[nobel]

 Hi everyone

 I own a whole Bryston set up with PMc Ob1 speakers. I have been reading about the new PMC speakers Fact 8 and at the back of them they have tone controls.

 My concern with the system i have is why do manufactures not have tone controls on the amplification. The problem i have is that when a Cd is well produce it is abundantly clear that you dont need them. But not all CD productions are the same. Many of my cds need a bass boost of some kind or the treble could  do with a bit of an uplift . Having the tone controls in place would make certain Cds more playable as opposed to disregarding them for lack of impact. 

 I know many purists out there would say it is not audiophile etc.. but there has to be a balence. Where a cd excels the system is beyound belief but where it fails it does so miserably. Is there a remedy. Would a sub woofer attached to the system help or will it be like an equaliser which i found a waste of time 
 

[mvwhiting_83]

Hello,

I wouldn't call the frequency tilt a tone control per se...  But rather an analog in-room response adjustment, as within the cross over it re-routes the signal within crossover all in the passive signal feed..  For rooms with a bass problem (whether too boomy or bass shy you can go up or down 3db) or reflections that seem make the top end extra hot (you can go down 3db). The tilts can help in trying to alleviate these problems. I personally don't like messing with tone controls, call it audiophile or what have you, but I don't like to butter up my source material, and I like to take it for what it's worth.  While you could add a subwoofer, with that though you are going to be picking up where you speakers generally drop off.

[JRace]

Tone controls on pre-amps are eq's.

The problem with both tone-control and EQ's is not that they do not work, just to make them work right takes more, much more, than just fiddling the knob.

What you want does sound like a pre-amp with bass and treble tone controls so you can adjust the sound to your liking. Just remember that too much boost can cause the amp to do ugly things.

[Mike-48]

 My concern with the system i have is why do manufactures not have tone controls on the amplification. The problem i have is that when a Cd is well produce it is abundantly clear that you dont need them. But not all CD productions are the same. Many of my cds need a bass boost of some kind or the treble could  do with a bit of an uplift . Having the tone controls in place would make certain Cds more playable as opposed to disregarding them for lack of impact. 

 I know many purists out there would say it is not audiophile etc.. but there has to be a balence. Where a cd excels the system is beyound belief but where it fails it does so miserably. Is there a remedy.

Nobel, I agree with you that tone controls would be useful on more high-end gear. McIntosh and Accuphase still make gear with tone controls, and they are as high-end as any manufacturer. It is obvious that many CDs are mastered with poor tonal balance.

Don't forget that excessive brightness can be caused by sidewall reflections. So if you don't have any acoustic treatments (can be as simple as a hanging rug) to deaden those, that's where I might start.

I use a TacT 2.2X digital preamp.  It's not perfect, but it does provide totally transparent tone controls in the digital realm. I use them on many recordings. 

Something like the TacT is one route. A simpler one is to look on Audiogon for a used equalizer and give it a try. Will the loss of transparency (if any) from inserting the equalizer be worse than the poor tonal balance you are experiencing?  Many audiophiles seem to think that transparency is the ultimate goal, but I think that tonal balance is equally important to enjoyable music reproduction.

[nobel]

 Thank you both

 for considering my concern. I wonder whether James and the Bryston team could conjure up an external device which could facilitate added tones to their pre amps. I own the BP26. It would make listerning to music more enjoyable. After all the new PMC speaker fact8 has incorporated such a  device. I belive Musical fidelity had such a device many years back .

[math-geek]

Tone controls get a bad rap because most companies that implement them do so in a very poor fashion.  McIntosh is a definite exception to the rule as is Arcam.  My current integrated amp Krell) does not have tone controls but implemented properly I believe that they can be useful "tools" in fine tuning your system.

BTW, I have experienced the results first hand as one of my friends owns a McIntosh MA7000 integrated amp with B&W 802 speakers.  By any stretch of the imagination this is a magical system.  I know that this is the Bryston Circle but I think we can all admit that there are many very good amps out there, the flavors are just a little different.  Back on track though, the tone controls are somewhat handy on his system.  The 802Ds with their "diamond" tweeters are very revealing and some poorly mastered CDs can get a little out of control.  We both happen to prefer using not tone adjustment but on some material it is almost a necessity to attain a balanced sound.

I own the original Michael Jackson "Thriller" CD and the new "Number Ones" CD and the difference in the mastering is astonishing.  One dimensional and poorly balanced compared to excellent balance, soundstage depth and excellent dynamics.  Sure M.J. was a little odd but he was a masterful artist and this CD shows him in all of his glory.  I can agree with tone controls if they are done properly but otherwise I must pass.

[vegasdave]

I've bugged James about doing a Bryston equalizer, and I still think it's a good idea...

[john1970]

I think some type of tone controls (equalization) done in the digital domain would be excellent.  Bryston could sell it as an option with their BDA-1 or BCD-1.  I also miss tone controls on modern stereo equipment. 

Just my thoughts,

John 

[drummermitchell]

If I had the desire to install an EQ after the pre,I'd go with a parametric EQ as
 they have way more flexiblity than the average equalizer.
Of course you would have another piece in the audio chain,which might add
undesirables.I can see using it in not so good recordings to a point.
There is the odd time I'd like to add a bit more smack say on a kickdrum or say
a little more space around a sax or vocals,sounds like were getting more into
separate tracks in the studio though.
I do wonder though say using the Bryston 26 and say an EQ such as a Rane or other high quality EQ,what negatives would come up,I think even adjusting one  frequency would effect the whole as all 24,16,8,4 tracks are mixed down to two, so somewhere you have to have an effect on the R or L
output as 1 or more instruments are recorded on the right and so many on the left.
This would be a good one for James I believe, as he's been at studio sessions
from the first note to the final master ..

[James Tanner]

The problem with active equalization is you are adjusting or changing the output frequency response at the speaker...basically...it retards the reproduced sound that emanates from the speakers in such a way that it bears little resemblance to what was recorded on the disk. .

When you listen to a speaker in a room you are always listening to the direct sound from the drivers and the reflected sound from the walls, floor and ceiling. This is refered to as 'power response'.  So it is a combination of all the direct sound and the reflected sound adding up together to produce the overall tonal balance in the room.

The main source of the problem with equalization is that even if you adjust the output at the speaker the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source (speaker) is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

I always recommend equalization as a last resort - move the speakers, move the couch, move the system to another room, move period

james

[drummermitchell]

But James,I don't have another room,perhaps you could loan me one of your extra rooms since your a nice guy ..
I have to say though,it has to be awesome to have a few different rooms(with different gear to listen to.I imagine,depending on a person's mood you have a few nice choices,one for high energy,another for just relaxing ect.
I don't think a person would want to leave those rooms for quite awhile.

[James Tanner]

But James,I don't have another room,perhaps you could loan me one of your extra rooms since your a nice guy ..
I have to say though,it has to be awesome to have a few different rooms(with different gear to listen to.I imagine,depending on a person's mood you have a few nice choices,one for high energy,another for just relaxing ect.
I don't think a person would want to leave those rooms for quite awhile.

Ya my small Quad 2905 room is my 'intimate' - late night room. It is not a big room about 14x12 and it sounds great.  I had a friend of mine the other day come over and he has just released his 3rd CD and he was floored at how great his master sounded on the Quads.  Its just one of the happy circumstances where the room and the speaker fall in love.

james

[Mike-48]

The main source of the problem with equalization is that even if you adjust the output at the speaker the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source (speaker) is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

I always recommend equalization as a last resort - move the speakers, move the couch, move the system to another room, move period :lol:

James, I am surprised to hear you so negative on this matter.  To me, there are several issues. My impression is that you were objecting mainly to equalization to fix room problems. In that case, I agree that it's better to try to fix the room itself, whether by moving things around, adding some tube traps or other acoustic treatments, or moving to a better house. Still, it seems to me that, once the room is fixed, one can often improve things further by smoothing the bass response at the listening position electronically. Yes, that may make results worse at other positions. And some of the current systems do not preserve phase.  So that is not perfect, but neither are bumps in the frequency response, which are a reality in most domestic rooms. So it's a matter of choosing one's poison.

A different matter is the value of tone controls, used in moderation, to make poor recordings more listenable. Let's face it, equalization is used in all recordings, except perhaps those on ultra-audiophile labels. We have all heard jazz recordings with thumping bass or orchestral recordings with acid violins. Perhaps they sound better on Quads than most speakers.  However, it would be nice if the user had the possibility of removing some of the poor equalization (or effects of peaky mics) used when the recording was made. The purpose of tone controls is to increase musical pleasure for users who have one system and one room and would like to listen to a variety of recordings with content all through the frequency range -- from organ pedals to violins and cymbals.

We are not entirely pure now.  There is currently post-recording equalization in any system that has a crossover in the speakers or uses one to drive mains and subs. (Indeed, the better modern subs allow one to trim their response for the room.)

It would be great if Bryston would consider problems with existing equalization schemes to be an intellectual challenge, and put some work into improving them, rather than write off the need for equalization entirely.

Mike

[werd]

The main source of the problem with equalization is that even if you adjust the output at the speaker the reflective time smear characteristics of the room 'issues' remains intact, and the direct radiator sound source (speaker) is being retarded to compensate for this. Thus the result is a time smeared mess where the issues remain, and the original source is destroyed.

I always recommend equalization as a last resort - move the speakers, move the couch, move the system to another room, move period

James, I am surprised to hear you so negative on this matter.  To me, there are several issues. My impression is that you were objecting mainly to equalization to fix room problems. In that case, I agree that it's better to try to fix the room itself, whether by moving things around, adding some tube traps or other acoustic treatments, or moving to a better house. Still, it seems to me that, once the room is fixed, one can often improve things further by smoothing the bass response at the listening position electronically. Yes, that may make results worse at other positions. And some of the current systems do not preserve phase.  So that is not perfect, but neither are bumps in the frequency response, which are a reality in most domestic rooms. So it's a matter of choosing one's poison.

A different matter is the value of tone controls, used in moderation, to make poor recordings more listenable. Let's face it, equalization is used in all recordings, except perhaps those on ultra-audiophile labels. We have all heard jazz recordings with thumping bass or orchestral recordings with acid violins. Perhaps they sound better on Quads than most speakers.  However, it would be nice if the user had the possibility of removing some of the poor equalization (or effects of peaky mics) used when the recording was made. The purpose of tone controls is to increase musical pleasure for users who have one system and one room and would like to listen to a variety of recordings with content all through the frequency range -- from organ pedals to violins and cymbals.

We are not entirely pure now.  There is currently post-recording equalization in any system that has a crossover in the speakers or uses one to drive mains and subs. (Indeed, the better modern subs allow one to trim their response for the room.)

It would be great if Bryston would consider problems with existing equalization schemes to be an intellectual challenge, and put some work into improving them, rather than write off the need for equalization entirely.

Mike

Hi Mike

With all due respect, before you write off not using equalization entirely. Why don't you take a venture down the road of trying to improve your sound-stage first. In this i mean looking for the gear, room improvements, synergy, and system placement that allows the listener to hear the air between the instruments. Or leading edges of the instruments. i don't believe you recognize these traits and that's understandable. since it can take years to understand what you are hearing. But once you do, you will realize that equalization smears all leading edges and shrinks the air between the instruments dramatically.

I like tone controls too but i understand the cost in the sound-stage. For those that have spent hours into the hobby and money into their gear this may very well be a step back instead of step forward.

Please don't misinterpret the tone as condescending as i was not by any means trying to be. Only trying to make my point.

[Mike-48]

With all due respect, before you write off not using equalization entirely. Why don't you take a venture down the road of trying to improve your sound-stage first. In this i mean looking for the gear, room improvements, synergy, and system placement that allows the listener to hear the air between the instruments. Or leading edges of the instruments. i don't believe you recognize these traits and that's understandable. since it can take years to understand what you are hearing. But once you do, you will realize that equalization smears all leading edges and shrinks the air between the instruments dramatically.

I like tone controls too but i understand the cost in the sound-stage. For those that have spent hours into the hobby and money into their gear this may very well be a step back instead of step forward.

Please don't misinterpret the tone as condescending as i was not by any means trying to be. Only trying to make my point.

Werd, thanks for the comment.  I too have spent years and dollars on the hobby, and I do understand what you are saying. I have had many systems without tone controls.  After looking for a long time, I found a great deal 15 yrs ago on a used Cello Palette Preamp.  I have not looked back!  Now I use eq in the digital realm, which I find more transparent.  I suppose we disagree not because either one of us is a novice or misinformed, but because your tastes and or priorities are different from mine. OK!  Why not?

To me, an even and realistic frequency response is more important than the last degree of soundstaging (which my current system does to my satisfaction, anyway).  No rearrangement of gear, room, cables, etc., can make every recording sound right.  It's impossible -- they are recorded with different tonal balances. I find that, in my collection of CDs, perhaps 25% can benefit from minor re-equalization. On some, I might need to increase the high frequencies to make the sound more natural; on some, I might need to decrease it. That is not a system-optimization problem, it reflects the variety of recordings out there. If recording engineers were as fastidious about equalization as audiophiles, we might not be having this discussion.

No worries about the tone of your message, & I hope mine is OK too.

[James Tanner]

^
"No worries about the tone of your message, & I hope mine is OK too."


OK I am going to apply some 'equalization' to the 'tone' of these comments.

james

[werd]

With all due respect, before you write off not using equalization entirely. Why don't you take a venture down the road of trying to improve your sound-stage first. In this i mean looking for the gear, room improvements, synergy, and system placement that allows the listener to hear the air between the instruments. Or leading edges of the instruments. i don't believe you recognize these traits and that's understandable. since it can take years to understand what you are hearing. But once you do, you will realize that equalization smears all leading edges and shrinks the air between the instruments dramatically.

I like tone controls too but i understand the cost in the sound-stage. For those that have spent hours into the hobby and money into their gear this may very well be a step back instead of step forward.

Please don't misinterpret the tone as condescending as i was not by any means trying to be. Only trying to make my point.

Werd, thanks for the comment.  I too have spent years and dollars on the hobby, and I do understand what you are saying. I have had many systems without tone controls.  After looking for a long time, I found a great deal 15 yrs ago on a used Cello Palette Preamp.  I have not looked back!  Now I use eq in the digital realm, which I find more transparent.  I suppose we disagree not because either one of us is a novice or misinformed, but because your tastes and or priorities are different from mine. OK!  Why not?

To me, an even and realistic frequency response is more important than the last degree of soundstaging (which my current system does to my satisfaction, anyway).  No rearrangement of gear, room, cables, etc., can make every recording sound right.  It's impossible -- they are recorded with different tonal balances. I find that, in my collection of CDs, perhaps 25% can benefit from minor re-equalization. On some, I might need to increase the high frequencies to make the sound more natural; on some, I might need to decrease it. That is not a system-optimization problem, it reflects the variety of recordings out there. If recording engineers were as fastidious about equalization as audiophiles, we might not be having this discussion.

No worries about the tone of your message, & I hope mine is OK too.

Np its all good, and i can see that your taste in music(classical) is the most demanding as far gear. so i am sure there is a lot i can learn from you as far setup and so forth. I listen to classical but not as much as most other audiophile hobbyist.

[Mike-48]

OK I am going to apply some 'equalization' to the 'tone' of these comments.

Hey, that is going to distort the discussion!  Don't equalize, just swap out your cables! 

[nobel]

 I agree totally with with Mike N/C on this one.

 I dont think it is a question of synergy or changing room furnishings or even changing rooms . As to do this would in my view mean there is a drastic flaw in the sytem you have. I opted to go for Bryston with PMC OB1 speakers. After hearing many systems i felt this was the perfect synergy. To change speakers or Cd palyer etcc is firstly  a costly exercise which i have already spent. Secondly it would then highlight weaknesses in the system again.

 if the system excels on well recorded Cds it is not the fault of the  system but lays in the source ie, the Cd. For me personally the most important element is the music so its the tiny disc. Some of theses Cds have been deleted from the company and may take years to come back. Thus with all the technology that we have what do we do? Discard the Cd because it is unplayable on the system we have or as a customer look for something that will enhance the system to make them part of our growing cd collection. I dont want to buy Cds just because they are well recorded . I want to buy because i love the piece of music. Is'nt this what music is suppose to be.     
Further James let me put in simple terms as to why i would like you to think about having such a device. When you go to a resturant and you eat whatever is in front of you. The chef may say you should eat the food the way it is made. You may disagree as you feel it may need a pinch more salt or pepper. It only then becomes palatable. It is not insulting the chef as you are making it acceptable to your taste buds. After all who is paying. This is very much like the need for some kind of equalisation which would make me happy with the system i have. There is nothing wrong with my system. There is however some weaknesses in the production of some of my Cds. Why cant there be a slight remedy from the makers of excellent  hi-fi like Bryston.

[vegasdave]

I concur. Recordings have varying tonal balance, especially cds where there's no RIAA standard.