I like my system flat, no tone controls, no eq..........what is your preference, and why.

I think Flat is what people are using tone controls and eq to try an achieve . So many speakers , dacs, wires , ect... seem treble tilted . Bass bumps can get annoying as well . 

A very refreshing take on this hobby, and most appreciated. I used to use tone controls to tame and tailor the sound and was never satisfied until I hit on the right combo of gear and associated tweaks (fuses) and now, for the foreseeable future, I’m content.

My system, like yours, is pretty simple and basic and I can actually appreciate the better recordings out there. Their realism can be striking, which leads me to feel I hit the nail on the head this time. Lessor recordings that I used to enjoy sound a bit off so I keep in mind that it’s just that, the recording, that is at fault, and not my system. Going back to the better recordings is all it takes to bring that big old smile to my face.

The urge to tinker is still there but if I ignore it long enough, it will subside. 😄

All the best,
Nonoise

I also have wound up with a system that doesn’t need anything but me listening to it...However, not having tone controls doesn’t mean your system is "flat," it simply means you aren’t able to flatten or un-flatten anything with a gizmo or tone/loudness knobulation. I have a Schiit Loki EQ in my otherwise "tone knob" free system, and it’s always out of the loop until that rare time I need it to add sparkle to a dead sounding recording, or require some other tone mod...the thing is rarely used but looks cute sitting there anyway, and doesn’t add any audible noise when not in use. The minimalist approach to hifi works for me (I’ve also been at this stuff for 50 years plus), which contrasts with my live sound mixing gigs to some degree (piles of outboard stuff in a rack, plus tone shaping in every channel) but influences them also as I eschew compression and and try to keep the sound honest, relative to what the performers prefer and what the various mics require...they all have their own sound. My "minimalist" hifi has extended to a simple single ended tube amp that seems clean as can be, efficient speakers to make that amp shine, and a clean tube preamp...but one "tone control" I still use here and there are the level pots on my subs...little more, little less...but I think even for a "tone purist" that’s allowed.

I guess I’m at a similar place but by a totally different route. I inherited a very nice older system. I’ve made a few tiny tweaks. I love the way it sounds. Rarely do I feel like something is missing or that I need to spend a lot of money.

I suspect that is a combination of three things: 1) My untrained ears. 2) A nice system that was well matched from the beginning (by someone else) that probably sounds pretty good. 3) Fairly decent room set up.

The only thing that bothers me....and sometimes it really bothers me....is that recordings I know to be poor (over compressed DR, and other stuff) actually sound poor on my system. The bothersome part is that there are knowledgeable folks that say the problem is my system and not the recording and that if I’d get an EQ and make lots of other changes those bad recordings would sound great.

I don’t know enough to argue with that assessment. But I think it is probably safe to say that if I go mucking around with things and spending money to make bad recordings sound good then I run the risk of messing up how good recordings sound now. I’m not willing to take that chance or spend that money.

So I’m sticking with what I’ve got and enjoying the good stuff and suffering through the bad when the mood strikes me.

But yes, as someone pointed out there is now a big movement towards EQ and lots of derogatory things being said about those who don’t believe in its merits. Hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

A great system can often highlight the crap part of crappy recordings, or since the system sound is so nice otherwise it might make them more palatable. A paradox...the Schiit Loki is an inexpensive little gem of a gizmo that could be worth a shot.

I have to admit that at that price there isn't much to lose by trying.

I've lived in my current abode for twenty five years. In that time I went through a lot of equipment, with even near-desperation at times. I even had to go through moving my wood burning stove that was centered at the gable end of the long wall (the system was located firing across the short side of the room). Moving the wood stove made me able to situate the system so it was located where the stove was, the speakers now firing down the long length of my room.

Now, even though many changes have taken place since moving the stove, I feel very lucky to have what I believe to be a near-perfect room, enabling wonderful sound without room treatments of any kind. Speakers are well away from the walls. I couldn't be any happier, I haven't changed a thing now for a few years, except to repair/replace old equipment as need be.

I feel very fortunate to be in this position, and enjoy it every day without the feeling something needs changing. It's a good feeling, to say the least.

Enjoy, and regards,
Dan 

i really like my decware zrock2. maybe its the fact that my amp only puts out two watts or that a lot of recordings can benefit from a slight bump in mid bass? rather than raising the volume knob a bump on the zrock is my preference.

I'll pass on tone controls. I play music and every song can sound different...some will be bright, while others may not. I assume each song sounds different because of the way it was recorded and I wouldn't want to make adjustments every-time I listen to music.

I’m pretty much a big believer in (good quality) EQ. I now use digital, parametric EQ. The problem with it has always been the noise factor...push too much in the upper mids and you get hash, too much in the midbass or lower mids and you get mud or colorations. Push too much in the low bass and maybe the amp starts to sweat. But then I happened to find a great (but expensive) power treatment solution. One of the benefits, apart from taming all the digital and ss nasties, was curing all those EQ limitations.

But I’ve been using EQ in one form or another for almost 45 yrs now and with prior systems that we’re not nearly as good as my current one. As things progressed over the years, the one thing I learned was that for whatever problem you could want to use EQ for, you could, in the end, invariably trace the roots of that problem back, in effect, to things that could be adjusted, replaced or otherwise fixed without ever having to resort to EQ...even if going that route would cost more, perhaps even significantly more.

But I no longer believe in using EQ to help with "bad recordings" per se. I regard all of that (as above) as some sort of unresolved playback problem of one sort or another...there’s no such thing to me actually as "bad recordings" - they amount to about 1% of my CD’s at current. With my past systems they seemed more like 35-40%. Things have progressed enough for me that I don’t have "problem" recordings and actually have less need for room correction, gear correction, etc. My dependency on EQ has not dropped to zero, I still use a little for the bass and a touch on the top end, but that’s all, anymore these days.

EQ is a terrific (if not indispensable) band-aid to have on hand in the beginning, but in the end, to me, maybe that’s all it really should be...just a band-aid...useful maybe, but not essential. In a "perfect system", EQ would not be needed at all...but then, who among us has the perfect system? Yet, the closer we get to that, I think the less we need it...maybe a good thing, I’d say...it depends on how you weigh out the costs of fixing things the right way vs just using EQ.

Thank you all for the feedback. Douglas Schroeder. Yes, I agree, as shown in some many products. Are you familiar, from the past, with an a/v store on 45th street, East side of Manhattan, called Grand Central Radio ?                                                                                      Maplegrovemusic. Unless folks are using a sound pressure level meter, and was using test tone sweeps, what would be the basis of flat ? They are adjusting to what their ears like.                                    Nonoise…...Yes, I believe we are quite similar in our " moment " of no need for more. I have adopted and accepted the fact of recording limitations. However, it is the most truthful and honest way of hearing what the musicians were doing, and all of the studio people, at that time.                                                                                                       Wolfie boy..Glad we are not talking about fuses here, lol. I easily understand the desire and use for eq in the " live " environment, as well as the home environment. I understand to many, tone and eq conrol in the home environment is necessary Why I posted this.          N80, you have become a real face around hear, in such a short amount of time. Your threads are always interesting, as well as your responses to many. I appreciate that. I appreciate everyone here, as I feel I know all of you, as the regularity of the reads just does that. N80, you no longer need to state your inherited system, as we all know by now. In fact I know what each of you have in your systems, and basically a lot about you all as listeners. Just be reading all of you. n80, as far as some of your recording not sounding ok to you ( one of my worst, but one of my faves, is Tull's Aqualung ). I have accepted the sq's that are missing, but, easily listen and follow the musicians. I am never listening for compression, imaging, and of the audio stuff. I am listening to the music. My system shows the weaknesses, but it does allow me to listen, without needing for me to put on muffs. How many listen to headphones, and still use eq, or tone control ? I would like to recommend a recording to all of you, as it does show, very simply, if your system is tuned, and balanced. Musically, it is excellent as well. Last thing. This poster on this other thead ( viber6 ) over on WC's amp thread, was talking about his Rane ME 60 two channel, 30 band 1/3 octave eq, and how it is the most significant piece in his entire system. He is not just using it as an eq, but as his line level preamp ( it had replaced a Spectral preamp. I communicated with him on WC's thread ( all interesting and entertaining reading, with a bunch of good guys on there ). Long story short, I promise. I pulled out from a closet of mine my very own Rane ME 60 ( production run # 2, refer to Ken Rothwell on the Rane ME60 ). Played with it for a few days, did my chassis resonance mods to it, played it again, and wow. Nice. Result, I did not need to eq anything. I left if flat. I took it out of the system, as it was not as clean as my Luninous unit. viber is, and has been, recommending to WC to acquire one, to be used to correct, things for his new 80K Martin Logan Neos system.  Thank you all for joining in. Enjoy ! MrD.

The term flat response is truly meaningless once we get gear into our rooms,what is flat at the factory never remains flat in our rooms ,even if our rooms Accoustics have been treated using panels and room correction software , I refuse to buy a preamp without tone controls and stick with McIntosh for that very reason ,my youngest son works in a studio as an audio engineer & he laughs at our ways , durring recording the amount of ober dubs and auto tune makes the whole idea of " hearing the way the musician intended us to hear " a bad deal , I've now got over 10,000 recordings in my CD collection & over 1,000 heavy weight vinyl LPs ,a good number of the CDs are compressed to insanity and an equal percentage of my albums fall.short in Dynamics ,if I can fix or better the sound I'm hearing by a 1DB increase at let's say 70hz then by all means I'm adjusting the tone ,I can't imagine listening to music where the manufacturers idea of what sounds good is what every song will sound like , I use tone controls ,a sophisticated EQ with room response measuring software as well as room correction software at all times .

Thank you to the others who have posted. I know all of you as well, and appreciate all of your findings and experiences. Enjoy ! MrD.

Nuttin Honey.
I assume there some situations to where it can come in handy, but I'd rather listen to music than re-engineer it. Changes you make for one album my sound crappy on another, so you're in the cycle of constant tinkering.

i like my system 3-d, not flat with all possible and necessary features to play muzik!

@czarivey I don't think they mean the dimension of the soundstage when they say "flat".

@mrdecibel I always feel like I need to tell people that my system is 'inherited' because  it would probably seem weird (to people who didn't know) that someone with such a nice system (it seems nice to me) is so ignorant about hi-fi otherwise. It is also to indicate that even though my system is decent, my experience level isn't. 

As far as being here for a short time, yes, very new at this but when I dive into something I usually dive deep. Love learning about this stuff.

I have 4 systems and all of them are "flat" with no tone controls.  That doesn't mean that I don't try to change the sound, but it's always by making changes to the system - different speakers, cartridges, amps, sources, etc.

Having said that, I belong to a music meetup and we meet at a hifi shop and play music on one of their demo systems, which for the last few months has included the Anthem STR integrated with Anthem Room Correction. 

The music sounds pleasing with ARC engaged, but at the same time there is an "artificial" quality to it that I can't ignore.  I really enjoy listening to that system both with and without ARC engaged.  I haven't spent enough time listening to it in both modes to be able to say that I would not use ARC. 

That technology seems to have made good progress.  ARC is much more natural sounding than Audyssey in my Marantz and Onkyo AVPs.

I've been playing systems sans any tone controls since the late 1970s. I don't miss them nor do I miss messing with tone controls to get the tonal balance right.

i worked on my room a lot to get rid of reflective surfaces and that really helped. Record shelves with lots of LPs are good diffusers!

I have pursued the "minimalist" approach and am very happy with my SQ.  I have been at it for 50 years and went down a few paths.  My current system consists Naim streamer, Townshend Autotransformer Control, Krell KSA-80B power amp and Apogee Scintilla One Ohms.  The sound is glorious/sublime/virtually real and I have no intention of adding more between the streamer and power amp.  I did upgrade to Inakustik interconnects and speaker cables, along with a PSA 3500 conditioner.  While this "minimalist" approach has minimized the number of boxes, it has taken a hit on my pocketbook--but this has allowed me to get the best possible piece at each point for my constraints without breaking the bank.  The litmus test for me is that my wife, who is a life long piano player, enjoys listening to the system.  Listening to Chris Stapleton right now.  

I have been enjoying my music without an EQ for some time.  But the EQ is still in the rack.  Amazedly I have not  missed it.  

KSA 80 B with Scintillas.....very sweet ! Enjoy ! MrD.

As @douglas_schroeder said technology is changing the game for me. The advent of outstanding digital room correction and DSP in software such as Roon has given music lovers unbeleavable flexibility and means to make most any recording sound good. No downsides with Roon DSP.

I was one who would never, never use an EQ etc...but today’s SOTA technology is changing all that.  

Depends on listening level and music.

I could listen to music a lot lower volume if I could have old-school loudness controls like the Denon's and now some rare Yamaha integrated amps have.

Different strokes for different folks. Personally,  I love having the ability to adjust sound to fit my mood. My Mac has a 5 band EQ that I adjust as required. True, the sound that day in that studio was recorded as such to suit that engineer sitting at the controls. However,  he had no idea where I'd be 5, 10, or 20 years later on a particular day, with a particular attitude,  in a particular mood. So, it's fulfilling to me that I can tone down the bass or mids or highs or increase those gains to suit my mood. Heresy you say? But isn't it a personal journey to experience your own nirvana?  Mr. D, your quest and acceptance of "flat" is your peace. It's just not mine in an ever changing force of moods and feelings. 

@heardthat, I am really not preaching eq or tone shaping is bad, and if it appears that way, I apologize. I am making a point that for me, it does nothing. At this time anyway. I wanted some feedback from others, as I thought it would be an interesting topic. I am happy for you with your 5 band eq.                                                                        @douglas_schroeder In my second post on this thread, I asked you a question about a location. Do you have an answer ? If the answer is yes, you might know why I ask. If the answer is no, I will explain. Enjoy ! MrD.

I really appreciate the original thread and the responses. To me flat means I didn’t change the signal to suit my ears. When I perceive the tonal balance is off, I assume the studio engineer wanted something different than what I prefer. Conversely, when it is spot on, the engineer and I agree and I can reproduce that sound in my my listening space. No easy feat for an engineer. It’s an art. Maybe lost in these these times. Listening to my vinyl LP of Rhapsody And Blues by Crusaders, I am totally in tune with the studio recording and the band intent. And, with Adele 25. A different time and a different genre but the recording is honest and truthful. I’m grateful for the recording engineers and their dedication. 

MrDecibel, no, I have no knowledge (appreciation?) of the store. 

@douglas_schroeder I knew someone with your same name, when I managed that store, that came in often and he became an audio reviewer. I believe he worked for Sony in the R & D division. He told me I was wasting my time, and I needed to go out and become an independent consultant, which I did. Enjoy ! MrD.

Audiophilia is truly bifurcated, and that's a very good thing, as there is a path for the purist and the technologist.  

My review of the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW was a lesson in appreciation of both approaches. With the speaker I can run either outboard processor (Wavelet DAC/Room Correction/Pre), OR I can switch to hybrid with active x-over (Wavelet) for bass and passive for Mid/Teb, OR I can go fully� passive X-over. I can go as simple as one amp try-wired to the speakers, or as complex as six discrete channels with outboard amplification! 

For some that might sound like a headache, but for me it's a playground! My conclusion was, apples to apples the active system is superior, but when it's apples to oranges in terms of amps and cables I can make the passive superior. Then again, if I keep switching things I can make the active better... It simply isn't cut and dried one way or the other, in my experience. So much depends on how well each on is executed. 

There are a lot of ways to run a rig, and blessed is the audiophile who figures out their preference and can pursue it to satisfaction.  

Nice story! Glad you made good on it!  :) 

I fiddle with it until it sounds good, usually +4-6db bass, -2 db treble

Tend to agree with your evolved assessment of EQ.  I’m 66 and now have the time to tweak my system.  Seldom have I used EQ to get there. 95% of my equipment is straight through with no EQ molestation.  During the last year, finally found the “right” tubes for my pre-amp that made a huge difference:  frame grid Tesla’s, which are replica’s of the rare Telefunkens 803S.  Holographic and mid/highs are outa this world.  Have found I get as much mileage out of high end caps for a brighter, wider, clearer soundstage wtih more definition across the spectrum.  It outclasses EQ in SQ.

Hey mrd,

 I have an SP9-MK2. It hasn’t any tone controls and for the most part I don’t miss them. A little tube rolling (very little cause it only has 2 tubes) and 3 different cables rolls and I’m pretty happy.

Happy Listening 

JD

Me too...except for my sub.  That I use a Velodyne SMS 1 to apply low pass filter / slope / EQ only to the sub.  I run the mains full range....

I use a conrad johnson Classic 2SE.  I love the simplicity and sonic signature of this pre.  It is fully analog , no remote, no tone or balance... nothing but source selector, volume , and power switch.   This is paired with Quicksilver Mid Mono 40 watt amps that can use a number of different output tubes.  

My speakers are Klipsch Heresy III.   Although the Heresys don't have deep bass, the bass they provide till they roll off is quite good.  This meshes well with a steep x-over slope in my room , and  along with the SMS EQ avoids the room mode boominess that plagued my system with other floor standers...  

With no sub the bass is still satisfying and  no tone controls are necessary... and if I do want to tweek the sound I can swap out the EL34 for 6L6, or KT 66 or 77 or 88.   My last three preamps had no tone and I didn't miss them at all.

I make a db or two in the bass and or treble from time to time.  Most of the recordings I have sound great at the flat setting (tone controls bypassed) but there are certain cd's that really need a little adjustment to make it listenable (Kick Out the Jams by the MC5 comes to mind).  That is one of the main reasons I went with a Mac...tone controls.

My subwoofers have extensive remote controlled adjustment parameters. Whether a track needs a simple change in polarity to lock in a kick drum or a personally subjective change in LF volume to one of the slightly away from flat preset equalization options, I use low frequency EQ and tone often.

Some of my wife's Grateful Dead recordings are like fingernails on a blackboard. That Loki might be a welcome solution, thanks WG. 

I sympathize with the OP's viewpoint, still my 2 c:

1. Effects, reverb delays, compression, they all belong to music production, not to HiFi listening. Whoever produced the recording you are listening to has applied those already; no point in adding them.

2. EQ is another story; it's not the devil. Better do without but sometimes your room has a less than flat response that needs to be corrected. You can go at that with the optimal and expensive way of modifying your room or with then less than optimal but way more convenient and less expensive addition of a proper EQ. My room booms at 70 Hz, it's a square box, bad for listening but I can't reasonably change it or add traps. So I do EQ; not perfect but betters the listening experience.

All the best,

Mark.

I will accept whatever the mastering quality is on the CD/LP/RTR. Trying to tweak the SQ with tone controls or equalizer never seems to yield a satisfactory result. 

I have never had a system set up where the room adversely affected the SQ. But I like to listen closer to the speakers than most!

I don’t think a system can be a 10 if it is flat.

just sayin

From reading responses here it does not sound to me like there is any consensus on what the term "flat" means.

I also don't see a real riff between purist and not-purist. What comes out of our speakers is a reproduction and that is all it will ever be. So how can there be any right or wrong way to listen to it? Even the intent of the producer is lost in most cases by his limitations, budget limitations, equipment limitations and the fact that he has no idea how his product is going to be consumed....ear bud, million dollar hi-fi, single speaker in a Ford Pinto am/fm radio.

@n80, +1
And this is what they call diversity. I'm glad we don't all have the same systems, same rooms, same ears, same tastes. It would be boring. I've tried flat and I've tried curves. The purist in me says go flat. But for my sonic appreciation I go curves. If I listened to mrD's setup in his environment I may be happy with flat. But if he came and listened to my system he may cringe unless he throws some EQ at it. I dont think anyone would say that all systems in all environments are sonically best if left flat. Would they?

Like I said, to each his own, no right or wrong. My powered subs do have eq controls, so I suppose I am not eq free. I have been reading about the Loki, and it does remind me of the 5 tone controls on the Mac preamps, of which I have owned several over the years. I do not understand the 20 hz control, and it's use ( rumble filter ?, maybe wolf can jump in and give his findings ). I honestly can easily see why someone would use it, and enjoy it's characteristics. I, personally would find a greater amount of control from a unit such as the Rane ( which sonically, is excellent ). " Interpolating Constant Q filters ", of which the Rane unit has, and Rane was the company to design this, is very specific, as each control ( 30 per channel ) has less overlap of the adjacent frequencies, and this I find to be awesome. Possibly not for everyone, although more of these types of eqs today use this topology. I still choose not to use mine. My thing is, and always has been, whatever we need to do to extract every bit of information out of our systems to achieve our goals, is what this hobby is all about. Cables, fuses, room tuning, chassis and component damping, tubes, capacitors, each and everything makes an audible impact. I love music. Thank you to everyone for your participation. and sharing your experiences and preferences. Nice to see a clean slate ( no bickering ). Enjoy ! MrD.

I have been an audiophile for about 57 years; got my first system at the age of 15 (Eico ST40 amp and AR2 Speakers). Over that length of time I have learned a few things, some times by doing stupid, and regretting it.
Here are my best thoughts.

1)  At least 50 to 60 percent of the cost of a system should be devoted to the speakers, the pre amp, and the phono cartridge, because they infulence the total sound quality more than other components.

2) Where you and the speakers are place is very important. A good starting point is 6 to 7 feet between each tweeter and the same 6 to 7 feet between the tweeter and your ears.  The speakers should be canted in a bit.  The further the speakers are from the side wall and the front wall the better.

3) Do not put anything in the signal path that does not absolutely need to be there.

4) The best arrangement is a tube per-amp and a solid state amp.  You should get a slightly warm tuby sound, but still have the "slam" of a solid state amp.

5) A "big time" record matt will do wonders for your turn table; the two best are Ring Matt, or the one made by Music Hall.  They both work on the concept of decoupling the record from the platter. 

6) Which would you prefer to own, a five year old series 5 BMW or a new Ford Focus?  If you can find top quality stuff that is 4 or 5 years old you will have more system for the money.

7) If you play a poor recording on a great system you will be disappointed.  The quality of the recording is a big part of how your system sounds.

8) Don't make a lot of big changes to your system every year or so.  Do your research, buy really good stuff, and keep it for years..  

I moved 3+ years ago,  my last room was excellent..... sooooo good, very minimal interaction.  I was completely with you,  tone controls are stupid, they get in the way.   
Where I live now, I've worked my room till blue in the face.  REW room acoustics software has saved me.  I run have a couple of digital eq's downloaded in Foobar.  Once you set your mic properly,  this thing is magic.  I won't hesitate to use it at anytime needed.  The digital eq's in Foobar work great and I can't tell any sound degradation.   

Why are a few of you suggesting that I am stating tone controls or equalization is stupid ? I am just saying " for me ", at this time, not needed, not wanted, not necessary. But great we are all here. Thanks......Enjoy ! MrD. 

The 20 hz knob on the Loki is "centered" at that frequency and effects the frequencies nearby, so the effect takes away or adds low bass. It’s not a notch, it’s a smooth curve. Although I augment my (seriously underrated and amazingly great sounding) Heresy IIIs with 2 REL subs, I agree that the bass that the Heresy IIIs produce alone is really nice and seemingly accurate, and I think since they're on the floor getting reinforced acoustically it makes sense. I have turned my subs off and cranked the Loki 20 hz knob just to see what's what, and it's interesting...there's some bass hidden in those 12s!  Otherwise I say again I rarely use the Loki, and when I do it's primarily to deal with reticent or overly aggressive high frequencies on a few recordings.