We give up perspective to avoid tone controls

@vtvmtodvm

I completely missed your extended lesson on setting up the JL subs!!!!

Thanks a billion for taking that time! I will go through it more carefully when I’m about to set up the subs. I also have the Soundoctor tracks and the set up advice pages that came with that CD.

Every time I think "ok, this weekend I’ll set up my subs" I look at the steps to get it right (using a crossover) and it looks so damned daunting I can never find the time. I first tried using the high level input method, taking a line off my speaker terminals. That didn’t seem to work so well (lost dynamics and tone). So I went on to buying the CR-1 crossover to "do it right" as all the subwoofer fanatics insist.

The problem is once I’m doing things like crossing over main speakers way up at 80Hz it seems like I’ve then tossing out what the speaker designer did and I’m designing a new speaker. And who the hell am I to design a speaker? It takes years and years for speaker designers to learn how to conquer crossover design, and I’m going to toss out what they did and do better over a weekend? Doesn’t compute for me. The potential for utterly screwing up the sound seems massively more probable than making things better.

But...somehow others do it all the time. So...in I plunge...at some point.

One issue for me is all my source equipment is down the hall from my speaker room, so I can’t easily have the CR-1 in the same room to dial things in. Thus I’ve bought long interconnects to be able to bring the CR-1 into my listening room just for the set up procedure.

At the moment I do have my two JL subs flanking just outside and behind the main speakers by a couple feet or so. Given the limitations of my room space, that is literally the only option EXCEPT I’d actually like to keep the right sub where it is and place the other on the room diagonal which puts it behind my listening sofa to my left side. Supposedly this is one of the good set ups for smooth bass and the other bonus is getting one more sub out of sight (I hate the look of subs).

Brevity warning: Buy a sub, adjust the phase if possible so it works properly, move it around until it sounds good and turn it up or down to blend with the main speakers. Done. 

prof—OK, let's go: First, make certain that both of your e110 subs are free of a common component failure (bad or intermittent input level pot) that plagued many e110 plate amplifiers. Turn the input level gain all of the way down, and connect an input sine wave signal of 80 to 100 Hz at 1 Vrms to an input jack. Then turn on the e110 sub and slowly, smoothly advance the input gain pot to assure a steady increase in the acoustic output. If operation is normal, good. But if the output gain is not seamless—if it suddenly jumps to full gain—you have a JL Audio warranty repair claim to lodge.

( I purchased my own e110 subs in mid-2016. One plate amp input pot went bad a year later, and the other plate amp went bad in early 2018, This is a known issue to JL Audio. If your pair is affected insist on free warranty repair, and firmly insist of free pre-paid shipping. Do not return the entire e110; just ship them the plate amp. Disassembly is obvious.)

Let's get to setup:  (1) Placement: In most situations, the best acoustic results will be assured with the subs flanked outside the main speakers and near the room corners. That's also consistent with most decor options.  (2) Crossover Frequency: Pick your xover point based on the capability of your main speakers. If you're using small mini-monitor main speakers (like my own Spendor S3/5R2 units, with little 5.5 inch Ø mid/woofers), pick a high xover, I use 94Hz. If your main speakers are big floor-standers, use 80Hz. And don't go any higher than 96Hz, nor any lower than 80Hz.  (3) Set your (absolutely terrific!) CR-1 active external xover controls at the desired xover frequency (set subs/mains same), select full 4th order Linkwitz-Riley 24dB/octave operation, stereo operation, and set the CR-1 balance control at zero, straight-up. Set both of the CR-1 damping controls at ≈ +2.  (4) Set the e110 subs for (manual) power off, polarity switch at 0, phase angle set at 0˚, and select "bypass mode" operation, thus assuring that the internal low pass filters will be bypassed and out-of-circuit. All subsequent crossover control, except for initial setting of the e110's input gain and phase angle adjustment, will then be accomplished at the CR-1. This represents a major convenience advantage: It will allow you to readjust the subwoofer-to-main speaker acoustic output ratio from one centralized location—no need to crawl to each individual subwoofer.

(5) Verify that your preamp/main system volume control stereo outputs are fed to the CR-1 input jacks, and that the CR-1 high-pass stereo outputs go to your main speaker's power amplifier, with the CR-1 low-pass stereo outputs routed to the left & right channel e110 subwoofer input jacks. (Do not use a Y-connector at the inputs; just route the CR-1 low-pass left output to left sub's left input jack, and the right output to the right sub's right input jack.)

(6) Adjusting Subwoofer Input Gain & Phase-Angle: The desired objective is to…
(a) Set the subwoofer's input gain so that the acoustic output level of each subwoofer will be +3dB greater than the related main speaker's acoustic output at the specified xover frequency, at the prime listening position.
—and—
(b) Set the subwoofer's phase angle so that a xover frequency sine wave signal from the subwoofer is fully phase-synchronized with an equivalent signal from the related main speaker AT THE PRIME LISTENING POSITION.
Both of these adjustments can be readily accomplished in a direct, single step process. First, drive BOTH main speakers alone (subs off) to a high acoustic level (at xover frequency, SPL 82-to-84dB, C-weighted), as measured at the prime listening position, from a fixed sine wave signal source, using the main master volume control to adjust the output level. Then, set one sub (other sub off) for REVERSED POLARITY operation, and turn that sub on. Assure that the master volume control is at the same (loud) level as previously set. Now, ALTERNATELY adjust the subwoofer's input gain and phase angle controls to achieve a minimal null of the combined acoustic output, as determined at the prime listening position. This null will be very sudden, distinct, and pronounced. Alternately adjust both input gain and phase angle for minimal output. When done, switch off the subwoofer and return the polarity switch to its normal zero position.

Repeat the above procedure for the other subwoofer. When done, assure that both subs are properly reset for normal polarity output, and that their power switches have been reset for normal "auto-on" mode operation.

I have available a detailed two page white paper that describes the above process in detail. It also provides info on how to accomplish this setup with a basic dynamic microphone and the use of some simple instrumentation. This instrumented-means for handling this job provides helpful visual guidance, and eliminates the need for any assistance when conducting the testing. I can e-mail a pdf of this paper to you if you will provide me with your e-mail address. My own e-mail is: geyer.bryan@gmail.com

Advise if you have further questions.

prof—I certainly CAN help you with this; I own a pair of JL Audio E110 subs myself, and use a Marchand XM66 active crossover, which is functionally equivalent to JL Audio's CR-1, but lots cheaper (has lower quality internal components). 

However, I now have a dentist appointment to attend, and it involves some major stuff, so I probably won't be in shape to respond further today. I'll get back to you tomorrow for sure.

vtvmtodvm,

Just noticed your reply.

I have two JL Audio E110 subwoofers, and the JL Audio CR-1 outboard crossover, as well as a DSpeaker Anti-node sitting in a box if I want to use it.

I have tube preamp, tube monoblocks, and intend to use the crossover to send signal to the mains and sub.   If I feel the need, I'll use the anti-node on the sub frequencies (I don't care to digitize the entire signal if I can help it).

I use 2 unobtrusive beautiful sounding REL subs (inexpensive bought used) and their volume pots are accessible due to chicken head knobs, and until recently they were my only "tone controls"....and that was fine, and mostly still is. I have a Schiit Loki that is also unobtrusive and seems to have zero impact when bypassed (click it on and off and you can see what that's all about...no sign of it). Other than the fact that, in my case anyway, it makes for longer cables runs to the amp (and is single ended only). I checked very carefully to see if the longer cable runs (a couple of meters instead of previously one) had any negative effect on my preamp-to-amp signal and was happy to notice it doesn't. In any case, those who are anti "DSP electronic nanny" (they remove some of the soul from music, and I should know as I have no soul at all) should order a Loki immediately. Although it stays bypassed most of the time, it's an extremely useful little el-cheapo gem. Look for a balanced version eventually, although that should be somewhat more costly...still...

prof—I'll try to help. It sounds as if you've got TWO separate subwoofers. Correct? What make/model are these subwoofers? And are these subs self-powered, with their own (independent) internal power amplifiers? If not self-powered, how do feed audio signals to them, and from what source?

I generally don’t feel the need for tone controls in my system. I have a nice sounding room, nice accurate speakers, but my CJ amps and pre-amp add a touch of romance.

But I also sometimes use my old Eico HF-81 14W integrated amp. It has basic treble/volume control and I have no problem using them. I used them to dial in the sound I like for that amp. (But once dialed in, I don’t feel any need to bother touching the tone control again).

I personally don’t care to get in to the mind set of trying to tweak my system to every, or most recordings. That to me is too distracting.

That said, the ONE area in which I wouldn’t mind some tweaking control is in adding subwoofers to my system. I haven’t got them set up anything near perfectly, but I love the effect of full range for lots of tracks, but the occasional tracks I prefer without subs. I’d like a pre-set or two that dialed back the sub, or at least the lowest frequencies, at the touch of a button. (And if I implement the DSpeaker Anti-mode unit that I have, I should have such a control).

E—Thanks for such comprehensive clarity; I generally concur. But my simple comment (that it's easier to phase-match subwoofers-to-main speakers when all speakers are sealed, not ported) was never intended to apply to idealized environs filled with bass traps and EQ correction. Nor did I intend that phase matching be conflated with time-of-arrival correction. It's generally not possible to accomplish the latter in the average home living room because decor dictates that the subs go into the room corners and the mains go up front, more centered. Given these typical limitations, it will always be easier to synchronize the phasing (at the xover frequency, at the prime listening location) if the speakers are sealed—not ported.

The extent of the phase convergence will be determined by the prevailing acoustics. In my own living room (no bass traps, strict WAF control), measurements indicate that closely matched phase won't prevail beyond a few feet from the prime listening location. Regardless, accurately phase-matching the subs/mains yielded significant audible improvement, and an instrumented means to accomplish the match was lots less tedious than doing tweak-and-listen trials.

Phase matching of subs-to-mains should always be optimized at the applicable crossover frequency, and the measurement point to define the match should be located (precisely) at the intended listening position.

OK, with you so far...

When ported speakers are involved, crossover frequency waveform propagation becomes more indistinct,

<< cough >> No it doesn’t. The crossover frequency doesn’t move around depending on the sub's cabinet type.

diverse, and increasingly affected by room-induced peaks and nulls that muddy the matching precision.

Which is why you should deal with the sub’s overall response first, and then the crossover matching second.

Peaks and valleys are easily dealt with by use of bass traps and EQ, regardless of whether the sub is sealed or ported. Again, if you like sealed, that’s fine. However, the crossover frequency and how it matches the subs is at the top of the sub’s range, not the bottom, where the room modes are (hopefully) less frequent and severe.

What often confuses listeners is that the same speaker, ported, will go deeper, and therefore is more likely to run afoul of those room modes. The peaks and valleys you mention.

Sustained wide area phase matching is a fantasy, and any expectation that synchronized phase can persist over more than a small part of the home listening room, or beyond the limits of a given test frequency, is misplaced.

Which is weird, because this is the very opposite of what you are attempting to discuss in your first sentence. It’s also a point no one has brought up, but since you have ... this all depends on how co-incident the sub and main speakers are, the measurement area, and the crossover frequency. If the sub is directly underneath the satellites, this is hardly an issue in most listening rooms.

At 80 Hz, 1 wavelength is 14 feet long. A quarter of that is around 4 feet. That’s how much the distance must vary from ideal before you have significant change.  So if you have two subs and satellites are right next to each other, so that in the center of the room, they are equidistant, you'd need to find a place in the room where the sub was 4 feet closer  or further away to you than the satellite.  On the other hand, if you use a single sub, located in the center, then yes, listening directly to the sides is probably this far. 

And like I think you are trying to get to, those peaks and valleys will make a much bigger deal than microsecond phase matching of the sub. However, they are just as hard, or easy to deal with in a ported or sealed speaker which covers the same range. So far it seems to me you are conflating phase/amplitude matching at the crossover frequency with the rest of it, which I don’t really get.

Best,


E

 @ erik squires—Phase matching of subs-to-mains should always be optimized at the applicable crossover frequency, and the measurement point to define the match should be located (precisely) at the intended listening position. When ported speakers are involved, crossover frequency waveform propagation becomes more indistinct, diverse, and increasingly affected by room-induced peaks and nulls that muddy the matching precision. (I use instrumented-means to accurately accomplish phase matching. If interested, request my related white paper. I am at geyer.bryan@gmail.com)

Sustained wide area phase matching is a fantasy, and any expectation that synchronized phase can persist over more than a small part of the home listening room, or beyond the limits of a given test frequency, is misplaced. This reality should not be construed as a significant shortcoming; refer 4.8.1 of Floyd Toole’s epic “Sound Reproduction”, 3rd edition (Routledge, 2018, ISBN 978-1-138-92136-8).

I have this problem with my main speakers-not my subs and dot ant to lose my good sound, going thru my subs as a crossover. I have a Casablanca 3, (just taking up space) I guess I could put in the tape monitor loop?? It's very versatile. Guess I need to invest in a good parametric EQ. I'm considering building a new sound room, if I move. Don't have the bucks to do it the acoustic fields way. Think I'll start a new thread. 

One of my full-range listening systems is my home studio where I have access to 3 different hardware equalizers, each in the 3k-$5k price range, (no not graphic EQs).  They all sound great, and they each sound different from one another.  Each can make music sound better when it's lacking in some area.   I will use EQ when playing vinyl that's had the lows and/or highs rolled off to fit the format..... and make mediocre pressings sound far more entertaining.    So what's the alternative?... To sit there bored to tears with flat sound and my purist morals intact?  Life's too short for boring sound.  My bypass button works just fine for the great stuff.

Virtually all such circuits cause significant channel tracking imbalance, and some add other phase and distortion anomalies that seriously degrade any aural benefit.

vtvmtodvm:
That's pretty breathtaking in it's scope. While I do agree: I wish manufacturers paid more attention to the quality of the tone controls, in general I have to disagree. I think the convenience factor needs to be weighed in. Like loudness controls for instance, being able to "convert" my speakers from medium to low-volume listening is a good thing, not to mention transforming them into party mode speakers.

Also, placement. Being able to adjust for speakers too close or too far from the walls is a case where tone controls are a lot cheaper than buying new speakers.

*Sealed-subs can be more accurately phase-matched with your main speakers than when using ported subs.

Since the ports contribute only to the bottom end, and the phase matching must occur at the top, I don't follow your logic.

There are many who feel sealed subs have the best transient responses though. In my experience, this is more a matter of integration and EQ than any absolute technical superiority of port vs. sealed.

It's also helpful to use sealed (not ported) main speakers.

This is often true. This is what THX tried to do with the satellite specifications, and has to do with phase and amplitude matching. They were big fans of LR4 alignments, and sealed sats + 2nd order HP electrical helps achieve this rather consistently.

After 5+ decades of heavy DIY audio experience, I conclude that conventionally implemented (preamp) tone controls introduce too many inaccuracies to prove generally acceptable. Virtually all such circuits cause significant channel tracking imbalance, and some add other phase and distortion anomalies that seriously degrade any aural benefit.

In those cases (like mine) where the primary objective is to implement convenient variable control of the low bass-to-main speaker balance, there's a better/cleaner way: Add a pair of (sealed, not ported*) self-powered subwoofers. Operate them in "bypass mode" (internal low-pass filters deactivated), and control them through an EXTERNAL active crossover (Linkwitz-Riley, 4th order) control unit, e.g. Marchand's XM66. Fully variable control of the crossover point AND the main/bass input level is then available at a convenient single, central location. This makes it easy to set/reset your desired main speakers-to-subwoofers output ratio, using accurate plus/minus 1dB stepped attenuator front panel level control switches. It's an easy, elegant, and very accurate way to control the relative low bass-to-main speaker acoustic blend—and you can alter or restore a desired mix with optimum convenience.

*Sealed-subs can be more accurately phase-matched with your main speakers than when using ported subs. It's also helpful to use sealed (not ported) main speakers.

When first starting out in what may be considered higher end equipment, I was told EQ is a four letter word. After years of incorporating different room treatments and still having issues with too much mid bass, I decided to try a Samson S curve 231. It's helped tremendously. I know it's best to have as little equipment in the signal path as possible, but for me, it's really helped. 

Hey Vintage Heath, good for you. I like your keep-it-fun attitude! 

I believe it is all personal Taste.
Our ears are as individual as we are.
Everyone is different.
What you like the sound of i may not etc.
Also a big factor is your Audio Knowledge and experience.
A well seasoned recording studio engineer would pick out stuff that we would not even think of.
A lot of factors to consider.
One is Volume.
What your listening to another.
Your systems EQ changes with volume.
Read about The Fletcher /Munson Equal loudness curves.

Hello All,
    There are times when I tweak the heck out of even well recorded music.... Sometimes I listen to music at very low volumes and I max out the tone controls and the ‘compensate’ circuit of my Accuphase E-470. I’m surprised that listening at low volumes and the need to boost certain frequencies hasn’t made this discussion. 
    Also, I feel like I have very sensitive hearing and even at normal listening levels I can’t perceive any degradation to the sound when using the tone control on the Accuphase. I will never by an integrated or preamp without them again.

~Oran

Tute:

Yep, but how many want to do this? 

I mean, I do, but I'm a geek. :) I think when it comes to auto-room correction, the default curves matter a great deal. That's why I like to recommend JL Audio despite their absurd prices, and Dirac. I think they have the best default, out of the box settings. 

Best,

E

Audyssey has a lot of settings, some more intrusive than others.  It seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it thing, though it does get more praise as an HT solution than a 2-channel solution.  

With the new Audyssey curve editor app you can limit the frequencies that it corrects for though, so you could set it to just EQ below the Schroeder frequency for your room and leave everything above untouched.

Let's put Audyssey in a different category! :) 

I agree it sounds horrible. 

But this isn't a condemnation of all DSP or room correction. Just this particular implementation. 

Best,

E

@ nitrobob

Isn't Audyssey a tone control ?

Audyssey is both time and tone. I use it for radio with pictures aka HDTV, but would never play music through it.

I tried to play music through it once and the missus said "You're joking, right?"

One day when someone plays me a DVD music performance to show off their system I'm gonna pluck up the courage to tell them the sound it just awful...

The Schitt Loki is inexpensive and works very well.

The Schitt Loki seems like an interesting product.

Isn't  Audyssey a tone control ? I'm purchasing a Marantz 8805 mainly for the adjustability on the new Audyssey app so I can get away from that default "flat" setting that they have as a standard. Sounds like most of you like that flat setting . I think it inhibits the maximum punch, warmth, dynamics, crispness, and personality that my ears prefer. Frankly to me, flat sounds boring, and dead, kind of lifeless. I mean, it sounds ok,... till you start messing with it, and then everybody in the room says wow, that's MUCH better.!!   But each to his own.  

@stereo5 

If the tone controls are designed properly, you will miss nothing.

Every cap, resistor, pot, switch, wire, PCB, layout, ground scheme, connector, dielectric etc. has a 'sound.' Some deteriorate over time. Add a bunch of them together to create a filter and you not only get the filter but you also get the combination of all the 'sounds'. 

Only nothing sounds the same as nothing.

@almarg 
Don't forget Spica. I heartily agree that time trumps frequency six ways to Sunday. Tone controls alter the frequency and eff up the time. If the time is messed up as in most speakers, tone controls may be less objectionable.

@whart 

I guess one assumption that continues to hold is that the system should be properly set up, "voiced" and left alone

As a former recording engineer, I have this perspective, but I was there long before I started recording. If some program requires EQ, it's a bad job and I can't be bothered to fix it. There's just too much well recorded great music to waste time on the bad stuff. That being said, I do sometimes 'fix' digital files but I gotta really LOVE the music.

I am increasingly ambivalent about the purist approach, knowing how much gimmickry already goes into to most commercial recordings and how difficult it is to reproduce the illusion

I had that attitude about 30 years ago when I quit recording. In the past 3 years, I've focused back on purist improvements. The close I get to the music without the masking, the better I enjoy it.

REW has a function that develops a recommended Eq program based on your measurements or you can do it yourself. You then download it directly into a MiniDSP. It works amazingly well - measuring afterwards it chopped off the bass peaks to give a much smoother response. The trouble is I didn’t like a ruler flat room curve.

Floyd Toole is on record as an advocate of tone controls to help manage speaker/ room interface. I have no issue with tone controls and use them on a second system.

I’ve gone with the advice you gave me last year to work on room acoustics first then add Eq. I’m very satisfied with the room diffusor that I put at the FRP - not so much with the miniDSP Eq part.

@erik_squires 

Hmm, I was under the impression that REW allowed you to apply filters, I thought the guy running noaudiophile used it.  Reading up it looks like he uses it to measure and export correction files that can then be imported into other programs that do the EQ.

Here's the one he says works for Linux:

https://github.com/bmc0/dsp/wiki/System-Wide-DSP-Guide

Room EQ Wizard is just measurement software. :) 

I have OmniMic, which does a fabulous job of creating FIR filters for miniDSP. I just don't want to futz like that.

Best,

Erik 

I'm new to this forum and to digital music. I'm not a purist, I just like listening to what sounds like good music (to me).  I've been buying and selling analog 2-channel equipment since 1968.  My first "quality" equalizer, which I still use is a Soundcraftsman SP4001 equalizer/pre-amp paired with a Pioneer SPEC-4 and a pair of original Bose 901s. I know many folks on this forum scoff at equipment like this, but I've had it since the mid 80's and it sounds good to me. 

Fast forward to the early 2000's, I got an incredible deal on a McIntosh 31V ( has an equalizer), MC2600, MCD7008 CDP, and Tuner paired with a pair of DCM TimeWindow 3 speakers.  I love being able to tweak music, especially some vinyl albums using the Mac equalizer.  

I decided to jump into digital music and recently purchased a NAD M12 w/ BluOS module and M22 v2, paired with a pair of Tannoy 8 dcti speakers for my new listening room.  The sound is quite different than my analog gear.  Some differences are good and some are not so good.  When streaming Tidal, sometimes the highs are too bright and transitions too loud.  I don't get quite that same dramatic effect out of the Pioneer or Mac amps.  The NAD gear is less than a month old - I'm hoping the sounds smooths out a bit more in time.

Overall, I'm satisfied with my purchase.  Of course, the music is much more detailed with a wider sound stage.  And most Tidal jazz masters sound awesome.  Old school vocal masters sound good, but not as good as the jazz.   

The M12 has treble and bass tone controls, which I don't use - yet, but I sure miss my Mac equalizer - especially, when listing to old school vinyl albums and streaming them from Tidal or my NAS.

@erik_squires 

You could try RoomEQ Wizard, it’s free software and there’s a Linux version.  It’s not automatic like Dirac, but it will let you do a lot of tweaking.  

 To me it is simple. The best we can do is try and put the band in the room with us. Whether you live in a closet or Carnegie Hall, To try and make your closet not sound like a closet I suppose is reasonable enough but intentionally adding color to the signal when you have spent all that money to keep it pure is a contradiction to the purist in me. And yes I am that guy who thinks opinion has nothing to do with it. Whatever the component the one that best replicates the band standing there wins, like it or not.
 To color the sound in a way that for the moment is pleasing but not accurate will over time give you less pleasure as your brain knows better than you what is real and those beautiful moments when you are sitting in front of your speakers and your jaw drops will begin to diminish. Stay away from the signal path. There should be a law!
 My first post! Hello all!

There's the MiniDSP DDRC series that does that. They have a version with digital inputs/outputs (which I use since I don't have any analog components and don't plan to purchase any) and one with analog inputs/outputs (balanced XLR).  

Yep, I am aware. My problems with that solution are

A) I don't want to pay for Dirac just to play with it
B) I like USB sources
C) I'm using Squeezelite as my virtual Squeezebox touch. 
D) My music server is Linux

So ideally, I'd like to have any EQ/time altering to happen in real time on my Linux box. There are many threads about using EQ in general with Squeezelite, but they are old and many of those links don't even work anymore. 

Best,

E

My Jadis Orchestra Reference integrated is one of the few high-end audio components you’ll find with tone controls. I’ve owned and been around a lot of amplifiers, and this one moves me in a way few others can. I happen to love the tone controls.
I know as purists, we avoid tone controls. We’re just smarter, more evolved, and just plain better than that. We use phono cartridges, CD players / DACs, pre / power amplifiers, cables, power conditioners, tubes, coupling capacitors, room treatment, isolation devices, contact enhancers, fuses, and all manner of other tweaks to dial in the sound to produce more bass, tone down the bass, liven things up, calm things down, etc., but PLEASE don’t ever calls these things tone controls

@erik_squires 

There's the MiniDSP DDRC series that does that.  They have a version with digital inputs/outputs (which I use since I don't have any analog components and don't plan to purchase any) and one with analog inputs/outputs (balanced XLR).  

I like the digital version as it keeps everything in the digital realm - my streaming box ouputs via digital optical to the DDRC-22D, which does all of its magic and outputs via optical digital to my preamp without having to go through an additional AD/DA conversion. 

If you have analog sources the DDRC-22A works the same but it has to convert from analog to digital to do what it does then convert back to analog for output.  

It is possible to find an amp/speaker combo that is tonally perfect (to the owner), but it is difficult and potentially expensive.  

I have two systems, one with no controls (and I have no desire to add them), and one with tone controls (and I wouldn't want to be without them).  

Some tone controls are well implemented and some just sound like band-aids.  My favorite tone control is a Decware ZROCK2 for bass EQ.  Fully adjustable, you can dial in as much kick down low as your speakers will give you, and IMO improves the sound across the rest of the frequency range (it does add gain).  So much easier than trying to integrate a sub, especially if you're like me and you only need bass down to 30-35hz.

I do get some of the anti-tone control arguments. I never thought about channel to channel tracking for instance. Cheap stereo pots may vary widely. I’ve also used cheap pro EQ’s and they were not up to par.

I use a Parasound P7 for my pre, which has tone controls as well as bass management. Honestly I feel they are veiling. I wish I knew more about the circuits to see if they could be improved. On the other hand, the DSP unit I use for my subwoofer and center (sometimes) is as transparent as I could wish for. It is also far too cumbersome to use for basic album to album tweaking. It’s a measure, calibrate, and forget type of unit.

What I wish I had today is closer to the Theta Casanova. Convert everything to digital, and EQ in the digital domain. And I’d like that not to cost $10,000. Also, it has to sound GREAT, which the Casanova did, and was the only affordable processor I ever liked the sound of. Affordable only because it was used. :)

Best,

E

@onhwy61 - have a British friend who loves endurance rallies. Did the Cannonball Baker (not the car one, the bike one) on a pre-war Harley. He was in his mid-'70s at the time. Stiff upper lip and all the rest...

Tone controls are for those type of people who prefer shocks on their motorcycles.  Real riders ride hard-tails.  You should feel the road and not cushion anything.  If it's a bad road, then your backside should know about it.  If it's a bad record your room should boom and your ears bleed.  That's if you're a real a-phile.

Btw, my bike's have multiway adjustable shocks.

Many years ago, i had set up a half-assed rear channel system (long before surround sound) that relied on out of phase information (Hafler) and delay lines from a small processor. I used it with a pair of modest bookshelf speakers to supplement my Quad ESLs.

Interesting. I worked for a theater equipment company competing with Dolby. We were also a major buyer of Hafler amplifier modules and probably kept them in business.

We used a similar feature for non-surround encoded films. I wonder who licensed from whom?

Best,
E

@erik_squires .. a timely post indeed.

One thing that is implicit in the culture of "high end audio" is the disdain for any sort of electronic equalization. The culture disdains the use of anything other than a volume control. Instead we attempt to change everything to avoid this. Speakers, speaker cables, amplifiers, and power cords. We'll shovel tens of thousands of dollars of gear in and out of our listening room to avoid them.

With so many good software DSP/EQ options these days I can't imagine why some folks wouldn't at least have a listen for themselves. I know quite a few audiophiles (including myself) who decided it was time to move past the disdain and give it a spin. I think Schiit, with the release their Loki tone control, also inspired many to move away from the old way of thinking about EQ. 

It’s certainly a question worth revisiting; the assumption that tone controls in the signal path were not ’purist" has held since the early ’70s (as I remember it). As another poster noted, I was stunned at how much a box shop HT pre-pro with DSP cleaned up the subwoofer on a small system and now use an inexpensive DSP unit on the subs supplementing my main system. And agree that a lot of audiophile choices about gear are probably influenced by the house sound or voicing of specific pieces of gear, wire, etc.
What is out there in the market that is reasonably available? The Cello unit was well thought of at its time, but pricey. Pro gear? Parametric multi band eq?
I guess one assumption that continues to hold is that the system should be properly set up, "voiced" and left alone-- not messing with the choices (however questionable) that might have been made in the recording or mastering of a work. But, in that context, EQ could be used to set up the system, even if it isn’t user adjustable thereafter.
Is this easier to do in the digital domain? I know "all analog" buffs are wary of anything with the "D" word, but those who have embraced digital have already made the leap (or sold their souls).
Me- I am increasingly ambivalent about the purist approach, knowing how much gimmickry already goes into to most commercial recordings and how difficult it is to reproduce the illusion.
Many years ago, i had set up a half-assed rear channel system (long before surround sound) that relied on out of phase information (Hafler) and delay lines from a small processor. I used it with a pair of modest bookshelf speakers to supplement my Quad ESLs. When a very knowledgeable friend visited, he said "what is this? Turn it off." Then, after a few moments, ’ah, turn that on again." It worked on some material better than others.
Good topic, worth thinking about, since "we" haven’t changed or questioned our assumptions about this in decades.....

When you really think about it everyone's hearing is different and can change from day to day or hour to hour depending on a huge variety of conditions both internal and external. I'm not so sure one needs to be a purist, maybe tone controles have there place?

I am of the opinion and although this may seem bullish , we pay for our music and if we want to use tone controls then why not if it makes listening to them more pleasurable. Also some people of a certain age have quite a loss at the treble frequencies and a few decibels of eq. can make all the difference. I now only listen to music through very high quality headphones and a DAW that has lots of jitter busting software on it so is a very resolving system. The worst thing I find especially in solo piano recordings is that some notes are very much louder than others and it can be infuiating to listen to as when you hear the same work in concert this regulation anomaly is usualy absent. As an example I recently purchased a hi rez download of Murray Perahia playing Bach Paritias and two notes on the piano were really shouting at me and it was really annoying to the point that had I not the means to save it , it would have been wasted money.
As I am really into recording now and then I use on some recordings my Digital recording program Sequoia and using some very juditious Eq. on the file renders it a completely different experience it's as if Mr Perahia said to the piano tuner to sort out the loud notes and soften them.
Now I came from an era where tone controls were completely normal and one of the best ones was from Quad Electroacoustics and their method was gentle slopes which could make a great difference to a recording and this was many years before room tuning. I am not saying every pre amp should be issued with them but I am saying it is not an offence for some of them to have them.

You are right sometimes I wish I had some sort of tone control, as mentioned they have to be made right or you get muddy sound, would an eq be better? Maybe but I can put up with a bad recording rather than having to adjust constantly.I am sure there are systems worth a lot of money that make those bad(dull or bright) recordings sound even worse.I have a small amount of room treatment and it does help in my bright room.I guess the thought is its going to add or subtract from your system and add distortion, but if you  like tone control's and what they do for your system why not?

@almarg and @mapman


Interesting! Maybe this is the year I finally figure out how to do this for free. :)

I think about this project from time to time, and then I remember that I am just not a big fan of old Thiel or any Vandersteen speakers. Wish I was, so many seem to love them, so then I just sort of give up.

Best,
Erik