walking around doing jobs etc, I'm not generally in that 'perfect position', in front of the beamed treble frequencies, so again a little boost there is needed to enjoy the effect of the cymbals etc. However when I am sitting down in front/middle of the speakers, then again - enter tone controls - I may adjust for zero treble gain, or maybe even a tad reduced as my speakers are a little bright in that area. And of course, every record/CD has a different tonal signature, and so 'on top' of the adjustments just described, I can adjust the tone controls to suit my preference and in all fairness, knowledge of what - in my opinion - it should sound like having been in bands all my life and my studio/mixing experience. And in any case, tone controls are personal, you can do what you like with them, there's no rules. I mean, I get into people's cars (that's mates who own good hifi systems), and the EQ is absolutely lousy; no bass, sqawky mids etc, but it suits them, they're happy, and yet the tone controls are there to be adjusted as one wishes. Just the same, if someone doesn't use their tone controls, or indeed chooses components that don't have them, then so long as they are happy, that's all that matters. It's still 'their choice of tone'.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by RojDW48

Gosh! That's all very interesting. Barretter, was I wrong in suggesting that there are specific points at which amp performance is measured? And that some manufacturers 'made sure' their products matched up nicely there - if not everywhere? The comment about Arthur Radford might very well be apochryphal, but he was well known for plain speaking!

You were talking about amplifiers only matching the RIAA spec (I presume for the reproduction of LPs) at some test points. That seemed to me to be a misapprehension of how RIAA correction is implemented. Are you now talking about the general frequency response of amplifiers?

[ms660]

Thing is, I suspect most of the regulars on here have some kind of engineering background so tend to expect accuracy and flat responses, but it's music we're on about, some music demands to have the bass or treble cranked up or whatever as fits the mood of the listener.

Never quite got the hifi thing....Input transducer (studio/live venue etc) we've got no control over that, output transducer (loudspeaker) probably the weakest link, then there's room acoustics etc, I would have thought that for the perfectionist the amplifier is the least of it, let alone tone controls.

Lawrence.

[grampy2]

I have to cast my vote in favour of tone controls,have two hearing aids and each ear different my personal preference is for bass and treble boost with mid frequencies flat.

[Dave Anderson]

The whole subject of tone controls is not only complex but also controversial. There are clearly arguments both for and against having them depending on individual circumstances. It is also clear that not all tone controls work in the same way. I remember many years ago, when I was just starting to gain an interest in hi-fi, I compared two stereo amplifiers with interesting results. My father owned a Leak amplifier (transistorised) and I had just bought a more modern Trio amplifier. The Trio was 'flavour of the month' in the hi-fi magazines. The intensity of the tone controls differed enormously. That is to say the amount of cut or boost for a given turn of the tone control was not the same. The Leak gave more cut or boost whereas the Trio tone controls were more subtle and less invasive.

Nowadays I use a well-known make of British amplifier. It has no tone controls or filters. I honestly don't miss them. I feel having no controls gives me just as much, if not more, clarity across the entire frequency range. My listening tastes are mainly classical music. I understand the recording engineers are less likely to 'fiddle about' with eq for this type of recording. Indeed corrections are usually carried out by changes in mic placement or moving the performers themselves to achieve a balance.

I have heard a lot in this thread about tone controls being used for compensation. Compensating for known hearing loss or compensating for limitations in bookshelf loudspeakers. Well, that is fair enough but we are unlikely to know what the original recording sounded like so this type of adjustment is guesswork.

I think it's also important to realise that tone controls (bass and treble) on a domestic hi-fi amplifier have a fairly crude impact on the recording being heard. By comparison, the eq controls on mixing consoles or in Pro Tools etc. used in the studio operate on a specific narrow band of frequencies. At the end of the day, as others have said, it's all about personal enjoyment of the music. Who cares how you position the bass and treble on your amplifier. If you want accuracy and to be faithful to the original recording such adjustments are probably best kept to a minimum but you may prefer inaccuracy if it offers more listening pleasure. But here again, accuracy is an unknown quantity unless you were the actual recording engineer for that particular recording.

Dave.

[Radio Wrangler]

Let's consider a group being recorded in a typical studio. Microphones all over the place, microphones up the proverbial. Some instruments and thingies have no sound output, only electrical signals... Guitar effects pedals are an effective part of the instrument. There is NO original single sound to be true to, nothing to judge the accuracy of a reproduction against. What gets shipped as a recording to the paying customer was assembled and adjusted to create an impression the mixdown engineer in accordance with his paying customers (record company, band etc) wanted to create. Some famous engineers would replay their prosuct over a representative selection of speakers from tranny portable, record player, to domestic hifi to check that the product would sound attractive enough to sell in quantity to people listening on whatever they had. Whenever anyone makes claims of accuracy or truth, I wonder just what they think they're being true to. "What is truth?" indeed.

Let's consider a more classical recording task. An orchestra or a big band, all gathered together, all playing at once. In other words, a complete performance. Someone sitting in the hall or wherever could hear it all and enjoy it. But this can be recorded in two ways. Individual instriuments can get individual mikes and the whole lot assembled by a mixer - and we're back to what is truth? again. Or microphones can be used to capture the experience at an audience member's seat. Now we actually have a real experience that we could try to reproduce, and something real and objective to be true to. BUT, only the person sitting there at the time can know what to compare the reproduction to.

All these people sitting at home twiddling tone controls, or endlessly buying different equipment in lieu of tone controls can't really know what the original was, if there even was one unique original. If they say they're adjusting the sound for maximum pleasure I'll respect their judgement on a personal issue. If they say they're adjusting the sound to get it right or accurate I'm not going to believe a word they say.

Psychoacoustics.... 10% acoustics, 90% psycho

David

[RojDW48]

PW Drive makes a good point about the amp probably being the easiest bit of a hi-fi system to get right. Barretter - I guess I had vinyl in mind as that is what I play the most but I also use CDs and tape. I don't know how amplifiers are tested for compliance with RIAA, THD etc. I would be interested to find out.

I have usually found, especially with 'classical' recordings - the bigger the band the poorer the result. There are obvious problems with getting a whole symphony orchestra right - microphones are not ears after all. As a general rule I find that small ensembles make it over to vinyl or CD much better than big ones and 'sound' more like the performance you might hear live.

I rarely adjust tone controls - sometimes for listening to 78s - but I would hate not to have the option!

[toshiba tony]

What an interesting post, years ago the Japanese introduced a valve amp, never saw one but read up on it. It had two gain controls, that's all, no filters, (rumble/scratch). Being valve was a rarity, esp. Japanese. Oh, and it was 2 watts per channel, cost about ten grand.
Rotel, on the other hand, there was a 407 in the model number from memory, it had lower bass, upper bass, lower treble and upper treble. I am thinking did the Japanese amp sound more musical? probably yes. The main use of tone controls for me is to cater for room acoustics. I have a decent amp and always leave the tone controls and filters defeated. The amp is one of the Sony Espirit range, think thats the name, and I think it "wires out" the tone controls, not just defeats them, I could sometimes enjoy a bit more top end but that isn't the gear, it's me getting old. But isn't music down to the individual, as a Kid I loved setting my graphic equaliser to extremes, blasting woofers and melting tweeters. Graphic equalisers!!!!! Hate them now.