Tone controls V's Contour controls

[bleeding ears]

Hi guys, just wondering if there is any difference between tone controls and contour controls ?

If so, is there any advantage or disadvantage with each of them ?

Pete

[wkhanna]

I have a Carver C-19 tube pre-amp. It has defeatable tone controls for each channel and a contour control (push button). Per my manual:

“This is essentially a loudness control with +6 dB boost at 20 Hz and 1.5 dB boost at 20kHz.
It is designed for increased audibility at low volumes and should generally be used in place of tone or Spectral Tilt equalization for listening at normal levels.”

I guess I don’t listen at ‘normal’ levels, (I'm at 75 - 90 dB typically) and never use it, so I really can’t comment on its usefulness. I always run my pre in bypass except for extreme cases, discs like ‘Derek and the Dominos’ and my Alllman Brothers CD’s, where ‘Fiddling’ helps reduce listening fatigue from these type of recordings that can be difficult on your ears at higher SPL due the nature of their engineering.

[bleeding ears]

Wkhanna, not really sure if your Carver works in the same manner that my Rotel 1068 works with contour controls.

Sounds like your Carver could be rather different in the way it works.

The main reason for my question Tone Vs Contour is that the Rotel RSP1066 processor has tone controls whereas the next model processor, the 1068 has contour controls.

They may be the same thing with different names, but I am not sure.

[miner]

The contour controls on Rotel are fixed boost at certain freq whereas with tone controls you can fine tune. I personally am not a fan at all of tone controls - another detour in the sound chain that can add unnecessary noise to the sonics.

[wkhanna]

I did not check the manual at the Rotel site, but I believe a ‘contour’ will attenuate at specific pre-determined fq’s and incorporate higher slopes, whereas ‘tone’ controls work in a more linear fashion both + and - dB, across the entire fq range. Then again, I may be totally off base on how it applies to Rotel’s gear.
I currently have an RSP 1066, and never use the tone controls. As a pre for 2ch, it performed adequately, but now that I have the C-19, all my 2ch source is routed through it, and the difference is stunning. I believe I heard that the 1068 performs better as a 2ch pre than the 1066.
But the 1066 will remain as my HT processor as it does a good job for movies and the few DVD Audio discs that I have, and my main focus for now and the foreseeable is 2ch SQ.

[bleeding ears]

wkhanna, saying things like the difference was stunning could get me started down the 2 ch preamp path again.

Been there before with a Rotel 990bx pre with no controls at all,but went back to the 1068.(enabled me to tailor the sound to my taste)

Now a Carver that may be another kettle of fish.

Since we are on it, could you please describe the difference in sound quality going from the 1066 to the Carver ?

Eg cleaner, leaner, wider, bigger sound etc oh ! and do you ever feel the need for a sub when listening to 2 channel ?

pete

[wkhanna]

Hey Pete!

Thanks for the opportunity to become your facilitator to upgraditis!

I take it from your prev posts that you want the ability to make tonal adjustments to your music which suit your personal preferences.
There are two general schools of thought on this subject that have been discussed ad nauseam on the forum in the past, but it basically boils down to: the ‘purest view’ where you accept and appreciate the unmodified ‘sound’ as it is on the medium you’re listening to, or the ‘autocratic view’ that gives total control over how the sound from that medium is presented in your listening environment.
This is a V personal issue, and I will not go into diatribes about the justifications for either, other than to say, it’s your music and it’s your choice, period.

Just to clarify and bare my own bias for you , I lean more toward the puritanical end of the spectrum, but with the caveat that, in V rare and certain instances, as described in my earlier post regarding the playback of such CDs as ‘Derek and the Dominos’ and my Allman Brothers, I will ‘tailor’ the sound to make it more ‘palatable’, especially during playback at higher SPL during serious listing in order to reduce listening fatigue. Just to cloud the issue a bit, these tactics may not apply to vinyl as a source, but I won’t even begin to delve into that vein of the debate!

And just to cloud the matter a little more, there is the issue of adding ‘links’ in the chain that give more opportunities for contamination of the original data on the source, be it routing the signal through the extra electronics required for tone adjustment, etc. Many believe that the shortest distance (least elements) between two points (source to speaker) is in most cases the best path for minimizing the chance for coloration due to your components. i.e., listening nirvana = total transparency.

Now, to finally address the point of your original question.
I went through a period of rapid ugraditis the past 18 months. It originally started by replacing my old (15yo) SoundCraftsman 2ch pre after a terminal event involving an electrical storm.
That is what lead me to this forum in the fist place, and resulted in the acquisition of an RSP 1066 from audiogon. This was the catalyst for the end of my 10 yr hiatus from serous 2ch music listening. Having rekindle a dormant addiction, my next ‘fix’ was a used Cambridge Audio 640 v1 CDp. The difference compared to my Rotel 855 CD player was evident in an exponential degree. By this time, I was totally entrapped in the nurturing arms of this mother of addictive diseases, and added two sets of Doug’s SilverCat interconnects.
And once again, the effect was perpetuating. It was as though I had upgraded to a $1K dedicated pre. All the sounds were clearer, more defined and realistic.

At this point, I felt the weakest link in my system, which now consisted of the Cambridge CDp > SilverCat > RSP 1066 > SilverCat > 2 RB 980BX’s > Signet SL280B/U's (a lesser known domestically manufactured ported 2-way that I acquired 15 years ago for ~ $800) was my speakers. So a quest began for the reassignment of the Signets to surround duties.
That is when, on a trip to visit my best friend, a retired luthier who is responsible for infecting me with this horrid disease in the first place, I was presented with a then unused relict that had been banished in the closet of an upstairs bedroom. Rod Nicholus, my friend, had replaced his Carver C-19 years ago with some jewel from an obscure company in Canada, Bryston I think is the trade name they go by . Of course I was humbled and grateful to the point of speechlessness, and have a great dinner party story about the experience of transporting this unit as carry-on baggage on our return flight home.

However, my naivety and obsessive compulsive behavior resulting from my disease kept the C-19 dormant on my equipment shelf as I blindly perused my holy quest for speakers. Then, one day in a fit of withdrawal inspired insatiable craving, I decided to connect the Carver. Ahhhh.......Can you say epiphany? Maybe the best way I can describe it is this.......My wife asked if I went out and bought something without telling her when she overheard music she was familiar with while in another room. Suddenly, my ‘old’ speakers were making ‘music’!
Now, every morning as I wake, I contemplate how I can advance my fanatical crusade to more effectively proselytize the cosmic significance of the roll the all to often ignored and shunned plight which the diminutive pre amp plays in reaching the ultimate ‘truth’.

It likely is not ‘just’ the tubes, Pete, but regardless, the difference was ‘stunning’! Miles Davis’ trumpet was ‘in’ my room on ‘Kind of Blue' as was Paul Chambers’ string bass about 7 feet behind, and Jimmy Cobbs’s brushes ......well I could almost count each bristle and define the exact the location of them on his snare. And Steely Dan’s Aja had a sound stage that was two feet wider than the placement of the speakers.
Piano chords would resonate for what seemed like minutes after the hammers had fallen. Then, when I ran the volume up (I typically listen at 75 to 90 dB), the music did not get louder, it got more dynamic. I attribute this to the four Sovteck tubes more than anything, but it is just my assumption. Regardless, the differences were real and easily discernable.

I would not argue the generally accepted opinion that speakers are the single most important element in a system, but woe to those who ignore the significance of the oft overlooked pre-amp.

I have since added a pair of self built Natilie P MTM’s designed by DIY moderator John Marsh on our forum here. They are 65 litre bottom ported towers, and have made the single greatest improvement is my system, but without the C-19, I would never be getting SQ these gems are capable of. I have another good friend with what I consider a very accurate and discernable ear (well heck, he is 15 years my junior with hearing that goes his youth) who posts here often and has 600 S3 series B&W towers, and feels I am getting every bit the quality of sound he has. Again, without the C-19, this would not be the case.

Frankly, the C-19 appears to be a unit you would find much to your liking with features I seldom make use of since I typically (97%) run in bypass mode. Among its plethora of features, are separate bass, mid, and treble controls for ‘each’ channel. Also included are the ‘Contour’ switch I previously described., Spectral Tilt, witch incorporates shelving EQ, Absolute Phase which allows you find the correct phase of the original recording, and two more push buttons that allow you to move the effective range of either HF or LF of the tone controls. It’s previous owner actually would write down his preferred settings for each CD and store it in the jewelcase for future reference when playing the disc. However, my favorite switch is the bypass which removes all tone control circuitry from the signal path.

I apologize for lengthy personal history, it was not intended, but just seemed to flow once I began a reply. Of course, these are very personal and subjective views based totally on my sophomoric career in mid-fi system building and listening. Nothing can compare to listening to as many systems as possible, something I have not pursued to the extent I should. But incremental improvements in my own system have proven very satisfying and rewarding, especially the construction of my own speakers which without this forum, would never have been as easy and successful.

If you can obtain loaners from local dealers, get some pre-amps and try them for at least one week of serious listening, that will be the only proof in ‘your’ pudding.

Regards

[Kevin D]

I apologize for lengthy personal history, it was not intended, but just seemed to flow once I began a reply.

Regards

Even though I'm awarding you with the longest, non-quoted reply in Club Rotel's history, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it and appreciate it. It did flow very well and added a lot of personality to a typically Q&A forum.

Thanks!

Kevin D.

[bigburner]

Hi wkhanna,

Great rave. I've been guilty of it myself occasionally!

Nigel.

[bleeding ears]

wkhanna, thanks for your great reply, very interesting.

Obviously you are very passionate in pursuit of sound improvement as most of us around here seem to be.

Im sure the insight you have provided is going to set someone off on another equipment upgrade. Maybe me ? although I am trying to resist upgrading for the time being.

Getting back to tone controls or contour controls, the main reason I want and use them, is to reduce an overly bassy sound that i get when in bypass mode or direct using a 2 ch pre.
This has been the case with most speakers/preamps i have had in my system, so perhaps I should be sorting out this issue before upgrading equipment. Still, its great to know there is substantial improvement to be made by changing equipment as you have done and described for us.

Having someone tell us where and how improvements can be made, prevents a lot of expensive mistakes, hopefully.

Pete :T

[PewterTA]

Bill, so what are you saying... do you like your Carver & Natalie Ps???

I'm a little confused, perhaps you elaborate a little bit more... I mean 1,354 words just isn't enough!

Sincerely,

-your 15 yr. junior audiophile buddy.

HA HA.

:P

Great write up my friend!!! I agree completely with what he has said and the improvements he's made in his setup. He is right in saying the biggest differences in his system has been his Carver and Natalie Ps. Definitely

...and a close second place finish for the CA 640 CDP (which he got from me) and the catcables. For the price he's put into all of that *cough* carver free *cough*, he's easily increased his 'quality' of sound 2-3x the total price. I say that's a good investment in any language you'd use.

Next area I think needs looked at is the room acoustics, while not saying a nice tube CDP or even better Pre/speakers wouldn't help...but I think the value for what he'd have to spend would not be as noticeable as room treatments. I'd even go to say that he'd have to easily jump up to something in the B&W 802D & McIntosh/Krell/Bryston/Classe league to get any more "really noticeable" value from any investments he would make in new gear.

All in all, remember that it comes down to what you hear, not what other's hear...after all, it's for your enjoyment.

But I agree it does help in hearing what people have done and what differences they have felt made the sound they are look for...it helps to give you a path to walk along in finding your own audio nirvana!

[wkhanna]

Getting back to tone controls or contour controls, the main reason I want and use them, is to reduce an overly bassy sound that i get when in bypass mode or direct using a 2 ch pre.
This has been the case with most speakers/preamps i have had in my system, so perhaps I should be sorting out this issue before upgrading equipment.
Pete :T

Well Jeezzzzz!!!!!!!!
I wish you had mentioned that earlier, It may have saved me about 1292 words!

But seriously, PewterTA brings up a V good point re room acoustics and treatments.
That may be something you want to investigate, given that you have been dealing with a single issue despite having tried multiple brands and types of components.

And to address an earlier question you asked re needing/wanting a sub for 2ch......
(don’t worry, I’m keeping this one short) My Nat P’s work fairly well down around 35 Hz, and since I listen mostly to acoustic jazz, they perform very well for my usual listening material and was one of the main reasons I chose to make them fairly big (65 litre) and ported.

I do plan to integrate subs eventually for 2ch, though. My current thinking is to go with two 10' or 12' sealed cabinets, and Behringer unit to handle the integration of the xo.

[bleeding ears]

Wkhanna, sorry if I have misled you or induced you to elaborate on your system unecessarily. (dont get put off by those cheeky comments about your detailed reply)

Its good to know there are others out there with this Hi fi addiction, and it is obvious by your great replys you have it bad, :lol: but hey thats cool, thats why we come here right? (No point talking to my wife about it, she dont care)

But seriously, your enthusiasm and effort has not gone to waste, and it is appreciated.

One last thing, have you found it necessary to do any room treatments yourself so far ?

Judging by the fact that you favor bypass/direct mode over the modes with tone/contour adjustments, my guess is that you dont need to do any kind of room treatment at all ?

Feel free to elaborate if necessary. :lol:

Pete

[wkhanna]

Well Jeezzzzz!!!!!!!!
I wish you had mentioned that earlier, It may have saved me about 1292 words!

(don't get put off by those cheeky comments about your detailed reply)

Pete
Hey my friend, it's OK!!!! My comment was meant as a joke, and all those cheeky comments are coming from V good friends, and taken in the good natured vein they are intended. Besides, after 49 years, I have developed a fairly tough skin, and hope I can take joke as well as I offer one!

One last thing, have you found it necessary to do any room treatments yourself so far ?

Well, my SO has this strange idea that my listening room is supposed to be a living room in her house?!?!? Obviously, compromises must be made, but she has been more than tolerant of my obsession, and for this I thank her often. It has helped that she is a music lover and has actually enjoyed and appreciated the evolution of our system.

The room itself is about 20'x18' with a 10' ceiling, stucco plaster walls and 100 yo oak hardwood floors. A large thick wool area rug with padding covers most of the floor, there are heavy drapes on the back wall and artwork on the wall behind the speakers that are made on heavy canvas material, ( I have yet to put some of that compressed fiberglass behind the pictures, I think that may help some). Also, a fireplace which juts out on the left wall with a very large mirror above the marble mantel is no help, as I can, on occasion, detect reflections from that area. Otherwise, I have two couches draped with sheep skins and have been known to put some oversize pillows in the corners of the room. One time my wife asked why her big red pillow she likes to use when we watch movies was sitting in the corner of the room. I had to explain to her that, it was not a pillow, but in fact a base trap, and I felt it looked quite nice were it was. I have to remember to put it back on the couch now when I am done with my listening sessions, sort of like trying to remember to put the seat down on the toilet. I eventually plan on constructing bass traps for the corners, but again, compromises will have to be made with my wife, and a tasteful solution agreed upon.

Judging by the fact that you favor bypass/direct mode over the modes with tone/contour adjustments, my guess is that you don't need to do any kind of room treatment at all ?

My taste for unadulterated playback is not a function of acoustical treatments.
Tone controls can do little for a room that already suffers from poor acoustics. Room treatments deal with reflection and cancellations. Attempting to simply EQ out poor innate room acoustics is like putting a bandage on a gunshot wound, it may stop some of the bleeding for a period, but does nothing to remove the bullet. Just as PewterTA recommended in his earlier post, room treatments can offer more improvement in SQ than upgrading per dollar spent, once a decent mid-fi system with complementary symmetry has been realized. I have heard that acoustic treatments in the range of $2k can elevate the SQ of decent system more than $5k to $10k invested in component upgrades.

[wkhanna]

some (old) pics to clarify

[bleeding ears]

wkhanna, great pics, and great looking speakers.

I cannot see the two 980 amps you have listed, is that a 1070 I see at the bottom?

Are you bi amping the fronts ?

[wkhanna]

Thanks V much for the kind words, Pete!

Only using one 980 for now (2nd one is in my brother's system for now), as I found no difference in SQ by bridging and using one per speaker. BTW, the xo for my Nat P’s are not configured for bi-amping. Bridging will theoretically double the distortion on the 980BX, but I guess I don’t push my system hard enough to discern any effect.

That’s actually an RB1050 for SACD and HT surround duty on the bottom right that powers my old Signets.

Sorry, but I had to add a more recent pic with my DIY rack :B

[PewterTA]

You've been busy and it looks really good! :T

[wkhanna]

Thanks PewterTA!

I am hoping to get you and hopefully two other local 'addicts' from our forum over to the house in two weeks or so, for a session and some ‘grill'n’. Give me a pm when you can, and I will get a firm date set.