Tone controls- to use or not?


Thanks to years of playing in bands, and more recently working in a noisy environment, I've come to the sad realisation that my 40-year old ears no longer have their original upper frequency response. Adding a bit of "treble" on my amp's tone controls helps, but I'm normally loathe to use these controls.

Should I be looking at changing my setup to incorporate "brighter" sounding components, or is adding a little treble with the tone controls legitimate?

My system is a Cambridge 640C player, NAD c720 stereo receiver (based on c320 amp) and B&W DM602 speakers, Monster cable IC's and heavy guage "Kordz" (Australian) copper speaker wires.
carl109
Shazam "and what things will agitate you or cause more damage. ".
Interesting question.
If someone has a 3dB loss at 5-7,000hz will boosting that range cause additional damage OR annoyance?
I would think that would be a matter of absolute volume level. If he listens at 75db, I can't see a boost of a few more dB causing any problem, IMHO.
Cdc - correct. The thing I find disturbing about the notion that someone with high frequency hearing loss should not use tone controls to boost the high frequencies is that it is insulting to people with a hearing handicap.
I have always thought that a good equalizer should be part of every system.The supporting reasoning is that every different artist has a different recording engineer in the studio. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't every recording studio have a means of altering the sound to suit that particular engineer's ears? EVERYONE'S EARS ARE DIFFERENT!!!The person or persons that say that the "best system" needs no further equalization to compensate for the absences or excesses of certain frequencies in recorded material are wrong. Plain and simple, while some material may sound better without altering the recording engineer's original settings, there are many that will sound better with some slight adjustments. If it has them, tweaking the tone controls on a particular receiver or preamp will only cut or add at certain frequencies. Don't take this the wrong way, but if I had the system that you have, I really wouldn't be all that concerned about being a "purist" and going without equalization. Buy a good equalizer!
I think the problem here is that the term 'good equalizer' in this day and age is a bit oxymoronic. Back in the old days, Harmon Kardon had a preamp call the Citation One, which employed switched tone controls, i.e. the tone controls were built up out of rotary switches. This allowed them to be truly flat when set to the flat position. I've not seen a modern EQ unit that had that sort of attention to detail.

I've had my hands on some fairly good units, both the analog and digital Accuphase units, which are arguably amoungst the cream of the crop in equalizers. Despite serious room anomolies that the EQ units could correct (somewhat, there was a bass node that they couldn't touch), the system sounded remarkably better using no EQ at all... by 'better': more impact, greater soundstage, more detail, smoother overall sound...
Hibosilver - Equalization in the studio is mostly done to individual instruments before mixing. Almost everything today is recorded digitaly and equalization is done the same way (stable and easy to control digital filters) - not possible at home - unless you want to go A/D, DSP processing and D/A with possible loss of sound quality.

Musicnoise - original question was about what is better adjust treble with tone controls or using brighter system (speakers, cables, amplifiers atc). I expressed opinion that adding extra element that is known for distroying imaging and clarity is not the best idea if you can do it by proper system selection. Bringing statement "insulting to people with hearing handicap" into technical discussion is plain silly.