I Want My Treble & Bass Controls Back!

[bigburner]

I have decided that the designers of modern 2-channel hi-fi systems don’t actually listen to music. If they did they would know that EQ (treble and bass) controls are essential because the treble and bass on CDs and DVDs varies so much.

When I upgraded from my late 1970’s integrated amp a couple of years ago I was shocked that modern 2-channel systems didn’t have treble and bass controls. Hi-fi “experts” had decided that EQ controls degraded the quality of the sound and should therefore be avoided. I foolishly bought into this argument.

I now know that what actually degrades the quality of the listening experience is the excessive treble on some recordings and the lack of bass on others.

This was really evident when I recently held a DVD evening for friends and played tracks from seventeen DVDs (http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=21982). Whilst many of those DVD’s were just fine, others definitely needed bass or treble adjustment to get the best out of them. A couple of my guests asked for these adjustments.

So:

1. Do you agree with me? Is this your experience too?

2. What should I do about it?

I have done a search on equalizers in this forum and generally they are avoided other than for subwoofer tuning (e.g. the Beringer Feedback Destroyer). Also the tuning on devices like the BFD tends to be done before playing music rather than while it is being played.

Therefore, can any of you recommend an EQ device of reasonable quality that:

• Is designed to be used while playing music in order to adjust treble and bass levels.

• Can be inserted between my pre-amp and amp, with RCA inputs and outputs.

• Preferably has one set of sliders (covering both channels) so that I don’t need to spend the whole song fiddling with the controls.

Thank you.

Nigel.

[Briz vegas]

Nigel
Only a few months back I would have almost agreed. However, despite having bass and treble on my receiver I would not use it as I had to switch off "source direct" for the less detailed "stereo" setting. Either way I could not go back now.

I have since upgraded the two weakest points in my system and despite being more detailed I find that the tube preamp is far more forgiving of less than good recordings. Yes some CDs sound ordinary (at worst), but not so that I want to adjust bass or treble, frankly that would not replace the missing magic that seems to have been hidden on the rest of my CDs. I just played a 1980s Cult CD which was 2 dimensional and thin on my last system. I put it down to 80s recordings - wrong. Neither dull nor thin comes to mind now. Not perfect but very very listenable - in fact I may even repeat some tracks.

I reckon if you feel the need for bass or treble controls you need to look elsewhere, be it the room, cables, feng shui or just spend stupid (lets face it) amounts of money like I did.

[wkhanna]

I recently added a Carver C-19 to my system. It has treble and bass pots for each channel along with a spectral tilt adjustment. All well and good, however, 99% of the time the bypass button is engaged.

On Saturday, just for the heck of it, I pulled two CDs that are some of my favorite but get very little play due to the one dimensional and muddy quality of their sound. After a little tinkering and adjusting, I was able to contour the sound to a much more pleasing and realistic (to my ears) level. Alas, I was finally actually enjoying my Almond Brothers Beginnings and Brothers and Sisters CDs.

I realize that many purists may consider this Hi-Fi heresy, and I can wholeheartedly appreciate their point. But music is a very personal thing, and we all have our own tastes. Again, I would very rarely attempt ‘modifying’ the sound of just about any recording, but in some rare cases, it can make listening just a bit more enjoyable.

Also, I think system synergy plays a huge role. If you are using tonal and spectral adjustments to compensate for deficiencies within your system, it brings to mind the proverbial dog chasing his tail scenario.

As always, all IMHO.

[Karma]

HI big,
I'm with you on this one. I do think that tone controls degrade the sound somewhat but the need to do tone correction is also present. So, it's a double edged sword.

The idea of keeping the signal path as simple and short as possible is good and has audible benefits. Having tone controls definitely adds complexity to the preamp requiring additional wiring, switching and components. However, many stereo receivers have tone bypass switches which eliminates at least some of the additional complexity from the signal path. I think a well thought out compromise is possible.

On the Audio Research preamps I have owned a bypass switch is provided. But the preamps did not have tone controls. Typically AR preamps have a lot of features. They are almost as feature rich as the old McIntosh preamps which I really like. With AR, the bypass switch bypasses all functions not absolutely necessary to a simple signal path. These include the tape monitor, the balance control, and the channel functions switch (mono, L only, R only, etc).

Can you hear the difference? Most definitely YES! On my current SP-11 MkII preamp the difference is less than previous models. This means the full function mode is better than on other models and the bypass mode gives nothing away. But the difference is still there and the best sound is obtained in the bypass mode. Balance can be a problem in bypass. This is solved by the individual channel level controls on the AR power amp. It's just a little inconvenient (this would be a good place for a remote control so you could adjust balance from the listening position).

I see no reason why this same technique can't be applied to tone controls. That way the tone controls could be bypassed just like all the other non-essential functions maintaining a simple signal path. Un-bypassed, the tone controls could be there to help with poorly equalized recordings. The price would be a slightly less good full function mode. I think it would be worth the sonic price.

Personally, I'm not interested in equalizers being built into the preamp. I think the sonic price is too high. If a person really wants an equalizer, they can be added as an outboard unit. I can't advise because I have ignored equalizers for many years.

Sparky

[whoaru99]

My philosophy is quite different...

The bottom line is to have a system that pleases you and sounds good to you. How you achieve that goal is irrelevant, IMO (as long as it's legal and ethical, that is :T).

Reasonable quality is pretty subjective, but if you just want to experiment a bit, the AudioSource EQ 100 may be a good starting point. I think they can be had new for $100, give or take - although it has 10 sliders for each channel.

Something a bit more "upscale" may be a Rane ME 60, but it goes beyond what you are looking for seeing how it has 30 sliders per channel.

You may want to frequent a local pawn shop - I usually see at least one or two various models every time I'm out on a scouting mission.

[Arneson]

This is just philosophy right?
So am I wrong to say what you hear with your ears is very similar to what you see with your eyes.
When your tone controles are simple like high mid low, can this cross over to colors on a monitor in RGB?
A friend is publishing her own magazine and complains she has a hard time with the color adjustments.
It struck me that her complaints are so much like yours relating to sound.
I know I'm streching it but they are both just spectrums.

[Karma]

HI Arneson,
I am definitely not into philosophy for philosophy sake. What works best for me is my interest. In theory, simple signal paths offer less opportunity for signal contamination. The question is whether this idea works out in practice in the real world.

How one judges these things depends on our audio expectations, our experience and the raw cabability of our system. I used the example of my Audio Research SP-11 MkII preamp because it is one of the finest preamps ever made. If you are not famliar with it, it is a hi fi classic. Google it and you will find references. This is not just my opinion.

The SP-11 underlines the advantages that can be obtained with a simple signal path. It also makes it very easy to compare a simple vs. complex signal path with a flip of a switch. My main music system is capable of extreme resolution. Equalizers screw up the resolution in many subtle ways. Part of this is because no known equalizer has been made to the same standards as the preamp. But the problem goes deeper. Equalizers play havoc with a signals phase relationships. The result in my system is many spatial relationships get mixed up. While frequency balance may be improved, the cost in resolution is not, IMO, worth the price.

If a recording needs an equalizers radical correction, I dump the recording. Most good recordings do not need the corrections and, thus, do not need an equalizer. I conceede there are some cases where equalization is justified but not often enough to add the cost of the equalizer and cables to my systems.

If the room is at fault, fix the room.......or dump it too. In short, I hate equalizers. And believe me, I have done the experimentation. If you have not done so, you should too. It's an education.

Sparky

Edited to Add: This discussion has not addressed the problem of adjusting an equalizer, especially a parametric equalizer. Room equalization can be addressed with a microphone and a good display on the equalizer. This more or less works within the limits of the frequency divisions provided by the equalizer. But to equalize a recording is a different thing entirely. I have spent far, far too many hours playing with equalizers trying to get an acceptable result. It provides a direct road to the mad house. If you can do it more power to you. I can't.

[Arneson]

The "Mad House", isn't that a totally rubber room? hmm

[whoaru99]

This is just philosophy right?
So am I wrong to say what you hear with your ears is very similar to what you see with your eyes.
When your tone controles are simple like high mid low, can this cross over to colors on a monitor in RGB?
A friend is publishing her own magazine and complains she has a hard time with the color adjustments.
It struck me that her complaints are so much like yours relating to sound.
I know I'm streching it but they are both just spectrums.

There are lots of adjustments possible for video - and I believe there are actually some standards for color calibration and devices to aid in that pursuit.

[ThomasW]

The idea of on-the-fly EQing for each different disc is a bit much IMO.

The Behringer DEQ2496 is significantly better than the lower cost BFD units which were never intended to be used for EQ.

Devices like the TacT or the DEQX are quite a bit better EQ's and are priced accordingly.

If you really feel the need to EQ each disc individually, in the long run it would be easier to rip the disc to a hard drive do the EQing there. Then burn the EQ'ed cuts to a new disc.

[Arneson]

If you really feel the need to EQ each disc individually, in the long run it would be easier to rip the disc to a hard drive do the EQing there. Then burn the EQ'ed cuts to a new disc.

I like the idea of multiple disks, one for the type of day? one for the time of day? one for your mood?
Your right back to on the fly EQ.

[AptosJeff]

bigburner, I am sure with you on this one. I find many recordings to be very imbalanced, usually with too much treble or upper midrange. My main preamp does not have tone controls, so I use a separate tube preamp with tone controls, connected in one of the tape monitor paths. Yes, I get some degradation when going through the second preamp, but when the source really needs some eq, it is better than the direct signal.

I would be reluctant to use an equalizer, unless I knew it to have good sound quality. I don't know what a Carver C-19 costs, but I like the solution offered by wkhanna using a high quality preamp with tone controls (rare) and the ability to bypass. Let us know what you end up doing.

[Kal Rubinson]

The idea of on-the-fly EQing for each different disc is a bit much IMO.

The Z-systems RDP-1 digital EQ is as transparent as any EQ I've used and it has 99 memories for settings. Should cover most of the variables.

Kal

[AptosJeff]

Kal,
I just read your 1998 reviews of the RDP-1 and the NAD 118 dig equalizers. Are there any other decent sounding units for less than the $5000 RDP-1? Do you still like the NAD?
Thanks,
Jeff

[Kal Rubinson]

No. I like the NAD less than I did since it was notable for its interesting features and only acceptable sound. In fact, I think you might get better today from one of the decent AVR's with EQ and preamp outputs.

AFAIK, the RDP-1 is no longer in production but you may find it or the RDQ-1 used.

Kal

[Andrew M Ward]

The idea of on-the-fly EQing for each different disc is a bit much IMO.

If you really feel the need to EQ each disc individually, in the long run it would be easier to rip the disc to a hard drive do the EQing there. Then burn the EQ'ed cuts to a new disc.

This is what I was thinking too as I read this string of posts..
if EQ is that important you can basically "remaster" the discs with a myriad of available software out there and you'll never have to "EQ" them again...

[whoaru99]

Perhaps you guys should consider a nice old Yamaha preamp such as an C-80 or C-85. Both of these have 2 band parametric (level, Q, and frequency) tone controls and also tone bypass if you so desire.

They can often be had for song and actually are pretty good, IMO.

[Indytown]

Guys,

Just go out with your check books, or debit card and buy yourself a MAC pre amp. Well built, transparent, detailed, great soundstaging, imaging, etc. plus tone controls, trim controls with balance. If you do not need them they can set to be out of the signal path. :T


Indy

[whoaru99]

Guys,

Just go out with your check books, or debit card and buy yourself a MAC pre amp. Well built, transparent, detailed, great soundstaging, imaging, etc. plus tone controls, trim controls with balance. If you do not need them they can set to be out of the signal path. :T


Indy

Yup, like I said. Get one of the old Yammies...

All that for $100, maybe less. There's one on EPay right now with a current bid of $26...

Don't knock it till you've tried it, these things were like $700-$800 preamps back in the early/mid 80s.

[bigburner]

Nigel
I reckon if you feel the need for bass or treble controls you need to look elsewhere, be it the room, cables, feng shui or just spend stupid (lets face it) amounts of money like I did.

Thanks Briz vegas, but lots of CDs and DVDs sound perfectly OK on my system and don't need any EQ adjustment, so it's not my room, cables, feng shui or the amount of money I've spent. The problem is the fact that many CDs and DVDs are poorly mixed.

Nigel.

[bigburner]

II realize that many purists may consider this Hi-Fi heresy.

Hi wkhanna,

I'm wondering if that's half the problem!

I think that the fashion for eliminating tone controls started at the time CDs took over from vinyl. For some reason hi-fi designers mistakenly thought that CDs were a perfect medium and didn't require EQ adjustment. If only they had listened to a few.

Nigel.

[bigburner]

I see no reason why this same technique can't be applied to tone controls. That way the tone controls could be bypassed just like all the other non-essential functions maintaining a simple signal path. Un-bypassed, the tone controls could be there to help with poorly equalized recordings. The price would be a slightly less good full function mode. I think it would be worth the sonic price.

Sparky, that's just what my old integrated amp provided. Most of the time the tone controls were in bypass mode and I only brought them into play when I needed them. That's exactly the functionality I want now.

Nigel.

[bigburner]

Reasonable quality is pretty subjective, but if you just want to experiment a bit, the AudioSource EQ 100 may be a good starting point. I think they can be had new for $100, give or take - although it has 10 sliders for each channel.

Something a bit more "upscale" may be a Rane ME 60, but it goes beyond what you are looking for seeing how it has 30 sliders per channel.

Thank you for the recommendations whoaru.

Does anyone else have a product that they can recommend?

Nigel.

[bigburner]

If you really feel the need to EQ each disc individually, in the long run it would be easier to rip the disc to a hard drive do the EQing there. Then burn the EQ'ed cuts to a new disc.

That's a very interesting idea Thomas, but I just don't have the time to do this at present. For a start I'd have to give up hanging out at the HTG Forum! My CD/DVD collection has increased by about 80 units this year so ripping and EQ'ing won't really be feasible until I have more spare time. Also, I'm not quite sure how I would apply this approach to DVDs. Do you have a recommended tool?

Nigel.

[bigburner]

My main preamp does not have tone controls, so I use a separate tube preamp with tone controls, connected in one of the tape monitor paths.

Hi AptosJeff,

That's exactly what I'm considering. I just happen to own a late 1970’s integrated amp with excellent tone controls!!

Nigel.

[bigburner]

The Z-systems RDP-1 digital EQ is as transparent as any EQ I've used and it has 99 memories for settings. Should cover most of the variables.

Kal

Thanks Kal, but I think that this may be a little out of my price range. Do you have a less expensive recommendation?

Nigel.

[bigburner]

Guys,

Just go out with your check books, or debit card and buy yourself a MAC pre amp. Well built, transparent, detailed, great soundstaging, imaging, etc. plus tone controls, trim controls with balance. If you do not need them they can set to be out of the signal path. :T


Indy

Hi Indy,

That probably isn't an option for me, but just out of interest, what sort of dollars are we talking about here?

Nigel.

[Indytown]

Hi Indy,

That probably isn't an option for me, but just out of interest, what sort of dollars are we talking about here?

Nigel.

Nigel,

In Retail US dollars:

C220- $3300 (excellent- 4 tube pre-amp- brand new model, very good)

C46- $4800 (excellent- solid state, has tone control and equalizer)

C2200- $5100 (excellent- 8 tube pre)

C45- $3800 (excellent- solid state, great bottom end reproduction)

The C45, C46 and C2200 can be bought used on Audiogon. I've seen several C2200 units over the last several months in the $3000 to $3300 range.

Indy

[AptosJeff]

Hi AptosJeff,

That's exactly what I'm considering. I just happen to own a late 1970’s integrated amp with excellent tone controls!!

Nigel.

If you need more than simple bass & treble, you might try a parametric equalizer. My son has a Behringer Feedback Destroyer (dig processor) with 24 programmable bands. I think we paid ~$100 for it at a guitar store. I hav'nt used it, so don't know how easy it is to use or what it sounds like. I think I'm afraid to find out, but that's another option anyway. I wish there was a simple parametic eq with good sound quality for a few hundred or less used. I am looking for more than simple bass & treble because I most often need to attenuate the upper mids and treble both. These things do affect the sound, and are anathema to some audiophiles, but I agree with you that the balance on many cd's is terrible.

Good luck and keep us posted,
Jeff

[whoaru99]

If you need more than simple bass & treble, you might try a parametric equalizer. My son has a Behringer Feedback Destroyer (dig processor) with 24 programmable bands. I think we paid ~$100 for it at a guitar store. I hav'nt used it, so don't know how easy it is to use or what it sounds like. I think I'm afraid to find out, but that's another option anyway. I wish there was a simple parametic eq with good sound quality for a few hundred or less used. I am looking for more than simple bass & treble because I most often need to attenuate the upper mids and treble both. These things do affect the sound, and are anathema to some audiophiles, but I agree with you that the balance on many cd's is terrible.

Good luck and keep us posted,
Jeff

Can't vouch for the sound, but Behringer makes a five-band manual adjustment parametric eq., the Ultra-Q Proe PEQ2200. Doesn't look too expensive. I'd venture a guess there are others that make them too.

Or, you could just get the Yamaha with it built in. ....

PS: Why would you be afraid to find out what your son's Behringer sounds like?

[Indytown]

Can't vouch for the sound, but Behringer makes a five-band manual adjustment parametric eq., the Ultra-Q Proe PEQ2200. Doesn't look too expensive. I'd venture a guess there are others that make them too.

Or, you could just get the Yamaha with it built in. ....

PS: Why would you be afraid to find out what your son's Behringer sounds like?

The MAC C46 has a very tight built in EQ system, very tight and accurate to the octaves being adjusted plus a superb transparent pre-amp attached to it.

[whoaru99]

Yes, I should hope so @ $5K... :P

It would help if we had more info about the expectation of "reasonable quality" and amount of $$ willing to spend.

[bigburner]

Purists versus Realists

I found this while researching tone controls on the Internet. I don't know who the author is but it makes sense and probably applies to a lot of the topics discussed in this forum.

Various forms of Tone adjustment can be applied. For example, the Graphic Equaliser circuits which are popular in studios and PA systems use a bank of bandpass filters to break the signal’s frequency range into chunks. Each frequency section is then amplified and the results added (or subtracted) back together with various controlled gains to rebuild the overall signal. By altering the relative gains of the bandpass filters specific tonal bands can be boosted or cut to alter the sound. These complex circuits do reveal one of the main potential problems of Tonal adjustments. Any slight unwanted imbalances mean that it can be almost impossible to get a flat response should it be desired! For this reason, professional or high quality system use close tolerance components and usually have a ‘defeat’ switch that allows the signal to bypass the entire system when tonal adjustments are not required. Given the good quality of signals that are often available these days, tonal adjustment is usually only of value for special purposes or for reducing the severity of problems with historic recordings, or ones made incorrectly. There is therefore something of a ‘theological’ debate in Hi-Fi as to whether people should have, or use, such systems at all. Purists say not. Realists find them useful. As with most engineering this is a case of “Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice”!

[Jesse111]

Big burner I'm completely with you on this one as well. I've had some extremely high end 2 channel gear. But the reality is, without tone controls you are simply at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer decided to make his equipment sound like. And there are huge differnences as you know. If you buy their product you better like what they like or your screwed.

I've never felt I've lost anything with tone controls unless I over adjusted. In fact my detail, imaging and soundstage never degrade but improved. For instance to much bass tone and the system gets muddy. If done right, I believe an EQ of some kind is essential unless of course you positively and 100% have the same preference as a particular manufacturer. With tone controls you can clean up a system and over come shortcomings in the room, the speakers and even the equipment. I use Integra Research equipment and the tone control system is superb. My 800Ds love it.

Go with your ears.

[Kal Rubinson]

Big burner I'm completely with you on this one as well. I've had some extremely high end 2 channel gear. But the reality is, without tone controls you are simply at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer decided to make his equipment sound like. And there are huge differnences as you know. If you buy their product you better like what they like or your screwed.

Didn't you buy it BECAUSE you liked it? IMHO, using tone controls to fix an equipment problem is the equivalent of watching TV with sunglasses because you turned the brightness up too high. Tone controls have their value but primarily for correcting source material imbalances.

Kal

[Jesse111]

Didn't you buy it BECAUSE you liked it? IMHO, using tone controls to fix an equipment problem is the equivalent of watching TV with sunglasses because you turned the brightness up too high. Tone controls have their value but primarily for correcting source material imbalances.

Kal

C'mon Kal. I'm sure you can see the reasoning in my post. Of course I bought it because I like it. I like it better than anything I've ever heard. The built in detail, imaging and stage ability of IR without the least bit of harshness is the best I've heard. I use very little of their tone controls but the small amount that I do simply enhances that built in quality of their magnificent product. It doesn't "fix" anything. Your TV analogy proves my point. In the case of your analogy it would be the manufacturers that "turn the brightness up too high". Not the consumer. Compensating for the manufacturers personal preferences is in my view, proving that what you like is what YOU like. Having tuning options may be just a bit too independant and couragous thinking for some folks while for others who don't use tone controls no doubt are perfectly happy and wouldn't have it any other way. They have been able to find their perfect sound consistant with the manufacutrures preference.

Additionally, we are talking about fine tuning points with quality gear not clumsy junk equipment. It's not about "fixing problems" with equipment, it's about tuning the sound to your taste instead of suffering with someone elses. However, I know that tone controls can "fix" some room problems. Perhaps a fellow can't afford really nice 802's like you have. Maybe he might need a bit of a minor tone adjustment, or "fix" as you put it, for his speakers to avoid an expensive upgrade. I'm simply trying to help this member reason on a few points for his consideration. Is this easier for you to undrestand their bro? Stop nit picking.

[Kal Rubinson]

I have no problem with anyone using the tone control (in any format) to get the sound the way he likes it. Knowing what you want is the best route to satisfaction.

OTOH, I have NEVER felt the need to do this with any system that I have owned, at least as far as I can recall. I have used tone controls/EQ for equipment under review (which might be fine but unsuitable for my room) and, often, for rebalancing the sound on a disc/broadcast that was audibly needy.

So, OK. But not for me.

Kal

[Jesse111]

I have no problem with anyone using the tone control (in any format) to get the sound the way he likes it. Knowing what you want is the best route to satisfaction.

OTOH, I have NEVER felt the need to do this with any system that I have owned, at least as far as I can recall. I have used tone controls/EQ for equipment under review (which might be fine but unsuitable for my room) and, often, for rebalancing the sound on a disc/broadcast that was audibly needy.

So, OK. But not for me.

Kal

Agreed.

[RebelMan]

I have decided that the designers of modern 2-channel hi-fi systems don’t actually listen to music. If they did they would know that EQ (treble and bass) controls are essential because the treble and bass on CDs and DVDs varies so much.

1. Do you agree with me? Is this your experience too?

I would have to disagree with this assessment. Since my introduction into the world of hifi more than 20 years ago I have never had the need or the interest to engage an EQ system. I have always been opposed to the use of EQ’s because the consequences were not what the recording artist and mixing engineer wanted you to hear, faults and all. EQ’s are primarily intended to compensate for the deficiencies of the playback system, not the media. Two-channel designs that lack tonal controls are engineered properly. The inclusion of tonal controls is strickly for purposes of marketability not authenticity.

2. What should I do about it?

Learn to live without it. LOL

[Kal Rubinson]

EQ’s are primarily intended to compensate for the deficiencies of the playback system, not the media.

I disagree. Ordinary tone-controls are too gross for system/room correction and graphic and parametric ones cannot deal with time-related issues. User-adjustable EQs, even really professional ones like the Z-Systems units, are simply unsuitable for system/room correction but are just fine as precision tone controls for source correction.

Kal

[bigburner]

Learn to live without it. LOL

Spoken like a true purist, not a realist!

[RebelMan]

I disagree. Ordinary tone-controls are too gross for system/room correction and graphic and parametric ones cannot deal with time-related issues. User-adjustable EQs, even really professional ones like the Z-Systems units, are simply unsuitable for system/room correction but are just fine as precision tone controls for source correction.

Shall we dance?

Let's assume we have two completely different systems in two ideal and identical rooms. Let's also assume the source to evaluate both systems is identical in content and quality and is perfectly mastered. Let's further assume one system emphasizes/de-emphasizes one area of audible frequencies and the other system another. What do you suspect the outcome would be? I am certain the choices would be highly system dependent, after all the source was constant in both cases.

Now lets assume we have the perfect system. One completely transparent and free from any artifacts with ruler flat response. If you are a believer in signal purity, it would be utter heresy to artificially alter the output of the system to compensate for the inadequacies of the source. Illustrated another way, let's assume you like the artistic talents of Picasso. Would you alter his paintings in order to suit your environmental needs? You either like his work or you don't but I doubt you would change it to fit your tastes. Likewise, a person shouldn't alter the works of a musician. An altered recording is not what the artist had intended for people to hear, it is not what the industry interested in telling it like it is had intended to deliver and it is not what enthusiasts in search of the truth had intended to receive.

The reality is systems are not perfect and they will never be. Therefore, the holy grail of systems will always remain elusive thus maintaining two schools of thought. Build systems that are inexpensive and flexible or build systems that are expensive and accurate. Basic tone controls and equalizers are features that allow compromises to be made to mediocre systems. Correctional devices like parametric equalizers are intended to compensate the unsavory acoustical interactions and conditions of a typical room. But neither was intended to mask a recording.

If the results one hears is not to ones liking, consider not the source but the system reproducing it. There's no other reason in support of the continual system upgrades we make in pursuit of audio perfection. But when it comes to the source, take it or leave it but never, ever change it!

Your move.

[RebelMan]

Spoken like a true purist, not a realist!

Is there such a thing as a truist? LOL

[bigburner]

Illustrated another way, let's assume you like the artistic talents of Picasso. Would you alter his paintings in order to suit your environmental needs?

Picasso was a genius. Many of the people who mix CDs and DVDs are incompetent.

[RebelMan]

Picasso was a genius. Many of the people who mix CDs and DVDs are incompetent.

LOL, are you just being facetious?