[gbaby]

Error

[Mag]

I cannot believe how this thread went from why one should not use tone controls to the benefits of a parametric equalizer and EQ in general. Wow, you folks really know how to stick to the subject. Anyway, the main reason not to use tone controls is that doing so interrupts the signal path which always compromises the sound. In fact, some really expensive pre-amps have no tone controls. So its science.

That's why I use the Yamaha MG-10. Although the distortion spec is not as low as Bryston gear, it is low enough that I could not discern masking of the music as I could with previous EQ I used. I also use an expensive pre-amp the Bryston SP2, BCD-3, 2-Bryston 3B SST/2, Model T passives, Paradigm Studio 100 v2.

As for other mixers I could not find their distortion spec, which is why I only mention Yamaha as the spec is something like .02 IIRC.

[gbaby]

That's why I use the Yamaha MG-10. Although the distortion spec is not as low as Bryston gear, it is low enough that I could not discern masking of the music as I could with previous EQ I used. I also use an expensive pre-amp the Bryston SP2, BCD-3, 2-Bryston 3B SST/2, Model T passives, Paradigm Studio 100 v2.

As for other mixers I could not find their distortion spec, which is why I only mention Yamaha as the spec is something like .02 IIRC.

A mic mixer is a different animal from a pre-amp designed for music playback. 

[Russell Dawkins]

Using tone controls is like wearing tinted glasses to an art museum.

Doc

...or correcting white balance on a color photograph?

[Bendingwave]

I cannot believe how this thread went from why one should not use tone controls to the benefits of a parametric equalizer and EQ in general. Wow, you folks really know how to stick to the subject. Anyway, the main reason not to use tone controls is that doing so interrupts the signal path which always compromises the sound. In fact, some really expensive pre-amps have no tone controls. So its science.

Some Receivers or preamps with tone controls have options that enables one to bypass the tone controls for a direct/straight signal path....My Yamaha receiver has this option....Whether it makes a difference in sound quality is personal preference.

[Anonamemouse]

Nobody knows what an instrument sounded like when it was recorded. Before the sound reaches the mixing board it already has been altered by the microphone, the cables used, the plugs, and a whole bunch of gear that is in the path. Then it gets altered again by mixing, mastering, the cdplayer or streamer it is played on, the DAC, the turntable, the needle, the cables, the amplifiers,  more cables, the loudspeakers, the room, the furniture, the neighbors, the weather, the time of day, the amount of coffee, the list is endless.

If you don't like the way something sounds, why not use tone controls and alter it into something you do like? Many albums were recorded in the "no bass 80s". With a decent tone control system you can add at least part of that bass back into the sound.

People here act like sound is something pure and holy. It's not pure, and definitely not holy. It isn't even close. Having excellent gear helps, but sometimes one just needs the extra little push. That's where tone control has it's place.

[Pundamilia]

Good point about all the hardware that is part of the whole recording process. Even if you go to see a live performance, often you hear an amplified source. There is very little purity in music and yet we audiophiles tend to get sanctimonious about the sound that we listen to on our music reproduction systems.

That said, the notion of bass and treble tone controls is very limiting. If one wants to "tailor" the sound, you should be looking at an n-band equalizer that really allows us to customize the sound for room effects, our own hearing or even personal preferences.

[CanadianMaestro]

Somebody define "purity" for me.
What constitutes "pure" music? Unpure music?

Sounds like another half-assed European attempt at eugenics -- applied to art. WTF?

I want to hear a recording as close to what it is . Regardless of whether the performers/instruments sound "pure". 

EQ adds distortion that deviates from the original recording on disc. Sure, you may like the modded version, I have no issue with that. But most philes like Bryston gear because it reproduces recordings like they are, with nearly zero sauce added.

Cheers, weekend is here, and the rig is cranked up for Beethoven, Dvorak, Queen, Cowboy Junkies, Dire Straits, and Floyd...heh heh

[AFRF]

I'm interested in what members of this circle have to say about the technical reasons for using or not using tone controls.

I think your post is thoughtful and very well expressed.

On this sentence, specifically, I have only one haphazard technical reason, but numerous emotional reasons.

You did not ask for emotional reasons - which are fraught with subjectivity - so I won't disclose them. (however now that I think about it, most of the technical methods of audiophile exist to preserve or emphasize audio-induced emotion - apart from the curiosity or fascination over technology or value.)

My one technical reason is to augment or compensate for unacceptable or unpleasant regions of the audio frequency bandwidth found in a recording that is somehow less than optimal, or is "amateur," impromptu, interfered with, damaged - etc - either to extract information, or to alter the experience of listening, for the sake of experience.

It is my opinion that if one listens only to professionally recorded sound recordings, almost all of the music and sounds ever recorded by humans on and off this earth are inaccessible. Further, that the pinnacle of a modular listening room simultaneously achieves two major tasks in audio reproduction: re-creating soundfields/channels by deep consideration of all acoustical, electrical, and psychoacoustical phenomena to invoke the most pleasurable listening experience possible, and, to, for lack of a better term, recover audio signal that is thought undecipherable or unlistenable, or otherwise "improve" the experience to the goal of a desired affect.

As to Doc's argument that "Using tone controls is like wearing tinted glasses to an art museum," which is an excellent contribution to your thread, I disagree.

Very much unlike recording/mastering engineers and manufacturers of audio electronics, museums always control every quantity and quality of the room where the product appears, or is heard. 

(even humidity)

-afrf

[Rocket_Ronny]

...or correcting white balance on a color photograph?

Digital e.q. is very good and does not mask the music.

Try your tone controls and if works for you then great. When I was first into this audio thing it was a sin to use them and I had a bright room. Think I would use the treble control, no? How silly.

I think e.q. corrections would solve most of our audio problems and save us a ton of money.

Rocket Ronny

[fredgarvin]

Somebody define "purity" for me.
What constitutes "pure" music? Unpure music?

Sounds like another half-assed European attempt at eugenics -- applied to art. WTF?

I want to hear a recording as close to what it is . Regardless of whether the performers/instruments sound "pure". 

EQ adds distortion that deviates from the original recording on disc. Sure, you may like the modded version, I have no issue with that. But most philes like Bryston gear because it reproduces recordings like they are, with nearly zero sauce added.

Cheers, weekend is here, and the rig is cranked up for Beethoven, Dvorak, Queen, Cowboy Junkies, Dire Straits, and Floyd...heh heh

This rant seems to contradict your rant on page 2. No problem though, drink up.

[Anonamemouse]

Somebody define "purity" for me.
What constitutes "pure" music? Unpure music?

Easy; anything that is not altered by external influences. As such anything recorded will never be pure.

Sounds like another half-assed European attempt at eugenics -- applied to art. WTF?

Just wondering, have you actually ever been in Europe? Sometimes you are a real mo[censored]er, this is one of those times.

I want to hear a recording as close to what it is . Regardless of whether the performers/instruments sound "pure". 

That's never going to happen. If you would visit a recording studio even once (something every music lover should do) you would instantly be cured of making a comment like that.

EQ adds distortion that deviates from the original recording on disc. Sure, you may like the modded version, I have no issue with that. But most philes like Bryston gear because it reproduces recordings like they are, with nearly zero sauce added.

You obviously have no clue through how many miles of cable and how much sound altering equipment a signal goes before it ends up at your loudspeaker. Anything recorded has been EQ-ed at least a dozen times in the studio alone.

Cheers, weekend is here, and the rig is cranked up for Beethoven, Dvorak, Queen, Cowboy Junkies, Dire Straits, and Floyd...heh heh

Yeah... Pure recordings indeed... Not.

[Russell Dawkins]

I want to hear a recording as close to what it is . Regardless of whether the performers/instruments sound "pure". 

EQ adds distortion that deviates from the original recording on disc. Sure, you may like the modded version, I have no issue with that. But most philes like Bryston gear because it reproduces recordings like they are, with nearly zero sauce added.

I think you should buy a high quality parametric EQ just so you can have the exquisite pleasure of not using it.

[HsvHeelFan]

This is slightly off-topic.

One of the tunes that Herb Alpert did that I absolutely love, but hate the original recording, is "Route 101".

The bass guitar is there, but it's waaaaayyyyy in the background.   Love the tune,  but, man, I wish the bass was a lot more pronounced.

In the past 10 years or so,  I think he's recorded another version of that, but I haven't been able to give that one a listen.

Back to original discussion....

HsvHeelFan

[CanadianMaestro]

Yeah... Pure recordings indeed... Not.

Who the f--- cares about "pure" recordings? I guess you didn't grasp my message.

The recording that's on disc is likely not what was in the studio. That's a given. Nobody questions that.

The rec on disc has specific frequency distributions etc. All measurable. If I play back that disc on a system, and the output = the input signal, which is not impossible, crap and all, then that's what I want in a hi-end system. Period.

And this nonsense about nobody really "knows" the "true" sound of an instrument? Are you kidding? If I pluck a violin string 6 inches from my ear, believe me, that is the sound of a violin.

Don't get into existential philosophy, it's irrelevant here.

As for me going to Europe, I've seen it all. But that's digression.

cheers

[Russell Dawkins]

Who the f--- cares about "pure" recordings? I guess you didn't grasp my message.

The recording that's on disc is likely not what was in the studio. That's a given. Nobody questions that.

The rec on disc has specific frequency distributions etc. All measurable. If I play back that disc on a system, and the output = the input signal, which is not impossible, crap and all, then that's what I want in a hi-end system. Period.

And this nonsense about nobody really "knows" the "true" sound of an instrument? Are you kidding? If I pluck a violin string 6 inches from my ear, believe me, that is the sound of a violin.

Don't get into existential philosophy, it's irrelevant here.

As for me going to Europe, I've seen it all. But that's digression.

cheers

That's a pretty testy response. Have you had a rough day on the podium, 'Maestro'?

[CanadianMaestro]

Most if not all recordings are what the artists wanted -- EQ or not. (I don't know of any artist who would approve a recording without first listening to it). So it boils down to whether a piece of gear can reproduce what's on the disc accurately -- EQ'ed recording, non-EQ'ed, etc.

So if a recording has already been EQ'ed to death (as some claim) in the studio, additional EQ'ing is just adding extraneous distortion that was not the artists' intention to begin with.

So to sum up. It is true that many recs have been distorted at the source (studio). However, if that was what the artist wanted in the first place (and there's no reason to believe otherwise in many cases), and if the goal is to hear accurately that artists' musical intent, then further EQ'ing defeats that central goal, imo.

cheers

[CanadianMaestro]

I think you should buy a high quality parametric EQ just so you can have the exquisite pleasure of not using it.

oops wrong quote. see below.
cheers

[CanadianMaestro]

That's a pretty testy response. Have you had a rough day on the podium, 'Maestro'?

Not at all, thanks for asking. I just dislike pretentious posts like the one I cited.
cheers