I Want My Treble & Bass Controls Back!

[bigburner]

LOL, are you just being facetious?

No, not at all.

The more music I listen to the more I find that I'm analysing the mix. I particularly notice deficiencies on DVDs because I can actually see what's happening - for example, I can see someone playing a horn on the screen but the guy on the mixing desk hasn't noticed because you can't hear it at all; or a guitarist is playing a break but it's at the same volume as the backing instruments because the guy on the desk is outside having a smoke; or the toms are too loud because the mixing guy hasn't turned them down since the solo; or the rhythm section is really getting it on but the volume of the bass and drums hasn't been matched; or two guitarists are dualing but the second guitar is half the volume of the first etc, etc.

Now that you've got me started, what REALLY annoys me on DVDs is a problem that a graphic equalizer will never fix, and that's directors who like to change the shot every 2 seconds so that we never see the musicians properly; or the cameraman who waves his camera about wildly so that the viewer achieves a vomitous state; or endless shots of the vocalist and the guitarist so that I never get to see the rest of the band etc, etc.

Artistic license? Bollocks. It's pure incompetence.

I feel better now that I've got that off my chest!

[bigburner]

LOL, are you just being facetious?

...or perhaps you thought I was being facetious about Picasso being a genius? If so, no, I definitely think he was a genius.

Nigel.

[Karma]

...or perhaps you thought I was being facetious about Picasso being a genius? If so, no, I definitely think he was a genius.

Nigel.

HI NIgel,
Me too!!!!

Sparky

[RebelMan]

I never stated that CDs and DVDs aren’t without their faults but they are what they are. There could be other extenuating circumstances that you are unaware of affecting what you are hearing or seeing. I suspect, in the case of the DVDs you are referring to, that the recording was captured from a live performance? I am sure if you are familiar with live performances that they almost never go off without a hitch. Furthermore, trying to capture the live event on some format for playback is very difficult to do let alone getting it to sound good.

Maybe the recording mic on the horn failed to work properly? Maybe the mixing engineers tried to tone down the toms but realized it would negatively impact other more important instruments that should be heard even at the expense of the solo. Maybe the drummer in the rhythm section lost his/her ear piece. Maybe limits were placed one of the dueling guitars so that they both could be heard. Or maybe there is some incompetency at work here.

What we know (for sure) is that you don’t know and I don’t know, only the artists and the recording/mixing engineers know what we are hearing (or not) and why. We cannot begin to assume that what we are hearing is not how it is suppose to be. Maybe you don’t like what you are hearing and that is fine but it is not your place to decide what you think it should be. That’s pure negligence.

EQ’s cannot add what’s missing and they won’t right what’s wrong with a recording but they can attempt to level the imbalances of the system. Try this little experiment if you can. Take any CD of your choice and listen to it using the player in your car and set the tone/balance controls flat. Then take the same CD and plug it into your system also with the tone and balance feature defeated. Does one system sound better to you? I suspect one will. Gee, I wonder why? :roll:

I feel better now too. LOL

[RebelMan]

...or perhaps you thought I was being facetious about Picasso being a genius?

Not at all. You had it right the first time.

[Kal Rubinson]

Shall we dance?

It takes two to tango.

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.

Sure. Two imperfect representations of a single signal set.

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.

Why? As long as that alteration (1) was entirely reversible/removeable, (2) was, in and of itself, sufficiently transparent so that the cure was not worse than the disease, and (3) could IMPROVE the sound of the source, I can see no reason not to.

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.

Not the analogy of the situation as I see it. Let's suppose that a photograph of that Picasso was made with incorrect lighting and was too blue, the addition of corrective filters is not only satisfying but necessary for proper appreciation of the original.

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.

It's not black or white. How about a system that is accurate and still flexible? I have used the z-Systems RDP-1 for years and its presence in a high resolution system circuit is undetectable. Of course, if you adjust it from flat, you can hear what it does.

Basic tone controls and equalizers are features that allow compromises to be made to mediocre systems.

That has been their traditional role.

Correctional devices like parametric equalizers are intended to compensate the unsavory acoustical interactions and conditions of a typical room.

I reiterate but PEQs cannot (except in special instances as discussed in the Meridian Room Correction AES paper) do a decent job of room correction since they cannot properly affect time-domain events such as resonance and decay.

But neither was intended to mask a recording.

Hah. I read this, at first, to say that neither was intended to MAKE a recording. In fact, such PEQs are common in mixing/mastering studios and are probably used in virtually every recording on the market, hair-shirt audiophile recordings aside. So, their suitability is hardly in question.

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!

There are examples of the usefulness of the EQ in my review of the RDP-1 (http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...78/index.html). My equipment has considerably advanced since that time but my respect for the device has remained constant.

Your move.

Tag. You're it.

Kal

[RebelMan]

Two imperfect representations of a single signal set.

That's the reality.

Why? As long as that alteration (1) was entirely reversible/removeable, (2) was, in and of itself, sufficiently transparent so that the cure was not worse than the disease, and (3) could IMPROVE the sound of the source, I can see no reason not to.

I sure can. The problem is there is no way to measure what the proper "improvement" should be because musical sources are dynamic. Plotting system imbalances using sinusoidal test tones and correcting the peaks and valleys is somewhat possible because we know the results should be flat. Using equalizing devices to deliberately imbalance an already flat system because the source is less than optimal is strictly a personal choice that I could respect but it's not what I would deem as an appropriate course of action.

Not the analogy of the situation as I see it. Let's suppose that a photograph of that Picasso was made with incorrect lighting and was too blue, the addition of corrective filters is not only satisfying but necessary for proper appreciation of the original.

Point taken. I suppose you enjoy listening to your rose colored filters. :roflmao:

It's not black or white. How about a system that is accurate and still flexible? I have used the z-Systems RDP-1 for years and its presence in a high resolution system circuit is undetectable. Of course, if you adjust it from flat, you can hear what it does.

No system is precise, perhaps that is what you are actually adjusting? A quick spot check of the Apogee Duetta II that you used in your demo of the RDP-1 shows it exhibits excessive bass on the order of 6-8dB. I noticed the adjustments you made to one of the Holly Cole's demo CD's was a 6dB cut in the offending (bass) range. I suspect you had a less than transparent system at the time and the RDP-1 compensated for it.

I reiterate but PEQs cannot (except in special instances as discussed in the Meridian Room Correction AES paper) do a decent job of room correction since they cannot properly affect time-domain events such as resonance and decay.

I concur, but I reiterate parametric equalizers are "intended" to compensate for weaknesses in the system, I didn't suggest that they did it very well.

Hah. I read this, at first, to say that neither was intended to MAKE a recording. In fact, such PEQs are common in mixing/mastering studios and are probably used in virtually every recording on the market, hair-shirt audiophile recordings aside. So, their suitability is hardly in question.

I think we are standing on opposite ends of the same bridge. What the sound engineer does to make/master pre-recorded media IS acceptable, that's what they intended for us to hear. It only becomes objectionable when the "...recording had been transformed into what the controller/listener wanted it to sound like."

There are examples of the usefulness of the EQ in my review of the RDP-1 (http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...78/index.html). My equipment has considerably advanced since that time but my respect for the device has remained constant.

I saw them. Now I know you enjoy moonlighting as a "pre-recorded post-mixing sound engineer". Nice title, albeit a mouthful. LOL

I couldn't help notice your opening statement on the Z-Systems RDP-1, which I copied here (if I may) for convenience..."Tone controls? I ripped them out of my Dyna PAS-3! And that was the last time I had tone controls. As a card-carrying audiophile, I wanted just what the engineer had inscribed on the recording, with as little change as possible (read: high fidelity)." At first it made me wonder if you are playing devil's advocate with the statements you contributed to this thread. Then I took an objective point of view and saw it as an opportunity for you discuss the value of post processing devices in response to the OP. Then I got to thinking that maybe you have something here. Maybe I should surrender my card? Nah, you should renew yours! :rofl:

[Jesse111]

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.

How can anyone know what the engineer wanted you to hear? You'd have to have been there and made the recording yourself as a reference to compare with every piece of gear you were considering for purchase. Additionally, what if someone doesn't want to hear what the engineer wanted them to hear. That also is the personal preference of that engineer's taste.

I perfer the most live realistic sound reproduction I can get. I've been to uncounted live performances. I try to duplicate that sound in my sound room. Without EQ you are trusting the manufacturer's preference. His perference is how he decided to "EQ" his product with his permanenty fixed component design. It's designed in to the equipment and you can't do anything about it except "Learn to live with it". That's like letting someone tell you who you can and can't marry.

I prefer controling my sound. Not taking it to any sort of unrealistic level but certainly not leaving it in the hands of another individuals personal taste.

But if anyone could make a solid case against EQ. It's you Rebelman. I can definately see your side of the issue as well.

[AptosJeff]

Another view

IMO, it is naive to think source material can never benefit from tone controls. Sometimes I think audiophiles have "flatness of the brain". The source material is seldom "flat" to begin with. Believe me, the equipment used to make the recordings is not perfect. As an example, many of the best mics are not flat at all. But as a rec engineer, I would still use that mic for other reasons. And many recordings have had eq added. I know this is hard to swallow, but it's true. And don't even get me started on how accurate the monitor systems are. So what you get is often not "flat".

Now I agree there are some good recordings with excellent balance, but most of what we have on cd is not that great. I also agree that tone controls can degrade the sound, and I for one, try not to use them. But depending on how bad the source material is and how good the tone controls are, they can be well worth it.

Again, it's just my opinion, so don't go off the deep end on me.

[alebonau]

hehe an interesting discussion this one. been quite a few years since had tone controls on my 2ch gear. And in systems prior that had them really found them too coarse an adjustment. Actualyl correction my factory fit car audio system comes wiht tone controls and they do get used, but more so to make up for the system severe inadequacies !

played around with graphic equalisers 15-20 years ago, could make massive changes in sound but inserting them in the circuit seemed to compromise the systems sound severely and this was with the relatively modest systems I had back then. not sure what thrye like these days.

I think with most quality manufacturers of equipment they try to get it right in the first place and expect you to partnerr it up with other capable gear without severe deficiencies. If your finding you need to be using tone controls all the time perhaps there is some thing quite lackign in the system in hte equipment itself, from mismatches or in the setup ?.

in regards recordings, to be honest not come across anything severely 'wrong' that I've felt the need to make drastic tone adjustments, perhaps the music I listen to or perhaps my system is reasonably down the straight and narrow or perhaps more in the conservative/safe end or perhaps doesnt accentuate any particular aspect of the sound ? anyways its been built up with compoennts of my choice to give a particualr sound and perhaps hence soudns right/good to my ears without needing massive tone adjustments ?

I notice this statement "recording artist and mixing engineer wanted you to hear" lets not kid ourselves. the biggest tone controls we have in our systems are the speakers. Change from one brand to another and you can get a massive change to the charecter of sound. And then theres pre/pwr/integrated amplifiers, again here there can be differences, not jsut between different brands but often within the brand and different range/price models, same with sources and this can be quite different here too a lot especially some equipment with a valve basis. And not to mention setup and your room can have a huge impact on the oerall sound.

Best we can have as Kal said is knowing what you want and getting the soudn the way we like it....

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

ps just thinking about it my velodyne DD-15 has the sms system built in. I use it to room eq for 60hz and below. Does room eq qualify as a tone control ?

The room eq of the velo DD helps me achive a reasonably flat overall system response 100hz and below, adding the sub in sure changes the way my system sounds. adds more oomph to the bottom end. maybe the sub is one big tone control hehe !

should say I dont find the need to be continually adjust it though. pretty much just set it to do the flat response and a level to match and sounds fine with so far what I've played on it. I suppose if did come across a recording wiht an overly ripe bass line could easily crank the sub level back to suit so there you go maybe I do have a tone control in my system. jsut have it setup how I like it but not somethign I find I need to adjust based on recordings.

[Kal Rubinson]

Now I agree there are some good recordings with excellent balance, but most of what we have on cd is not that great. I also agree that tone controls can degrade the sound, and I for one, try not to use them. But depending on how bad the source material is and how good the tone controls are, they can be well worth it.

Amen.

Kal

[bigburner]

There are examples of the usefulness of the EQ in my review of the RDP-1 (http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...78/index.html).

Kal

Kal, that's a very interesting review. I learnt a lot.

I also enjoyed the link to the following article, which I'm sure no-one will mind if I repeat here...

Nigel.

Sidebar 3: 1998 "Editor's Choice"

If there's one aspect of the high-end obsession that perplexes "civilians," it's the fact that our preamplifiers and amplifiers don't have tone controls, let alone that flashing-light focus of the mid-fi rack system, a graphic equalizer. I have a confession to make: I once owned an equalizer. In addition, my first amplifier, a Kenwood integrated that I bought in 1969, sported tone controls; my first high-end preamplifier, a Lecson AC-1, also did so; and I used those controls!

But as my musical and sonic tastes matured, I found I made use of them less and less. Yes, I could "correct" the tonal balances of recordings, but I found that to do so, particularly with the equalizer, diminished the musical magic. So when, in the late 1970s, I bought my first true audiophile preamp—a Meridian 101 that offered just source selection and control of volume—I didn't miss what I never used. And the preamplifiers I've owned or used in the two decades since then—PS Audio IV, Exposure 7, Krell PAM-3 and KRS, Ben Duncan AMP-01, Audio Research SP8 and SP10, Conrad-Johnson PV7, Mod Squad Passive Line Drive, McCormack TLC-1, Mark Levinson No.38, '38S, and '380s, Meridian 518—have featured many things, but not a tone control was to be found among them.

I suspect that all of us have similar tales to tell. Forget the old audiophile wives' tales of "tone controls introduce phase shift" (they do, but so what?). The audiophile's disdain for tone controls is a demonstration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: If you try to change one aspect of an experience for the better, you will worsen the overall experience. The only way to make something better is to address its totality. Don't buy an equalizer, buy a better-sounding preamplifier.

But then, in the July '98 Stereophile, Kal Rubinson reviewed the $5000 Z-Systems RDP-1. Here is a digital "preamp" that offers digital source selection and a well-engineered digital-domain volume control. Nothing new in that: I've been using the Meridian 518 in that role for a couple of years now. But the RDP-1 also offers what Z-Systems terms a "Transparent Tone Control."

"Pshew-yeah," my quarter century of audiophile conditioning prompted me to respond when I first read those words. But then I tried the RDP-1. I used it to apply some mild EQ to tonally distressed recordings. I used it to equalize out of existence some room anomalies that I hadn't been able to eliminate despite hours, even days, of moving speakers around. I used it to provide some tonal shaping on my live recordings. And no matter the circumstance, other than the desired change in sound, the musical magic remained intact.

So Z-System's RDP-1 is my 1998 Editor's Choice. With its transparent control of tone, it points to a future in which audiophiles can eat their cake and have it too.—John Atkinson

[Chris D]

My own take on the original premise of the thread is that I, too, find EQ-ing every CD or DVD to be too much. I'll EQ my system using reference tones, and then accept the average of all source recordings as they play.

Good enough for me.

[RebelMan]

IMO, it is naive to think source material can never benefit from tone controls.

...But depending on how bad the source material is and how good the tone controls are, they can be well worth it.

The issue of this topic is not about musical reproduction ideologies or the lack of their understanding but it is about choices. The frustrations set forth by the original poster makes this very clear. No one is objecting to the imperfections found in source material, I believe we are all in agreement that they exist. The questions are what to do about them and at who's discretion. As I see it there are three possibilities. Leave it up to the recording studios to fix, or the manufacturers or the end-user to color.

The direction will be primarily driven by the fundamental beliefs one has on what constitutes high-end audio. stereophile defines high-end audio to mean "The pursuit of and business of realistic sound reproduction." I believe in in this description because I believe in the pursuit of "truth" in audio not what I think it "should be". I don't advocate bandaid fixes nor do I believe in them but I do believe that something should be done by attacking the source of the problem, not by artificially flavoring a sour note.

I also believe manufacturers that uphold the definition also believe that the integrity of the signal should be preserved, regardless. It is the principle goal of every high-end manufacturer to produce products that are free from contaminating the original signal. The ones that achieve this goal with greater success realize that tonal controls of any kind are unnecessary to correct what "might" be perceived as a failing in the source material. Others that do not uphold the principle or have other design objectives may include options to compensate for the interactions between the source material and the short comings of the equipment.

The "reality" is many if not most systems are not truthful to the original signal, weather it be deliberate or neglect. We can see these discrepancies whenever jitter-spectrum plots are recorded for source players, when RIAA plots, THD+N and crosstalk curves are plotted against pre-amplifiers, when power output versus frequency curves are plotted against power amplifiers or when impulse, step and spectral-decay plots are charted for loudspeakers, to name a few. We can hear these imbalances when the source material excites or counters portions of the system that are coincident to these frequencies and their relative amplitudes.

Equalization devices give (some) control to the end user to correct for system imbalances but they are not intended to fix the media facade. If it were true that a sophisticated EQ with sufficient granularity could "correct" a source signal then theoretically all systems could be made to sound the same. Then the notion of what constitutes high-end can be removed from the pages of stereophile's lexicon!

[RebelMan]

Amen.

Kal

Amen?... AMEN???... Brother, I think you lost faith 8 years ago. (j/k) :W

[RebelMan]

hehe an interesting discussion this one. been quite a few years since had tone controls on my 2ch gear. And in systems prior that had them really found them too coarse an adjustment. Actualyl correction my factory fit car audio system comes wiht tone controls and they do get used, but more so to make up for the system severe inadequacies !

played around with graphic equalisers 15-20 years ago, could make massive changes in sound but inserting them in the circuit seemed to compromise the systems sound severely and this was with the relatively modest systems I had back then. not sure what thrye like these days.

I think with most quality manufacturers of equipment they try to get it right in the first place and expect you to partnerr it up with other capable gear without severe deficiencies. If your finding you need to be using tone controls all the time perhaps there is some thing quite lackign in the system in hte equipment itself, from mismatches or in the setup ?.

Precisely

I notice this statement "recording artist and mixing engineer wanted you to hear" lets not kid ourselves. the biggest tone controls we have in our systems are the speakers. Change from one brand to another and you can get a massive change to the charecter of sound. And then theres pre/pwr/integrated amplifiers, again here there can be differences, not jsut between different brands but often within the brand and different range/price models, same with sources and this can be quite different here too a lot especially some equipment with a valve basis. And not to mention setup and your room can have a huge impact on the oerall sound.

These statements support and echo my point. System changes can exact a measure of improvement that betters any tonal controls but one thing still remains, the static source that is played! Improve it too and the gains in listener satisfaction are immeasureable.

Best we can have as Kal said is knowing what you want and getting the soudn the way we like it....

Doable but not honest.

should say I dont find the need to be continually adjust it though. pretty much just set it to do the flat response and a level to match and sounds fine with so far what I've played on it. I suppose if did come across a recording wiht an overly ripe bass line could easily crank the sub level back to suit so there you go maybe I do have a tone control in my system. jsut have it setup how I like it but not somethign I find I need to adjust based on recordings.

Congratulations!

[bigburner]

My primary interest is good music – lots of it and plenty of variety. For me, high-end audio is therefore a means to an end. Whilst a good song on a $500 system will always sound better than a bad song on a $50,000 system, a good song on a $50,000 system sounds better than the same song on a $500 system. So if you’re a person who’s really keen on music then you’ve got to be a little bit interested in the equipment.

Although the equipment plays second fiddle to the music I am the first to admit that I find the equipment an interesting subject. If it weren't I wouldn't spend so much time in this forum. I’ll probably keep on upgrading my equipment like the rest of my fellow members. Whether or not I ever become a true audiophile like RebelMan and others whose goal is ‘the pursuit of "truth" in audio’ remains to be seen. Until I reach that state of enlightenment some tone controls would be nice, used only in extreme circumstances under strict supervision!

Nigel.

[AptosJeff]

Good one, Nigel. Some of us need to lighten up here.

[Kal Rubinson]

Amen?... AMEN???... Brother, I think you lost faith 8 years ago. (j/k) :W

Well before that but I can borrow the language.

Kal

[RebelMan]

Good one, Nigel. Some of us need to lighten up here.

And some of us need to listen up. LOL

Don't take it personally Aptos, I am a music lover first and foremost. I get the same level of satisfaction from my iPod as I do my two-channel system. Surprise, surprise.

[RebelMan]

Another duplicate, sorry.

[autio]

For anyone that may be interested one of these--The Z-systems RDP-1 digital EQ -- has just been listed on audiogon(not by me)

[bigburner]

Rotel have listened and recently announced their new high-end preamp (RC-1082) with bass and treble controls. What a great company eh?

[JudyLou]

Until I reach that state of enlightenment some tone controls would be nice, used only in extreme circumstances under strict supervision!

Nigel.

Hi Nigel
Yes must agree on this - but I must say that proper bass management & room eq to me does a better job than just tone controls.
Lourens