Aside from tone controls, many high end manufacturers are responding to audiophiles by producing gear that streaches the soundstage even further, extracting ever nuance of detail, pushing the limits of sound quality to the max & along the way something comes up missing. This can be a good thing for some audiophiles who want to marvel at the amount of detail that is being produced. Some of these components, not all, offer a sterile laboratory sound & lose musicality and begs to ask the question "Where did the music go?" When I judge a piece of gear, I of course want detail & transparency but beyond that I want to say that I was emotionally satisfied with what I was hearing, that the gear brouht me closer to the music. Also I want gear that sounds excellent with all types of music, not just jazz & classical, whick I love as well. |
Because of their bad reputation, and to satisfy purists, tone controls of many preamps can be bypassed. So it is no harm to have them, (and when no one is looking, you might like to use them). |
To correct the model number I referred to above is a GFP-565 preamp. Again my point is this. The GTP-450 sounded much more open and musical than the GFP-565. I always thought the GFP-565 sounded dark. The GTP-450 is a newer model but was the 450 a mistake? I don't know but when connected to a quality power amp, the sound is remarkable & dynamic. Here is a preamp that can do all music very well. Connected to an Adcom power amp the sound quality is mediocre at best. I tried this preamp on a McCormack 0.5 Rev A & the sound produced was stunning & satisfying, still
maintainig the huge soundstage the McCormack was capable of. For the price this is proof that a preamp retailing new for Five hundred dollars in the early nineties can hold its own against the big boys. Most reviews done on this pre have come from newbees that have no idea what good sound quality is. I don't necessarily seek out a preamp with tone controls but the fact that this fine piece for its price sounds good with them could be a plus! |
Tone controls got a bad reputation several decades ago. Tone control circuitry of modern equipment does not degrade audio quality, but can correct defects in the way a recording was made, and perhaps compensate for your speaker's weaknesses. |
The Adcom GTP-450 offers the most transparent, relaxed sound I have ever heard from a preamp that has tone controls. I even like the sound produced from the GTP-450 better than the GFA-565, this preamp has soul. This of course is not an audiophile way to go but who cares. You can leave the tone controls in the twelve o clock position and even then it sounded better to my ears than some of the most expesive units, but not all. However I know to most audiophiles who want to do some extreme critical listening they of course will say get the tone controls out of the signal path. I have a GTP-450 & switch to an ARC tube preamp only when I want to do some serious listening on softer music. |
I can't imagine not having the flexibility of tone controls-far move value in having the flexibility vs. any minimal loss, if using a high-end piece.
The Accuphase EQs have silly prices, so here's a little secret from the high-end and separate music production realm-get a high-end studio EQ. The White 4700-2 stereo EQ is $1,800 new, about $100 on Ebay. Shhhhhhh.... |
Seantaylor99
I replaced the Infinity speakers with Silverline Sonatas. A big improvement, but the biggest improvement in dealing with the bad recordings was to replace the Sherwood cdp with a Theta Miles cdp. Now all cd's are listenable. Obviously some cd's still sound better than others but overall they all sound good now. I haven't thought about tone controls or sub woofers since. Maybe a sub will come into play when I work on the HT end but I am just finishing the 2 channel with the purchase of Homegrown Silver Lace ic's and a dedicated AC line. |
I had the same problem with my densen-spica angelus setup (some recordings sound very thin to the point where I avoid listening despite liking the music). I ended up with a Rel strata subwoofer. This has worked really well for me : the good recordings are now amazing, and the bad ones are enjoyable. There are, however, still a few recordings which are not helped by the REL, maybe because it's upper frequency roll off is set at 30Hz, and the source material simply doesn't go down there. There are a very few discs that are not improved and no discs that are worse with the REL. I consider it a great buy.
Also, several years ago I had a friend with a Quad stup. Quad has some wierd tone controls which are supposed to "cause less distortion". I remember playing with them (I think they're called lift and tilt) and I was very impressed ... it seemed like quad had got it just right. It gave a small lift to the bass or treble, but not in the artificial way of a traditional tone control. However I believe that my Densen amp is more detailed than the Quad, for about the same price, so maybe less is more !? If this hobby were easy it wouldn't be so much fun !
So what did you end up doing ? |
Bob, I had to take a look at that accuphase. It looks pretty good but out of my $ league.
Greg, When I tried mine it sounded like my speakers were under water. |
Artemus, I tried the old pre (BTW, a NAD; not Cambridge -- sorry), between the CDP & the main pre. Although it doesn't overload on low volume, the sound is, well... like throwing a blanket over the speakers. Strangely enough, the tone controls' effect increased with volume on the NAD; on the other hand, that's what ended up overloading the main pre --and distorting...
Oh well... |
My problem is now solved: this Accuphase preamp is just killer! It's so good that the featured tone controls are not even necessary most of the time. But in those cases where I do use them, in addition to bass & treble knobs I now have available buttons for hi & lo cut, hi & lo boost, loudness comp. and a Phase Invert button which is just awesome! I've never had that feature available to me before; the difference (depending upon source material) can be anywhere from negligible, to subtle, to unbelievable.
I can safely say that right now I don't even know the full capabilities of this preamp, but this 45 pound monster is WAY serious!
However I have noticed that even a few budget components (The aforementioned Adcom & NAD for example) still provide some basic Eq. features, so you don't have to necessarily break the bank.
So now I'm an All Solid-State, Tone-Controlled, Happy Camper! Sincerely Yours too, (in further neg. votes)! |
Artemus, Bob, referring to Bruce's suggestion & your results. I have an old Cambridge pre with tone controls. I'll try it out and get back to you if anything musically worthwile... emerges...
Yours, (in further negative votes)! |
Can someone explain to me why a simple question has rated -4 -4? I thought these forums were places where you can gain info and share ideas. If you don't like the ideas then you should make your opinion known. Maybe you have something that can shed light on my dilemna. However throwing negatives at me while you are hiding behind annonymity only makes me suspect your lack of ability to make your case. |
Art I had a similar problem trying to perform Eq. using a real old Lux SS pre connected to tape loop as described above. But there's nothing wrong with this pre if I use it to drive a PA it sounds fine. Could be an impedance issue? Didn't spend alot of time trying to debug the setup, but yes I did matchup my levels very closely. Some kind of weirdness playing tricks on us? Guess that's our 'lesson' for trying to Eq. in the first place? Yeah they took away our tone controls, & now they want to make #$%! sure that we can't ever get them back again... |
Hey Bruce, I tried playing with the vol control on the Adcom but had no luck. Still a lot of distortion. Could be a bad ic cable but I doubt it since they are fairly new. The sound reminds me of a real dirty connection. |
Hey, Doc... I do like indoor plumbing. Taking a crap in the back yard is not my cup of tea. Modern autos are fine in a utilitarian way. But, a horsedrawn carriage is better in a qualatative way. Just like new cars might be better in a quantatative sense, they suck big time in terms of involvement. I take a ride in a carraige through Central Park for the emotional value -- not the modern efficiency -- otherwise, I would take a sterile (and quite sinky) cab. Same with audio gear. That is why tubes float my boat. My choice of gear isn`t based on the newness -- or up-to-dateness -- of the technology, but rather how if effects me emotionally. Qualatative, versus quantatative. Cars are a good analogy -- the stuff being made now may be quantifiably "better", but far less satisfying in an emotional sense than vehicles from the past. I, for one, love a horse drawn carriage in New York or Chicago. Do you have that in Mayberry? |
Hey Guys, I think that the ultimate measure of the quality of this thread is the number of hits that it has generated. It appears as though we've shaken someone's belief system and they don't much like these types of questions being raised/comments being made.
Oh well ... we live in a world where people will set themselves on fire or drive a van full of explosives into a crowd of innocent people in the name of their "beliefs". We're lucky that all they can do is zing us with negative votes :-) |
Just for all your info, the posting on this thread that I made on 4/8, just received -2,-2 after it sat with no rating all this time. Guess its the same fellow who got you guys. Come on out of hiding guy, lets talk like grown ups. |
Hi Doc, Bruce, Greg, Artemus. Doc I absolutely DO agree that many tweaks ,like green pens and the like ,are an insult to our intellegence. There are though, many phoenominon that continue to go unexplained by rational science. (like why does my system sound so much better when the speaker wires are not under the metal baseboard radiator?). Yes , we tried it blind, the difference is not imagined. I do try to keep an open mind to all reported unexplainables, just for that reason.
As far as this rating system, Biz is right on. I am here to learn and discuss opinion, not to be graded on my content. |
I am sick of all this rating crap. What say we all just don't look at ratings. We could take the quantum approach and say that unless something is observed it does not exist. |
Bruce, Yes I had the Adcom's volume matching that of the CJ. However maybe it was overloading the CJ since I had to turn it up to nearly half volume to match the CJ. Maybe turning the volume down on the Adcom would help. Didn't think about that till just now. I just tried it Sunday night and didn't play with it very much. I'll try that and see what happens and let you know the outcome. Thanks again |
I'm suprised it was distorted. Oh well, experimenting is half the fun. Did you make sure to turn the volume on the adcom down so it didn't overload the CJ? |
Bruce & Greg, I too have received -2 -2 on 5 of my posts on this thread. Even the opening question received neg points. I too would like to know why? I guess I should not have asked such a rediculous question. It seems as if someone doesn't like the topic. Maybe they don't like the TONE of the discussion
Greg, I did try the Adcom in the processor loop as Bruce described. It sounded quite terrible. Had a lot of distortion but it was worth a try. I may try the X-Tune as has been previously suggested (if I can find one) or possibly a subwoofer
Bruce, Thanks for the suggestion. Even though it didn't work
would be no reason for me to leave neg points. |
Guys (gals), don't know if I offended someone(s), I have got -2-2 on all my posts on this thread. Whoever it is, help me do better rather than expect me to understand what i obviously do not. We're here to exchange info, experience around music and its reproduction -- or am I wrong? |
Doc, there is an interesting article this month in Listener magazine about the differences in tube and transistor amplifiers. The premise is that although both distort the signal, tubes do so in a more musical way, which is more pleasing to the senses. Not a new revelation but it is explained pretty well in the article.
I am also in the less is more camp. I am using a passive preamp with homemade cables to connect about $30,000 worth of components. I sold $8000 worth of cables recently and even though they did change the sound of my system, I am not convinced it was any better. I have tried various tweaks and found some do change the sound but believe that one's time is better spent choosing the basic components and working with speaker placement and room tuning. Once this is accomplished, I would rather spend my time listening to the music than obsessing about whether putting green ink on my CDs will make them sound better.
I also find it interesting, like you, that some people get offended when you disagree with them. I welcome the discussion. |
Bruce, I did not give you the negative votes, but I too have plenty to spare as people are obviously a little thin-skinned about anyone that would suggest that all is not well here in the land of hi-fi, and that not all of their manufacturing brethren are pure.
And I do agree with Frap that tubes do go easier on the tunes, especially in the mids and highs. My premise is that even given a modest rate of innovation, solid state SHOULD have advanced by this point to the degree that there would be no argument (and we should have tone controls, of course).
But Artemus has really hit the essence of what my "beef" (really it's just disappointment) is, and that is that instead of advancing the state of the art, we've gotten nothing more than expensive cables, bullshit promotion, a sullied and prostituted audio press, and all ungodly manner of expensive and ridiculous tweaks (Can you believe that rational adults spend time and money shining light on their CDs before playing them ... I guess they forgot to read the part of the instructions that tells you to chant "ooga-booga" while doing it).
In the end, I think that unless we are willing to acknowledge and speak the truth about our disappointment with high-end audio, then we are willing accomplices in this whole conspiracy. I honestly believe that industry professionals peruse these sites, and I know that they listen to their dealers. If they heard a constant refrain of "we've had enough and we're not going to take it anymore" then perhaps their basic survival instincts would kick in and we'd see some movement. Maybe not?
I am convinced, though, that given the current state of affairs where consumers simply parrot the steady diet of bullshit that they're fed and then gladly turn over their money, nothing will ever change. Why should it? |
Artemus, I would be interested in the results of the tone-control "tricks" suggested above -- if U have the time & feel like it, do give us feedback.
Thanks! |
So let's assume I have tubes. Do I use a tone control device to help out these poorly recorded CDs, or should I be listening to LPs and... and... should I use MC or Mag cartridge and should I use silver or is copper ok for the cables?
Come on boys and girls Lighten up a little. Doc makes some interesting points and has an interesting writing style as well. Frap also makes some good points also. The first digital recordings were fit only for a skeet shoot and nothing more. I don't think Doc was trying to blast tubes as much as he was the industry and its marketing techniques. Do I really need to spend $300 on an interconnect or $2500 on speaker wires? As for SS vs tubes that is a matter of preferance. Every technology has its adherents. But at the end of the day it comes down to: "This music sounds fantastic" or " This music sounds crappy". I am trying to obtain the former at the least amount of hassle and money. |
Let me rephrase that. It should read, who is the weasel, not "which one of you weasels". I did not mean to imply that everyone on this forum is a weasel. Just those that vote negative without bothering to state their reasons. |
I want to know which one of you weasels gave me negative ratings on my posts without having the backbone to state your reasons. If you have a problem with my post, let me know what it is so we can discuss it. |
Whats up Doc? I'll buy the tone control argument, but I got real problems with the tube one. Have you witnessed the evolution of solid state since the early 60s? I have and can tell you that it took solid state untill the 1980s before it became even mildly competitive with tube circuitry. The reaction we had to early solid state was the same one we had with early digital. "Is that a violin or a buzz saw. It turned this wonderful, all tube, Living Stereo recording of Heiftz into a buzz saw...on BOTH occasions! Today, solid state amplifiers are of course much improved, but high end manufacturers are trying to get them to sound tubelike, not vice versa. Even RCA and Mercury saw it that way when the reissue series for Living Stereo and Living Presance began. They just were not able to get the desired result with Solid State. By the way I have never heard a solid state amp or preamp sound as real as a tubed one...not even once. Sorry, but thats the reality of the situation. |
Jimbo, the thread is about TONE CONTROL, and my points were:
(1) There is nothing inherently evil about EQ as it exists in almost all of your source material to begin with.
(2) Tone controls are a basic feature and it should be possible to incorporate high quality, defeatable tone controls in even moderately priced gear.
(3) The high-end audio manufacturers and their supplicants have chosen instead to spread illogical claptrap about the pernicious effects of EQ, and many audiophiles are only too willing to perpetuate this myth without critically examining the underlying premise.
Your insulting response is interesting as I've said nothing that you should have taken so personally, assuming that you weren't squeezed from the birth canal of a vacuum tube. But your reaction regarding tubes only reinforces my thesis about the high-end.
Going back to the computer analogy, can you imagine discussion boards where people flame back and forth about the relative computational efficiency of vacuum tubes vs. IC's? The rapid pace of innovation in that industry has rendered any such discussion absurd.
Yet in high-end audio, arguments regularly rage on about the relative merits of tubes vs. solid state ... and rightfully so because the competing technologies are still so close that differences in their relative merits remain arguable. This is because the slow rate of innovation in audio has not significantly widened the gap between solid state and those arcane and silly vacuum tubes!
And before you flame back on that one, consider where many of your beloved tubes are manufactured -- in communist or former communist countries. Have you ever asked yourself, gee is it because there are so damn many communist audiophiles? No, it is because they are mired in a system which does not innovate well and they still have to rely on the silly damned antiquated things. Beyond being so technologically enlightened, they also know how to put people with dissenting views in their place.
So, flame away about the wonders of the vacuum tube and those noble manufacturers that charge you ridiculous prices to enjoy them. While you're at it, let me have both barrels about the wonders of the horse-drawn carriage vis-a-vis automobiles, and the evils of indoor plumbing. I wait with eager anticipation, pointy head and all. |
Doc, what's the problem with tubes? What the $#@% *is* your point -- other than the one on the top of your head? OOOh! |
Bruce, your suggestion is a novel one offered in the face of necessity, and I agree that it is a good one. I myself have no qualms about, gasp, dialing in some bass equalization when it is needed. I also agree that being able to defeat any equalization is also a desirable feature.
What irks me is that we have to cook up work-arounds like this because the audio industry, in their ongoing orgy of greed and stupidity, has failed us so miserably as consumers. The references to the availability of EQ on gear such as Cello and Accuphase convinces me that EQ is not an inherently inferior thing. The fact that such a basic feature as tone control is only available on such astronomically priced equipment is what raises my blood pressure.
I've heard this "straight wire with gain" crap from so many dealers and have seen it promoted so frequently in the audio press that I think many have simply accepted it as fact. IMHO, this is an excuse invented by the manufacturers for deleting tone controls from most gear. After all, including this basic feature at a reasonable price would require careful design and execution. Why not perpetuate illogical hooey instead, operating on the premise that consumers are so stupid that they will not only buy it, but help perpetuate the myth? This way, you can include this most basic of features on only the most exclusive gear and charge obscene prices for it.
I honestly believe that this is how the majority of high-end manufacturers think and operate. It is also the reason that they have nearly killed the high-end market. If you doubt what I say, try to imagine what PC's would be like today if they were made by high-end audio manufacturers.
Rather than 128 meg of RAM we would still have only 64K, and 20 meg hard drives would be the norm. But these devices would run so well because all internal connections would be gold plated. Our printer cables would cost $2000 because of the claimed superiority of their super-hetero-hedron-hyperlitz configuration, and our CPU towers would rest on some queer pucks that had set us back $200 for the set. And can you imagine the groovy gold anodized casings that all this gear would come in? OOOh, what if they could go back to using vacuum tubes as well? I think that you get my point. |
Doc, you are correct to a point. Many (most?) recordings are equalized and processed. This is especially true with pop and rock recordings that are recorded to many tracks and then mixed down to 2. A lot of these are equalized and compressed to sound better on car radios so they don't always sound so good on a high end system. However, there are a large number of recordings that are recorded directly to 2 tracks with little or no processing. That is I why I advocated putting the tone control in the processor loop so it could be switched in and out as needed. |
Perhaps I'm a bit daft, but the logic behind the prevailing "straight wire with gain ... equalization=distortion" paradigm really mystifies me. The underlying premise that I read in most of the above thread is that EQ violates the purity of the source material.
Throwing caution about being flamed to the wind, may I ask a simple question? What happens in the mixing studio -- if it is a "straight wire with gain" kind of process, then why is it called a MIXING studio? Don't they equalize the bejabbers out of the performance that is being recorded? And if so, does equalization only become pernicious after that point?
To me, this is the logical equivalent of my local municipality refusing to treat the water that they pump from the river because they don't want to adulterate the purity of it. If indeed the water were pure, this would make perfect sense but it doesn't because every upstream municipality dumps their treated sewage water into the river.
So ... is there "good" equalization and "bad" equalization? Is it solely dependent on when it is done or who does it? What rules are we going to invent to help us out of this logical predicament?
Just curious :-) |
Perhaps I'm a bit daft, but the logic of the prevailing "straight wire with gain ... equalization=distortion" paradigm really mystifies me. The underlying premise that I read in most of the above thread is that EQ violates the purity of the source material.
Throwing caution about being flamed to the wind, may I ask a simple question? What happens in the mixing studio -- if it is a "straight wire with gain" kind of process, then why is it called a MIXING studio? Don't they equalize the bejabbers out of the performance that is being recorded? And if so, does equalization only become pernicious after that point?
To me, this is the logical equivalent of my local municipality refusing to treat the water that they pump from the river because they don't want to adulterate the purity of it. If indeed the water were pure, this would make sense but it doesn't because every upstream municipality dumps their treated sewage water into the river. How does this differ fundamentally from equalizing that which has already been equalized?
Just curious :-) |
Hi Artemus, wish I could help more. As Dekay, I never used this in my system. Sonically, the mid-range darkened only by a tad, the bass was boosted and the highs became more pronounced and a bit harder -- but at least, one got a simulation of highs... I remember (may be wrong on this) the x-tone being connected between source component & line input; this setup may sound better than going thru the tape-loop.
Not much to go on, I'm afraid.
But, do play around with your adcom, as bruce & dekay suggest, it may offer an acceptable solution. |
Artemus: I have never used the unit, but had talked to MegaSam awhile back about one that he was selling. I seem to recall that it had four seperate crossover/turnover points (I may be wrong on this) and that what it did well was to tailor the highs and lows without mucking up the midrange. I have never used any type of inexpensive tone control that did not "damage" the mids with the exception of a Quad of England preamp that had some type of variable adjustment (that I did not quite understand) but that worked very well. If it spares the mids, then I think that it would be worth a try, plus it's small and should be easy to incorporate. In the meantime though I would just play around with the Adcom (which is at hand) and wait to see what else is available. If the Adcom is that unpleasent in the chain then move forward. |
Dekay & Gregm, I saw a picture of the MF x-tone. From what I could see it looked like a 2 band parametric type EQ. Is this correct and is it your opinion that it would sound better than running the Adcom thru the processor loop as Bruce has suggested? |
Accuphase, huh Bob !!!! The economy must not have slowed down over there at "dish-ville".... : ) Sean
> |
You can still find tone controls, even variable turnover(along with a tone-bypass-defeat button) on the really nice preamps such as Accuphase, Cello, Luxman; they've been doing it that way for many years. You get the best of both that way, but they're not cheap. I've had both. The passive that I use now is nicely transparent, but I'm getting it outta there & going back to my old ways when my $10K Accuphase arrives this week. The bit of extra resolution on those few recordings that contains it, is hardly worth the tradeoff of losing Eq. on the majority of software that needs it. For purists, that bypass-button makes it straight-thru-clean when you want it that way too. Luxman C5 or C7 is a more affordable alternative offering similar options. |
I recognize that most audiophiles do not look favorably upon consumer accessible EQ. The simplest signal path -- straight wire with gain paradigm is dominant. However, for those willing to consider something outside of the norm, I suggest you consider the following manufacturers' equalizers. Aphex, Drawmer, Manley, Summit, Tube Tech (all of the above are tube based designs) or Avalon, Focusrite, GML, Oram and Night Technologies. Prices range from $1,000 (the Aphex and Night Tech units) to slightly under $5,000 (Manley). These units are all well built and are essentially sonically transparent. Insert one of these equalizers into your system's tape loop and you'll never have to be afraid of a hearing impaired recording engineer again. |
I know I will probably catch some flack for this post. I dont like tone controls, I prefer to choose my components to get the sound I want however the best tone control I have ever heard and would not say a thing negative about is the BBE sonic maximizer built for home stereo purposes. It has contour (low) and definition(highs) controls and works amazingly well. On a bad system it can do wonders. I dont know how well it will work with a good one though. They are only about $200 new so a used one might be well worth trying if the price is right. Many recording studios use these machines and live performances are often amplified with BBE processes. It sounds good. I dont own one though.Good luck! |
Great idea, Dekay! Artemus, grab it! Have heard a X-tone and it wasn't bad... easy to use, too (U can switch back & forth). Sorry, it didn't come to mind.
Greg |
I thought that it was mentioned above but cannot find it now (perhaps I am thinking of another thread) but Musical Fidelity used to make a little add on called the X-Tone that you should be able to use as Bruce mentions using the Adcom in his above post and it could then be either switched in or out. The problem though is finding one on the used market, though it should cost $150 or less. I have seen three of them for sale within the last six months at Audiogon, Audo Reveiw and Ebay. |
Cornfedboy, I did check into the Z systems digital EQ. It retails for $2500 which i thought was pricey. Their literature seems to indicate that it hooks between the DAC and transport of your cdp so unless you are running separates you cannot use it , that is unless your 1 pc cdp has digital ins and outs. Mine does not and I suspect most 1 pc cdp do not. |
Tone controls are a necessity on alot of music. All you naysayers dead against them are correct from a textbook standpoint,but you must understand that all music is not Lyrita, RCA Living Stereo, Mercury etc. Put tone controls on those and you will ruin the sound. I am a back to mono man musically, I mean, that I listen to mostly artists from before 1958. The greatest voices ever recorded( I'm talking Ezio Pinza, Tito Schipa, Titta Ruffo, Lawrence Tibett, Billie Holliday, etc.)very much do need tone control compensation.In fact, I need to switch preamps for older music because my tone controless preamp does not work at all with them.
78 RPM transfers onto CDs are particularly offensive with a top end that simply isnt there. Tipping up the response with a good tone control makes them appear to have the data again.
Mark Levinson (the man), saw that some of his favorite music from the mono era was just that way and adressed the problem incredibly with the Palette. How I wish I could have afforded one. |
Artemus, I can understand your dilema. My speakers are very revealing and while I have sorted out upstream components, it is still frustrating to listen to poorly recorded CD's. The more revealing and transparent your system is, the more source material becomes a factor. Like most people here I do not subscribe to tone controls in the circuit -- the simplest, most direct pre-amp circuit is best IMO. I am able to deal with poor recordings by clicking in a little more triode and a little less pentode on my Baron amp; how much depends on the recording. It doesn't transform a poor recording into a good one, but it does make it easier to listen to good music that is recorded badly. I will say that I rarely do this. If adding tone controls makes things better to your ears, I say go for whatever sounds best to you. |
just an observation about the lack of tone controls on highend pre's: accuphase includes remotely controllable tone controls on their top-of-the line all digital dc-330. the control can be bypassed but if engaged allows you to select 2 frequencies in the "high" (2khz, 7khz) and "low" (200hz, 500 hz) ranges and adjust any or all of these frequencies in .5db increments. i have rarely used this feature but have found that it does not "distort" the sound, presumably since it works entirely in the digital domain.
accuphase also offers a 64 band digital "voicing equalizer" that may function as a super-sophisticated "tone control" allowing you to compensate for room anomalies. this product, the dg-28, as well as the dc 330 are quite pricy but they do work. there are less-expensive choices, too, including those sold by z systems. -kelly |
