Using tone controls on your HT receiver . Do they create better sound?

[D.G.]

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]

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]

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.]

We learn something new everyday . Thanx!

[GMichael]

To each their own.

[Kevio]

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]

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.
.

[Kevio]

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.

[markw]

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]

When it comes to audio, the only opinion that should matter is your own.

[Kevio]

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.

[JoeE SP9]

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.

[3db]

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]

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.

[E-Stat]

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.]

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]

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.]

I understand alot more now than I did 17 hours ago . Thanx guys!

[BallinWithNash]

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]

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]

Enjoy.

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

[Auricauricle]

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

[anamorphic96]

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.

[Kevio]

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

[Kevio]

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.