Using tone controls on your HT receiver . Do they create better sound? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Using tone controls on your HT receiver . Do they create better sound?



D.G.
06-01-2009, 07:39 PM
I went to visit a neighbor and check out hs HT system which is somewhat of a beginners system like mines . His system is set up properly but he uses to much treble to me and it just ruins everything ( IMO) but he thinks it sounds great. Is it my ears or can using tone controls actually ruin the sound of what is an otherwise decent system?

markw
06-01-2009, 08:56 PM
If used properly, tone controls can help improve the sound. If used improperly, they can hurt the sound.

But remember, "properly" and "improperly" are relative, too.

It's kinda like ordering a nice porterhouse steak. Some like it well done and slathered in so much steak sauce you can't taste the steak. Others like it medium-rare and either plain or with just a touch of salt and pepper so it tastes like steak.

I tend to fall in the latter group but hey, it's your steak. Do with it what you want.

BallinWithNash
06-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Yea, I would agree with mark ... some people like bose speakers .. i don't ... it's just what sounds good to your ears and since it is his system he can make it sound good to him. ... And he can't really "ruin" the music because its just raising the decibel level between certain frequencies ... right? im pretty sure that is correct where is pixy when u need him haha

D.G.
06-02-2009, 07:00 AM
We learn something new everyday . Thanx!

GMichael
06-02-2009, 08:25 AM
To each their own.

Kevio
06-02-2009, 09:04 AM
I wouldn't go so far to say that good sound is in the ears of the beholder. This sort of statement is applicable for things like wines where the only comparisons available are relative to other wines.

In audio we have the opportunity to make an absolute comparison of reproduced sound to live sound. If you believe that the best sound is accurate sound (this assumption is, I admit, subject to debate), you can't help but be ruffled by this meddling with the tone controls.

markw
06-02-2009, 09:13 AM
I wouldn't go so far to say that good sound is in the ears of the beholder. You don't hear what he hears. Now, maybe you want to criticize his lens perscriptions because they are not what you use?

Remember, "good sound" is relative. It's is system and he can do what he wants to the sound. If he wants it boomy or tinny, that's his call. How do you know he doesn't have hearing issues?

It's quite presumptuous to try to tell someone how he should enjoy his music, particularly when he appears quite happy, and trying to do so simply perpetuates the image of "audiophiles" as snooty pricks who look down their noses at those who don't buy into their affectations.

Now, if someone comes into your house and starts fudging with your system, then you have a gripe.
.

JoeE SP9
06-02-2009, 09:14 AM
It's all in what you want to hear. My 2 channel system has no tone controls. On another forum there is a guy who Eq's so much he feels that MP3 files sound better than CD's.

E-Stat
06-02-2009, 10:12 AM
His system is set up properly but he uses to much treble to me ...
A bit of uncontrolled Audio Cowboy effect. :)


Is it my ears or can using tone controls actually ruin the sound of what is an otherwise decent system?
Unlike the U-1s in the music system and the Advents in the garage, the Polks in the HT have no HF contour control. I find them too bright and use 2 db of cut. In my case, the tone control improves the sound!

rw

D.G.
06-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Maybe its just my ears . I keep mines on flat and just let the sub do the rest. Setting my sub at the 12 o'clock dial yields really good sound. So pretty much if you have decent equipment theres really no way your system could or should sound bad right?

GMichael
06-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Maybe its just my ears . I keep mines on flat and just let the sub do the rest. Setting my sub at the 12 o'clock dial yields really good sound. So pretty much if you have decent equipment theres really no way your system could or should sound bad right?
Room acoustics can play a huge part as well as personal tastes and source material.

D.G.
06-02-2009, 01:54 PM
I understand alot more now than I did 17 hours ago . Thanx guys!

Kevio
06-02-2009, 06:49 PM
You don't hear what he hears. Now, maybe you want to criticize his lens perscriptions because they are not what you use?We don't make signs intentionally fuzzy so that nearsighted people can read them.

I'm all for more pleasurable experiences. It's fine with me if you personally want to use a hedonic definition of good sound.

But realize that it puts you in a situation where you can't reliably or repeatably compare or predict performance of different components or systems. Without objective measures, it is difficult to make improvements; you're left groping in the dark for $5000 speaker cables.

BallinWithNash
06-02-2009, 06:56 PM
Kevio im going to have to agree with markw ... if there was only "one" good or correct way to listen to music why is there so many different brands? ... and each brand has its own little differences from the next ... some people like Denon some like Sony ... its for that one person to choose what he likes best ... you can't measure what sounds good to one person compared to the next ... just because one speaker/receiver etc... is scientifically or mathematically better doesn't mean everyone will like it.

Kevio
06-03-2009, 05:58 AM
just because one speaker/receiver etc... is scientifically or mathematically better doesn't mean everyone will like it.Yes, we recently discussed that in another thread. Listeners are strongly affected by the appearance of speakers in deciding which sound better. With a pleasure-based criteria, your high-end equipment will become overpriced jewelry. Enjoy.

GMichael
06-03-2009, 06:06 AM
Enjoy.

Yes, this is very important. If you aren't enjoying the experience, then why bother?

markw
06-03-2009, 06:58 AM
We don't make signs intentionally fuzzy so that nearsighted people can read them.Actually, larger would be more useful than fuzzy for that. But, don't recording engineers use eq when creating the recording in the first place? Wouldn't that be along those same lines?

While we're at it, why do all speakers sound different? Which one produces that one perfect sound, and why does anyone else even bother with the others?


I'm all for more pleasurable experiences. It's fine with me if you personally want to use a hedonic definition of good sound.I love that word "hedonistic". It brings to mind the Playboy mansion and Sandles beach resorts in the islands. But audio, nah!


But realize that it puts you in a situation where you can't reliably or repeatably compare or predict performance of different components or systems. Without objective measures, it is difficult to make improvements; you're left groping in the dark for $5000 speaker cables.Compare what? To what? I already mentioned eq used in recordings blow that standard out of the water but I think your claim of "objective measures" falls quite short in another more basic area.

What, exactly, constitutes "the perfect sound" which you use for comparison?

In just one of my favorite venues (N.J. State Theatre), the sound change depending on where one sits. Up front center will produce a somewhat "more distinct" sound than when one sits in te rear or in the balcony. Let's not even get into side seating. Personally, I prefer around rows 10 - 15 in the center.

Likewise, in the Iridium in NYC, when one is around that long front table by the stage, the effect is stunning. When in the left corner, the sound is stil stunning (it's fairly small), but the bass tends to be a bit stronger and the mids a bit shrill.

so, in my experience, even at a live, acoustic concert in a perfect venue, the sound can vary to a great degree. More even than an occasional tweak on a tone control for that matter.

So. please tell me what the holy grail is in your book? Is it like those standards they use to calibrate scales, or is it what you, personally, consider "perfect"?

Luvin Da Blues
06-03-2009, 07:25 AM
When it comes to audio, the only opinion that should matter is your own. :6:

bfalls
06-03-2009, 09:17 AM
I remember reading an article during the early days of surround (DLP), that changing the tone controls DO affect the surround processing. Since DLP's four channels are derived from 2-channel input, I can see where this could be true. However with most current formats where each channel is discrete, I don't see, in general, where the tone control would effect surround processing. If the speakers in the system are identical, I don't see where the control is needed, but if different, can see where it could be used to match the other speakers.

D.G.
06-03-2009, 09:42 AM
I remember reading an article during the early days of surround (DLP), that changing the tone controls DO affect the surround processing. Since DLP's four channels are derived from 2-channel input, I can see where this could be true. However with most current formats where each channel is discrete, I don't see, in general, where the tone control would effect surround processing. used to match the other speakers. If the speakers in the system are identical, I don't see where the control is needed, but if different, can see where it could be


So tone controls dont need to be used if your speakers match? Im a little confused again.

Kevio
06-03-2009, 10:53 AM
So. please tell me what the holy grail is in your book? Is it like those standards they use to calibrate scales, or is it what you, personally, consider "perfect"?There are different things we optimize for in audio systems. For a paging system, you'd want optimum intelligibility. For a heavy metal concert PA you want to optimize for loud. For a 2 channel music reproduction system, I'm looking for optimum realism. What is the holy grail in your book?

To evaluate realism, I'd suggest the following test (this is not an original idea here, I'd like to give proper attribution but at the moment I can't remember where I learned it) - You place a stereo pair of microphones where you sit in a hall. Compare the experience playing back the recording through the system under test to the experience of hearing it live. This gives you a baseline understanding of the limitations of squeezing a whole audio experience into a pair of speakers.

Now put a pair of microphones at your listening position in front of the system under test and make a recording of the playback. Compare the second generation playback to the first generation. Repeat to further generations if necessary. Compare different recordings with headphones if you find that helpful.

In addition to the reproduction system, you are evaluating the acoustics of the listening room in such a test. I'd argue that the listing room acoustics have to be considered part of the reproduction system.

Also you are also evaluating the recording system. But, if you use the same microphones and recording equipment to evaluate the performance of two or more reproduction systems you should be able to make some meaningful and objective comparisons between them.

markw
06-03-2009, 11:13 AM
Are you saying you do this? I'll call BS on that right now if you say you do.

Try to not step into what your dogma left on the ground

To me, having a system that creates a realistic listening experience is my goal. Knowing that "realistic" is quite an ambiguous goal, depending on where one sits, it's not all that difficult if one has enough experience and knowledge of what's real.

Of course, having attended hundreds of concerts in many venues over my years, not to mention doing sound reinforcement on a a semi-professional level does provide me with somewhat of a knowledge/experience base to draw on. It ain't as black and white as you imply.

You're about out of steam. Kev. Give it up. You're looking like one of those "audiophiles" I alluded to in one of my other posts.

GMichael
06-03-2009, 11:20 AM
There are different things we optimize for in audio systems. For a paging system, you'd want optimum intelligibility. For a heavy metal concert PA you want to optimize for loud. For a 2 channel music reproduction system, I'm looking for optimum realism. What is the holy grail in your book?

To evaluate realism, I'd suggest the following test (this is not an original idea here, I'd like to give proper attribution but at the moment I can't remember where I learned it) - You place a stereo pair of microphones where you sit in a hall. Compare the experience playing back the recording through the system under test to the experience of hearing it live. This gives you a baseline understanding of the limitations of squeezing a whole audio experience into a pair of speakers.

Now put a pair of microphones at your listening position in front of the system under test and make a recording of the playback. Compare the second generation playback to the first generation. Repeat to further generations if necessary. Compare different recordings with headphones if you find that helpful.

In addition to the reproduction system, you are evaluating the acoustics of the listening room in such a test. I'd argue that the listing room acoustics have to be considered part of the reproduction system.

Also you are also evaluating the recording system. But, if you use the same microphones and recording equipment to evaluate the performance of two or more reproduction systems you should be able to make some meaningful and objective comparisons between them.

If, after you go though all of this, you find out that you are missing a few db's on the high end, is it then OK to turn up the treble a bit?

markw
06-03-2009, 11:21 AM
If, after you go though all of this, you find out that you are missing a few db's on the high end, is it then OK to turn up the treble a bit?you're simply evil!

Auricauricle
06-03-2009, 12:40 PM
Sound's like everybody on this post is missing a few db's on the high end (especially above the ears)!

GMichael
06-03-2009, 12:59 PM
you're simply evil!

Sound's like everybody on this post is missing a few db's on the high end (especially above the ears)!


I do my best.
Thanks for noticing.

Kevio
06-03-2009, 07:03 PM
I've got no problem using equalization to flatten things out or even to compensate for hearing loss. More commonly though you'll see people have cranked up both the bass and treble because that's what sounds more exciting to them. Just because it pleases them doesn't make it good sound in the objective sense. That's my position and I'm sticking to it :P

anamorphic96
06-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Sound's like everybody on this post is missing a few db's on the high end (especially above the ears)!

I will second that.

3db
06-04-2009, 02:59 AM
I wouldn't go so far to say that good sound is in the ears of the beholder. This sort of statement is applicable for things like wines where the only comparisons available are relative to other wines.

In audio we have the opportunity to make an absolute comparison of reproduced sound to live sound. If you believe that the best sound is accurate sound (this assumption is, I admit, subject to debate), you can't help but be ruffled by this meddling with the tone controls.

I don't know about you but i'm been at a lot of live venues where the acoustics were totally messed up. A recording of a messed up venue could benefit from tone controls. It really is subjective and beholding to the listeners ears whether its accurate or not. :)

Luvin Da Blues
06-04-2009, 04:28 AM
The only real useful tone controls must have adjustable center frequency and bandwidth, much like a parametric EQ. Without these features, the chances of the tone controls being at the freqs and bandwidth you "need" are pretty slim. With a wide bandwidth, you're adjusting freqs you probably don't want to also.

Kevio
06-04-2009, 06:24 AM
There are three basic kinds of EQ: Low/High cut a.k.a. High/Low pass, Low/High shelving (your basic bass and treble controls) and parametric (adjustable center frequency and bandwidth).

For equalizing program material, the application we're talking about there, if I had to choose just one, it would be the shelving filters.

You typically don't use narrow parametric filtering on program material for system equalization. If you find yourself needing to, you're likely dealing with acoustical effects. You can do surgical EQ and make things sound better at one listening position and make things worse at another. Better to attack the underlying acoustical issues if possible.

You do quite frequently use the narrower filters on individual tracks in a production to remove unpleasant resonances or punch something up in a mix. And we do use them in live sound reinforcement for the same reasons and for feedback suppression.

Hyfi
06-04-2009, 08:35 AM
Most High End units do not have tone controls as their designers have decided on two things.

A) they have faithfully reproduced the sound as the recording intended without adjustment.

B) Money, it cost more to properly design in and build a unit with tone controls.


I have not used a pre amp with tone controls for about 15 years. My Hafler 945 pre-tuner has tone controls and a bypass circuit so the signal does not pass thru the tone controls if they are not in use. I rarely had to use them.

My guess is that the better your equipment is, the less you will need / want to adjust tone controls. The exception is for controlling room effects such as floor to ceiling glass doors and other bass sucking issues.

3db
06-04-2009, 08:43 AM
My guess is that the better your equipment is, the less you will need / want to adjust tone controls. The exception is for controlling room effects such as floor to ceiling glass doors and other bass sucking issues.

I can think of using tone controls on poor recordings regardless on how good your equipment is. It only boils down to one thing, listener preference. There is no right or wrong.

Hyfi
06-04-2009, 08:45 AM
Or just poor plain recordings.

That is the one drawback. When it is a ****ty recording, the better your gear is, the more it lets you know how bad the recording is.

Auricauricle
06-04-2009, 11:52 AM
I have been experimenting with a rotary graphic eq and tone control adjustment. Previous usage of a parametric was fun, but was just an extra piece o' gear in the end (let me know if you want it, anybody). The combination in use now is like using a microscope: the treble and bass on the receiver are coarse adjustments; the graphic is fine. I can sweeten up a certain range of frequencies more to my liking by doing so, compensating for bad recordings, room characteristics and for general SAG's*.

*Sh(o)ts and Giggles

Hyfi
06-04-2009, 12:41 PM
I have been experimenting with a rotary graphic eq and tone control adjustment. Previous usage of a parametric was fun, but was just an extra piece o' gear in the end (let me know if you want it, anybody). The combination in use now is like using a microscope: the treble and bass on the receiver are coarse adjustments; the graphic is fine. I can sweeten up a certain range of frequencies more to my liking by doing so, compensating for bad recordings, room characteristics and for general SAG's*.

*Sh(o)ts and Giggles

I have an AudioControl 10 that I got when I picked up the VAC and Counterpoint that the guy used to compensate for his glass room. What I don't like about it (and have not tried using it) is it seems odd to place a $200 unit between a $6500 preamp and a $4500 amp. My feeling is that I may be able to shape or change some highs and lows, but wouldn't it degrade from the overall sound being put out by the main gear?

Auricauricle
06-04-2009, 01:00 PM
Sure it does, but don't eq's give a chance to allow frequencies to interact with rooms more effectively?* For instance, if you have a room of smaller than ideal dimensions, would taking the highs back a bit would help you produce something similar to the ideal? I also think that refusing to fiddle with recording places a lot of faith in studios to get the recording right. That's subjective, and at the heart of this discussion, I reckon.**

*If I am mistaken, somebody whap me upside the head.

**Your stuff is lightyears ahead of mine in terms of quality. Apples and oranges, here....

D.G.
06-07-2009, 07:29 PM
This was a really interesting thread and i've learned more than ever. I also called two speaker companies and spoke with reps who were really cool to talk with ( Polk and Energy). It simply comes down to the good old saying , different strokes for different folks. Whatever floats your boat.

GMichael
06-08-2009, 05:25 AM
This was a really interesting thread and i've learned more than ever. I also called two speaker companies and spoke with reps who were really cool to talk with ( Polk and Energy). It simply comes down to the good old saying , different strokes for different folks. Whatever floats your boat.

Water?

markw
06-09-2009, 08:32 AM
This was a really interesting thread and i've learned more than ever. I also called two speaker companies and spoke with reps who were really cool to talk with ( Polk and Energy). It simply comes down to the good old saying , different strokes for different folks. Whatever floats your boat.But, when you post here you run the risk of getting a lot from the other end, too.

3db
06-10-2009, 03:18 AM
But, when you post here you run the risk of getting a lot from the other end, too.

Ain't that the truth!! :))

D.G.
06-10-2009, 07:12 AM
I remember coming to this site years ago and there was some young runt cursing out markw and his mother which I thought was terribly wrong and unkind and I never came back to this site again. Years later its good to see everythings back to normal.

GMichael
06-10-2009, 07:19 AM
I remember coming to this site years ago and there was some young runt cursing out markw and his mother which I thought was terribly wrong and unkind and I never came back to this site again. Years later its good to see everythings back to normal.

HAHAHAHAHA Mark used to enjoy pissing off the unknowing punks of the world. Oh, the memories.

:5: :4:

Auricauricle
06-10-2009, 10:41 AM
Better brush up yer definition of "normal"....

TerrorByte
06-12-2009, 10:47 AM
There's only one person that can tell if something sounds better to you, and that is...you. A stereos ability to reproduce a recording faithfully is one thing, but whether or not that sounds better to the listener is the question. Some recordings aren't good, some are faithful reproductions of studio/live performances, for a particular listener to make them sound good to them may require use of tone controls, some people like flat response, and how it was recorded is how they like it. There is no "better" as an absolute when talking about some thing as subjective as an individuals perception of beauty in sight or sound.

GMichael
06-12-2009, 10:59 AM
Better brush up yer definition of "normal"....

Normal - Anything that ain't me.:thumbsup:

Hyfi
06-12-2009, 12:01 PM
There's only one person that can tell if something sounds better to you, and that is...you. A stereos ability to reproduce a recording faithfully is one thing, but whether or not that sounds better to the listener is the question. Some recordings aren't good, some are faithful reproductions of studio/live performances, for a particular listener to make them sound good to them may require use of tone controls, some people like flat response, and how it was recorded is how they like it. There is no "better" as an absolute when talking about some thing as subjective as an individuals perception of beauty in sight or sound.

Interesting how Audio MFGs try to reproduce Live sound. If all my CDs sounded like the concert, I would hate it. Most venues over mic and distort the sound so bad who would ever want their system to reproduce sound like that?

TerrorByte
06-12-2009, 12:07 PM
Interesting how Audio MFGs try to reproduce Live sound. If all my CDs sounded like the concert, I would hate it. Most venues over mic and distort the sound so bad who would ever want their system to reproduce sound like that?

Well, they don't always, and I'm glad they don't, I have been to some terrible sounding concerts, then again, I have heard some pretty terrible sounding studio records too :P