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

[GMichael]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[Hyfi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.

[Auricauricle]

Better brush up yer definition of "normal"....

[TerrorByte]

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]

Better brush up yer definition of "normal"....

Normal - Anything that ain't me.

[Hyfi]

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]

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