[Jerry]

I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one).

Now my AR1500 receiver even has a button for "tone flat". What it does is
completely bypass the tone control circuits and deliver the signal directly
to the power amp. NEVER USED IT!

I admit that I am a "diddler". I adjust to suit my tastes ... all of the
time!

From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the resulting sound at the
discretion of some sound engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea how my system sounds ...
in MY room. Consequently, there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

Some folks will say:

"You want the audio system (a flat responding, low-distortion audio system)
to reproduce recordings, including both the positive and negative features.
That is, you do not want to make a performing soloist jump out in front of
the orchestra and not sound the way they would at a live performance. You do
not want to add clarity (by boosting the mid/treble range to a louder level)
when no such clarity would exist in that strength at a live performance."

From my perspective, if I can't hear a jazz solo, I've missed the
"creativity" that I enjoy so much. Further, if I can't hear that
creativity, then I might as well be listening to classical music where it's
played the same way ... every time.

One last issue that I discovered tonight. I was wondering whether my
tweeters were working, so I hooked up an audio oscillator to my amp and went
from 2000Hz up to 10,000 Hz. Everything was fine up to 8000 Hz (my
tweeters seem to be working). Between 8,000 and 9,000Hz, I could still hear
sound, but at reduced levels. After 9,000 ... nothing!

So I plugged in my Koss headphones and performed the same test. Exactly the
same results! Once I got to 9,000Hz, however, I turn up the amp volume to
see if I could hear the sound any better. No question that with a "boost" I
could hear 9,000 Hz clearly. Then did the same at 10,000K, but this time I
required an even larger boost to hear any sound. Finally, somewhere between
11,000 and 12,000Hz there was nothing I could do to hear any sound

Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively that my hearing
is not what it once was (and I suspect I am NOT alone in this). Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

Regards,
Jerry

[MD]

Jerry wrote:
I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one).

Now my AR1500 receiver even has a button for "tone flat". What it does is
completely bypass the tone control circuits and deliver the signal directly
to the power amp. NEVER USED IT!

I admit that I am a "diddler". I adjust to suit my tastes ... all of the
time!

From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the resulting sound at the
discretion of some sound engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea how my system sounds ...
in MY room. Consequently, there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

Some folks will say:

"You want the audio system (a flat responding, low-distortion audio system)
to reproduce recordings, including both the positive and negative features.
That is, you do not want to make a performing soloist jump out in front of
the orchestra and not sound the way they would at a live performance. You do
not want to add clarity (by boosting the mid/treble range to a louder level)
when no such clarity would exist in that strength at a live performance."

From my perspective, if I can't hear a jazz solo, I've missed the
"creativity" that I enjoy so much. Further, if I can't hear that
creativity, then I might as well be listening to classical music where it's
played the same way ... every time.

One last issue that I discovered tonight. I was wondering whether my
tweeters were working, so I hooked up an audio oscillator to my amp and went
from 2000Hz up to 10,000 Hz. Everything was fine up to 8000 Hz (my
tweeters seem to be working). Between 8,000 and 9,000Hz, I could still hear
sound, but at reduced levels. After 9,000 ... nothing!

So I plugged in my Koss headphones and performed the same test. Exactly the
same results! Once I got to 9,000Hz, however, I turn up the amp volume to
see if I could hear the sound any better. No question that with a "boost" I
could hear 9,000 Hz clearly. Then did the same at 10,000K, but this time I
required an even larger boost to hear any sound. Finally, somewhere between
11,000 and 12,000Hz there was nothing I could do to hear any sound

Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively that my hearing
is not what it once was (and I suspect I am NOT alone in this). Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

Regards,
Jerry

The purist approach is becoming more educated.

It used to mean (and with some it still does) one has the minimum amount
of electronics as possible. While that approach is worthwhile on its
face it is most often not only impractical but leads to the exact
problem those people are trying to avoid - that being faithful music
reproduction. There are their primary assumptions being made here. One
is that the music one is listening to was recorded well (which is not
always true) and that their systems can reproduce the frequency palette
perfectly (this is not true due to interaction with the room as well as
an uneven personal hearing response)). The last being that we somehow
know what "faithful" reproduction is.

If that is your path then I suggest getting a hearing check (looking
primarily fro problems in the midrange - we all know humans hear on a
bell curve at the extremes - this is somewhat offset by the recording
engineer who plays with these a bit to get it sounding as he thinks it
should. Obviously there are a lot of assumptions there as well as the
same factors being introduced on him and his environment as I discussed
above)

I have listened to quite a few systems - not as much as most I am sure.
I have listened in hi end shops, at shows and in people homes. Far
more often than not these do not sound good - mostly in the bass. How
do i know that? I had my hearing checked and run an RTA of my room to
see how flat my system is. After doing all of that I am now better able
to spot problems (some objective - some subjective)

So. . .after all of this how does that answer your question? The room
we listen to our system in and our own hearing capabilities are tone
controls. The recordings were run through mixers etc and were made in
an environment that had its own tone controls. I say you use an RTA and
get the room/stereo interface right. To do this you will need a
combination of passive and active devices (sound absorption at key
points, traps if that works for you and a parametric DSP to solve the
huge and very narrow bumps your room will have). After you do that you
may want to have your hearing checked to make sure there is nothing out
of the ordinary (if there is you may be able to fix it it a bit with
speakers positioning, toe in or the DSP). When this is all set up the
best you can get it - listen again. You may find that when you solve
the bass problems below 300hz the high end opens up and you no longer
have a problem. If you still do feel free to use the DSP or tone
controls to set it the way you like - AND ENJOY THE MUSIC. Trust me
most "purist" systems sound like crap - no matter how much they cost.

(In all my listening experiences I bet I enjoy the other systems I hear
about 10% of the time. The rest - regardless of expense - sound
horrible. Far more often than not they sound bad due to too much bass
and bass node problems in the room. This is usually brought on by using
too large of a speaker and not solving the room interaction problems)

[JimC]

Jerry wrote:
I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one).

Now my AR1500 receiver even has a button for "tone flat". What it does is
completely bypass the tone control circuits and deliver the signal directly
to the power amp. NEVER USED IT!

I admit that I am a "diddler". I adjust to suit my tastes ... all of the
time!

From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the resulting sound at the
discretion of some sound engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea how my system sounds ...
in MY room. Consequently, there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

Exactly. "Flat" response is flat only with respect to the recording, and
the recording engineers' personal opinions and tastes.

Some folks will say:

"You want the audio system (a flat responding, low-distortion audio system)
to reproduce recordings, including both the positive and negative features.
That is, you do not want to make a performing soloist jump out in front of
the orchestra and not sound the way they would at a live performance. You do
not want to add clarity (by boosting the mid/treble range to a louder level)
when no such clarity would exist in that strength at a live performance."

I thought the goal was to listen to the music, balanced as you like to
hear it.

From my perspective, if I can't hear a jazz solo, I've missed the
"creativity" that I enjoy so much.

Right again.

Further, if I can't hear that
creativity, then I might as well be listening to classical music where it's
played the same way ... every time.

Wrong, actually. Classical music isn't played the same way every time.
Different orchestras and artists have their own interpretations;
different works and music formats are drastically different; different
orchestras and groups have different sound characteristics; and the
acoustics of classical music performed in different venues are
drastically different. Also, I disagree with your characterization that
,without tone controls, you "might as well be listening to classical
music." - Instead, I would express it differently and say that, although
with a mediocre system you might be limited to listening to jazz,
practically speaking, if instead you have a quality system and you can
adjust it to provide semi-realistic reproduction of an orchestra or
classical piano, you just might be lucky enough to enjoy great,
rewarding reproduction of classical music.

One last issue that I discovered tonight. I was wondering whether my
tweeters were working, so I hooked up an audio oscillator to my amp and went
from 2000Hz up to 10,000 Hz. Everything was fine up to 8000 Hz (my
tweeters seem to be working). Between 8,000 and 9,000Hz, I could still hear
sound, but at reduced levels. After 9,000 ... nothing!

So I plugged in my Koss headphones and performed the same test. Exactly the
same results! Once I got to 9,000Hz, however, I turn up the amp volume to
see if I could hear the sound any better. No question that with a "boost" I
could hear 9,000 Hz clearly. Then did the same at 10,000K, but this time I
required an even larger boost to hear any sound. Finally, somewhere between
11,000 and 12,000Hz there was nothing I could do to hear any sound

Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively that my hearing
is not what it once was (and I suspect I am NOT alone in this). Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

No. - Although you might be able to attain a certain snob appeal by
telling everyone that you always listen to the music flat and never use
tone controls.

Jim

[---MIKE---]

I agree too. I use a Rane 1/3 octave equalizer to balance the room as
well as my ears. Most of the adjustments are cuts - using a Rane
analyzer and microphone to locate the places to cut. I also use a small
amount of synthesised rear channel. Purists be damned!

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Edwin Hurwitz]

Instead of messing with tone controls, I would suggest first treating
the room to tame low end problems. Equalizers can be effective to
certain degree, but when you use them to overcome room problems, they
really only address some of the problems in some of the areas. Bass
trapping is really the way to go. Ethan Winer's excellent site and
products can be very helpful in this area. I have built some bass traps
using acoustical cotton in wooden frames for my home studio and the
improvement has been remarkable (much thanks due to Bryan Pape for his
advice and products). It doesn't have to be expensive. $300 worth of
materials and couple of afternoons of work can make a huge difference in
what you hear!

As far as eq'ing to taste, that's a different thing. However, the better
the room, the less I am inclined to do this. Most of the time I reach
for an eq control is when I am listening to a field recording (what we
used to call a bootleg! :-)). If a room is in good shape and the system
is capable of reasonably flat response, I find that the original
engineer's choices are usually pretty good. I am not sure how CDs are
eq'd to sell more discs, though.

On the other hand, CDs are compressed to "sell more discs" and there's
not much we can do, except to complain to record companies that we know
how to use our volume controls and that we demand dynamic range in our
recordings! It's very ironic that now that we finally have a medium that
approaches the dynamics of a live concerts, most of the recordings
coming out today only have a dynamic range of 5 db or less. When I
listen to vinyl, it can be shocking how much better it sounds for this
reason. It's not a problem of the medium, it's user error to a heinous
degree!

/rant

Edwin

[Walt]

Jerry wrote:

I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one)....

Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

It's your system, your room, your ears. Do whatever makes you happy.
If you prefer to listen to your stereo with underwear on you head and
pencils up your nose, there's nothing terribly wrong with doing it.
Just don't expect others to share your "taste".

With regard to EQ/tone controls, in theory flat sounds best. (Or most
natural if you prefer speaking about it in those terms). In practice
nearly every recording you will ever encounter has had some tonal
adjustment at some point in the recording process, either through
electronic filters or via using microphones that have a non-flat
response. So the idea that you will "ruin" the sound by running it
through an EQ filter is nonsense given the way recordings are actually
made. Granted, whomping the tone controls all over the place will
probably make things sound worse, not better, but the mere presence of a
1/2 db shelf will be borderline inaudible. Of course, if you are not
using any tone controls at all, bypassing the circuit entirely is not at
all unreasonable.

Not every recording is perfect, not every room is perfect, and sometimes
a little tonal control can help. That said, most people overdo it with
the EQ (if a little sounds good, then a lot must sound great, right?)
and would be better off simply leaving everything flat. Especialy if
you put a graphic EQ in their hands.

Most of the time my stereo is set to flat. Given the large proportion
of screechy unnaturally bright clasical records out there, I wouldn't
have a stereo without some tone controls. YMMV.

//Walt

[Jenn]

Walt wrote:
Jerry wrote:

I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one)....

Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

It's your system, your room, your ears. Do whatever makes you happy.
If you prefer to listen to your stereo with underwear on you head and
pencils up your nose, there's nothing terribly wrong with doing it.
Just don't expect others to share your "taste".

With regard to EQ/tone controls, in theory flat sounds best. (Or most
natural if you prefer speaking about it in those terms).

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

[---MIKE---]

Flat is no longer flat when you have to deal with speakers, rooms, and
ears.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Jerry]

Jenn wrote on 9/18/2006:

Walt wrote:

It's your system, your room, your ears. Do whatever makes you happy.
If you prefer to listen to your stereo with underwear on you head and
pencils up your nose, there's nothing terribly wrong with doing it.
Just don't expect others to share your "taste".

With regard to EQ/tone controls, in theory flat sounds best. (Or most
natural if you prefer speaking about it in those terms).

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's). Then when I play back and reduce bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

What I'm saying is if there were standards in the recording industry, then
your statement would be correct. Since there are none, who is to say "flat"
sounds more like the original recording?

Jerry

[Harry Lavo]

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote on 9/18/2006:

Walt wrote:

It's your system, your room, your ears. Do whatever makes you happy.
If you prefer to listen to your stereo with underwear on you head and
pencils up your nose, there's nothing terribly wrong with doing it.
Just don't expect others to share your "taste".

With regard to EQ/tone controls, in theory flat sounds best. (Or most
natural if you prefer speaking about it in those terms).

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's). Then when I play back and reduce bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

What I'm saying is if there were standards in the recording industry, then
your statement would be correct. Since there are none, who is to say
"flat"
sounds more like the original recording?

Jerry

Jerry -

You seem to be confusing "original recording" with "original performance".
If the engineer boosts the bass in the process of recording, then when it
gets to your home or car or ipod, it is still the "original recording". It
may not sound natural, but it is the original recording. There is nothing
wrong with re-equalizing the sound if it sounds better to you, but then you
are no longer listening to the "original recording" as the engineer/masterer
envisioned it.

[bob]

Jerry wrote:
Jenn wrote on 9/18/2006:

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's).

Yes, but that's what we generally understand as the original
*recording* in this context--it's what the people who made the
recording wanted you to hear. (Which is not necessarily the same thing
as what the original performance sounded like in the studio or, by
extension, what the microphones initially captured.)

Then when I play back and reduce bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

Well, this assumes that your intuition about what the recording
*should* sound like mirrors what the engineer did. But assume the
opposite--that he raised the bass, and the user decided to raise it
even further. (I gotta believe this happens a lot!) Then you're moving
further away.

What I'm saying is if there were standards in the recording industry, then
your statement would be correct. Since there are none, who is to say "flat"
sounds more like the original recording?

I think this is the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the
"original" (whatever that is) sounded like. The only thing that matters
is what you as the listener want to hear. I think Jenn's point is that
if you want to hear what the engineer wanted you to hear, then you
should set up your room well and keep your tone controls on flat. But
if your don't want to hear that, well, hey, it's a free country. At
least it used to be.

bob

Only one person can decide what the right answer to "flat" may be, and that
is the listener. In my case, I boost bass by 4db and leave treble at what I
believe to be flat. On some recordings, where that particular mix does not
seem to bring out what I expect, I will make alterations. But, in most cases
I leave it as stated above with much satisfaction. btw, my listening room is
fairly large, 22 feet deep 10feet+ wide with 9 foot ceiling and an L shaped
opening on one side to the dining room. The other side is glass windows and
doors. there is a hardwood floor with an area rug for the seating area. My
system includes a rotel 1052 receiver and thiel cs 1.6 speakers slightly
towed in. I guess for many of you that hardly qualifies as High End, but it
keeps me very happy...:-)

Sherm

"bob" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
Jenn wrote on 9/18/2006:

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's).

Yes, but that's what we generally understand as the original
*recording* in this context--it's what the people who made the
recording wanted you to hear. (Which is not necessarily the same thing
as what the original performance sounded like in the studio or, by
extension, what the microphones initially captured.)

Then when I play back and reduce bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

Well, this assumes that your intuition about what the recording
*should* sound like mirrors what the engineer did. But assume the
opposite--that he raised the bass, and the user decided to raise it
even further. (I gotta believe this happens a lot!) Then you're moving
further away.

What I'm saying is if there were standards in the recording industry,
then
your statement would be correct. Since there are none, who is to say
"flat"
sounds more like the original recording?

I think this is the wrong question. It doesn't matter what the
"original" (whatever that is) sounded like. The only thing that matters
is what you as the listener want to hear. I think Jenn's point is that
if you want to hear what the engineer wanted you to hear, then you
should set up your room well and keep your tone controls on flat. But
if your don't want to hear that, well, hey, it's a free country. At
least it used to be.

bob

[Walt]

---MIKE--- wrote:

Flat is no longer flat when you have to deal with speakers, rooms, and
ears.


Right. All those things affect the spectral balance. Add microphones
if you want a more comprehensive list. And the recording/production
process if you listen to pop music.

Amplification and digital storage are somewhat unique links in the audio
chain because "flat" can actually be achieved in practice, instead of as
a theoretical ideal. Might as well take what we can get.

//Walt

[Jenn]

Jerry wrote:
Jenn wrote on 9/18/2006:

Walt wrote:

It's your system, your room, your ears. Do whatever makes you happy.
If you prefer to listen to your stereo with underwear on you head and
pencils up your nose, there's nothing terribly wrong with doing it.
Just don't expect others to share your "taste".

With regard to EQ/tone controls, in theory flat sounds best. (Or most
natural if you prefer speaking about it in those terms).

Or actually, in theory flat sounds the most like the origianal
recording.

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's). Then when I play back and reduce bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

As I said, in theory, flat sounds the most like the original RECORDING,
not the original PERFORMANCE.

[Jerry]

Jenn wrote 9/20/2006:

Jerry wrote:

Hmmmm, just how do we know that, Jenn?

For example, isn't it possible that the recording engineer artificially
boosted bass (to sell more CD's). Then when I play back and reduce
bass,
aren't I actually listening closer to the "original recording"?

As I said, in theory, flat sounds the most like the original RECORDING,
not the original PERFORMANCE.

Jenn, I think I interpreted you too literally. When you said original
recording, I though you were talking about the original recording made when
the musicians were performing (concert, jazz festival, studio, etc.)

I didn't think you were talking about the master recoding than finally ends
up on the CD, which as we all know can be several generations beyond that
first recording.

Jerry

[Chris Malcolm]

---MIKE--- wrote:
Flat is no longer flat when you have to deal with speakers, rooms, and
ears.

I guess that's why live acoustic music played indoors to an audience
using ears sounds unnatural and unrealistic, not at all like piping
your iPod directly through to the ear canal.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Stevel]

Jerry wrote:
I personally know a few people who I'd call "purists". These folks believe
the ultimate goal of high fidelity is to reproduce sound exactly as if we
were present at a live concert.

For these folks there is only one setting on their amps ... FLAT! That is,
12 o'clock for bass, treble and mid (if you have one).

Now my AR1500 receiver even has a button for "tone flat". What it does is
completely bypass the tone control circuits and deliver the signal directly
to the power amp. NEVER USED IT!

I admit that I am a "diddler". I adjust to suit my tastes ... all of the
time!

From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the resulting sound at the
discretion of some sound engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea how my system sounds ...
in MY room. Consequently, there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

Some folks will say:

"You want the audio system (a flat responding, low-distortion audio system)
to reproduce recordings, including both the positive and negative features.
That is, you do not want to make a performing soloist jump out in front of
the orchestra and not sound the way they would at a live performance. You do
not want to add clarity (by boosting the mid/treble range to a louder level)
when no such clarity would exist in that strength at a live performance."

From my perspective, if I can't hear a jazz solo, I've missed the
"creativity" that I enjoy so much. Further, if I can't hear that
creativity, then I might as well be listening to classical music where it's
played the same way ... every time.

One last issue that I discovered tonight. I was wondering whether my
tweeters were working, so I hooked up an audio oscillator to my amp and went
from 2000Hz up to 10,000 Hz. Everything was fine up to 8000 Hz (my
tweeters seem to be working). Between 8,000 and 9,000Hz, I could still hear
sound, but at reduced levels. After 9,000 ... nothing!

So I plugged in my Koss headphones and performed the same test. Exactly the
same results! Once I got to 9,000Hz, however, I turn up the amp volume to
see if I could hear the sound any better. No question that with a "boost" I
could hear 9,000 Hz clearly. Then did the same at 10,000K, but this time I
required an even larger boost to hear any sound. Finally, somewhere between
11,000 and 12,000Hz there was nothing I could do to hear any sound

Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively that my hearing
is not what it once was (and I suspect I am NOT alone in this). Is it so
terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can hear recordings as I
would years ago??

Regards,
Jerry

The simple answer is do what sounds best to you.
Never forget that the recording is a reflection of the engineers
monitors.
There is no standard reference monitor so it all down to the engineers
personal taste.
A typical problem is when the engineers system is bass heavy he will be
inclined to produce a recording that is bass lite to compensate. It
gets more complex than that obviously especialy with respect to the mid
range but you get the picture. Classical music engineers tend to be
more anal about their monitoring systems so playing back flat may have
had some merit in the purists ears.
My own preference is to play back flat and let my brain compensate.
I prefer to listen to the music rather than obsess over the sound.
It is rare for me to listen to a recording that is so far out that I
just have to tweek but that always leaves me feeling uneasy.
If I do have to tweek I use a pair of Pultec style three band low Q
equalisers.
It is far to easy to destroy the tonality of instruments with multiband
graphics.
So just site your speakers well to avoid exciting unwanted room
resonance and allow for the fact that soft furnishings can suck the
life out of the sound.
It is unusual for a mastering room or control room to have much in the
way of uncontrolled sound absorbtion these days.
The other thing to consider is that although you think you may not be
able to hear high frequencies very well they still affect the way you
respond to music. There is more to hearing than just frequency
responce.

Steve Lane

[---MIKE---]

When you consider all the variables it's a wonder that any recording
sounds natural. First, the conductor balances the orchestra from the
podium (sometimes from out in the hall during rehearsals). The
conductor's hearing is likely below par both from age and from exposure
to the loud sounds of an orchestra over the years. Then there are
microphones and the positioning of them. Then we go to the control room
where speakers and room acoustics come into play as well as the
engineer's ears and preferences. All of these variables are then
equalized so the engineer likes the sound. Then the various tracks have
to be merged together to create a master tape. Then mastering takes
place. Is it any wonder that we need tone controls and equalizers in
our systems?

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Harry Lavo]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
When you consider all the variables it's a wonder that any recording
sounds natural. First, the conductor balances the orchestra from the
podium (sometimes from out in the hall during rehearsals). The
conductor's hearing is likely below par both from age and from exposure
to the loud sounds of an orchestra over the years. Then there are
microphones and the positioning of them. Then we go to the control room
where speakers and room acoustics come into play as well as the
engineer's ears and preferences. All of these variables are then
equalized so the engineer likes the sound. Then the various tracks have
to be merged together to create a master tape. Then mastering takes
place. Is it any wonder that we need tone controls and equalizers in
our systems?

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')


That's why the old purist ways are better....the conductor, engineer, and
producer all work together to get a sound that they all like, in the control
room, and often with headphones as well. And these are not any old control
rooms, but usually isolated rooms off the hall that have received some
temporary sound treatment (perhaps with pads or blankets) and the monitors
are not mini-nearfields, but large hi-fi speakers.

Moreover, the mic pickup is usually either three-channel omni, or two-mic
XY, MS, or ORTF. In any case, minimum phase shift and/or frequency
"unbalance" from the micing and not much need to combine channels (no
spotlights or section mics).

Once all this is done, you can have a pretty damn fine, natural sounding
recording.

[Jerry]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
When you consider all the variables it's a wonder that any recording
sounds natural. First, the conductor balances the orchestra from the
podium (sometimes from out in the hall during rehearsals). The
conductor's hearing is likely below par both from age and from exposure
to the loud sounds of an orchestra over the years. Then there are
microphones and the positioning of them. Then we go to the control room
where speakers and room acoustics come into play as well as the
engineer's ears and preferences. All of these variables are then
equalized so the engineer likes the sound. Then the various tracks have
to be merged together to create a master tape. Then mastering takes
place. Is it any wonder that we need tone controls and equalizers in
our systems?

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mike, very well said!!

Rather than feel bad about using tone controls, given all the variation that
can occur throughout the process PLUS our know hearing deficiencies, we
should expect to use tone controls and use them fairly frequently.

Regards,
Jerry

[Chris Malcolm]

Jerry wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...

When you consider all the variables it's a wonder that any recording
sounds natural. First, the conductor balances the orchestra from the
podium (sometimes from out in the hall during rehearsals). The
conductor's hearing is likely below par both from age and from exposure
to the loud sounds of an orchestra over the years. Then there are
microphones and the positioning of them. Then we go to the control room
where speakers and room acoustics come into play as well as the
engineer's ears and preferences. All of these variables are then
equalized so the engineer likes the sound. Then the various tracks have
to be merged together to create a master tape. Then mastering takes
place. Is it any wonder that we need tone controls and equalizers in
our systems?

Mike, very well said!!

Rather than feel bad about using tone controls, given all the variation that
can occur throughout the process PLUS our know hearing deficiencies, we
should expect to use tone controls and use them fairly frequently.

That sounds a plausible argument, except for my own age-related
hearing deficiencies. I listen to live musical performances with my
naked ears and no tone controls. I don't see the point of making
recordings sound different. Sounds like the argument of whether
astigmatism could explain the long thin women Modigliani painted. Of
course not, because he looked at his paintings with the same eyes he
used for looking at women.

The odd thing, however, given all those plausible reasons for
expecting to have to use tone controls, is that I never feel the need
to. On other people's systems I mostly use them to try to compensate
for poor loudpseakers.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Stevel]

Jerry wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
When you consider all the variables it's a wonder that any recording
sounds natural. First, the conductor balances the orchestra from the
podium (sometimes from out in the hall during rehearsals). The
conductor's hearing is likely below par both from age and from exposure
to the loud sounds of an orchestra over the years. Then there are
microphones and the positioning of them. Then we go to the control room
where speakers and room acoustics come into play as well as the
engineer's ears and preferences. All of these variables are then
equalized so the engineer likes the sound. Then the various tracks have
to be merged together to create a master tape. Then mastering takes
place. Is it any wonder that we need tone controls and equalizers in
our systems?

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mike, very well said!!

Rather than feel bad about using tone controls, given all the variation that
can occur throughout the process PLUS our know hearing deficiencies, we
should expect to use tone controls and use them fairly frequently.

Regards,
Jerry

I'm not sure that is reasonable. In cases where a recording is
obviously defective in some way
by all means use EQ but I would normaly prefer to set up my system to
sound good using a few reference recordings but otherwise leave it
alone.
For me the tonal ballance is part of the artistic statement. I tend to
consider messing with tone controls is a bit like looking at works of
art through colored glasses.
The idea of frequently jumping up and tweeking when ever I change a
record would drive me nuts.

Just another thought, is there a CD player that would identify a
recording and apply
a preset EQ? I know that iTunes can do this.

Steve Lane

[---MIKE---]

Harry Lavo wrote:

That's why the old purist ways are
better....the conductor, engineer, and
producer all work together to get a
sound that they all like, in the control
room, and often with headphones as
well.

This may be true in some cases but how can you be sure it is all the
time? Live recordings are becoming more and more common nowadays and I
doubt if your comments apply there. Also, musicians are noted for not
being fussy about reproduced sound quality. Balances that are adjusted
during rehearsals will be different when an audience is in the hall.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Harry Lavo]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

That's why the old purist ways are
better....the conductor, engineer, and
producer all work together to get a
sound that they all like, in the control
room, and often with headphones as
well.

This may be true in some cases but how can you be sure it is all the
time?

You can't, but it is possible if you are recording without being live.

Live recordings are becoming more and more common nowadays and I
doubt if your comments apply there.

They have to be modified. The audience does change the sound
characteristics, sometimes dramatically. On the other hand, most live
orchestral recording is being done today with a permanent or semi-permanent
five channel setup in the same hall, e.g. the LSO series, the Philadelphia
series, the SFO series, etc. Recording this way, once can not only predict
the change, but also experience the change and thus quickly refine the
recording parameters so that quality sound is obtained without much, if any,
further adjustment.

Also, musicians are noted for not
being fussy about reproduced sound quality.

Some are, some aren't. Conductors and soloists who are, are almost always
checking in the control room for what is being captured.

Balances that are adjusted
during rehearsals will be different when an audience is in the hall.

See my comments above.

[Jerry]

Stevel wrote on 9/24/2006:
Jerry wrote:

Mike, very well said!!

Rather than feel bad about using tone controls, given all the variation
that
can occur throughout the process PLUS our know hearing deficiencies, we
should expect to use tone controls and use them fairly frequently.

Regards,
Jerry

I'm not sure that is reasonable. In cases where a recording is
obviously defective in some way
by all means use EQ but I would normaly prefer to set up my system to
sound good using a few reference recordings but otherwise leave it
alone.

Steve, for me the issue is so many of the recording have been adjusted, that
why shouldn't we feel free to "adjust"?

For me the tonal ballance is part of the artistic statement. I tend to
consider messing with tone controls is a bit like looking at works of
art through colored glasses.

Ok, I like really this analogy!!

Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art through CORRECTIVE
lenses? And isn't boosting high frequencies, where some of us have lost
our hearing sensitivity, similar to folks who have lost some visual acuity?

The idea of frequently jumping up and tweeking when ever I change a
record would drive me nuts.

Really and how do you "change records" if not by jumping up?

Just another thought, is there a CD player that would identify a
recording and apply
a preset EQ? I know that iTunes can do this.

Steve Lane

Steve, that is an interesting question. Most of the cd players that I've
seen have no EQ adjustments, but this sounds like a terrific idea.

Regards,
Jerry

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art
through CORRECTIVE lenses? And isn't boosting
high frequencies, where some of us have lost our
hearing sensitivity, similar to folks who have lost
some visual acuity?

So that hi-frequency boost control you're using for
correcting your hearing: how's that working out for
you at live concerts?

You have the same pair of ears, with the same properties
and, alas, defects, when you listen to speakers as you
take with you to a concert. At home, you have the option
of fiddling with tone controls. At the concert, you don't.

So, at the concert, your auditory periphery presents you
with a sonic image. At home, you say, you can modify
that sonic image to be "more like live" by compensating
for your hearing loss. But that suggests that listening
"live" is less like listening at home, because you can
"correct" for the defects when listening at home, and
you CAN'T at a live concert.

So if you can't correct for your ears when listening to
live music, how is it "better" to correct for them at home?

("Better" is a term that, in this case, needs definition:
you can supply that definition, any definition you want,
but the one you SEEM to be supplying now is logically
contradictory. That may be fine for you, if you're willing
to live with that contradiction.)

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Stevel wrote on 9/24/2006:
For me the tonal ballance is part of the artistic
statement. I tend to consider messing with tone
controls is a bit like looking at works of art
through colored glasses.

Ok, I like really this analogy!!

Unfortunately, the analogy contradicts your premise. If
you don't like blue, does putting on a pair of "minus-blue)
(e.g. yellow) glasses make Picasso's art from his Blue
Period better? More "accurate? Ansel Adams deliberately
chose black and white AND manipulated the non-linear
properties of the photographic medium to achieve a very
specific artistic statement that is NOT a reflection of literal
reality. Does colorizing his pictures make them "better?"
More "accurate?"

Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art
through CORRECTIVE lenses?

Your extension of the conradictory analogy fails on
several levels, including that which I cited above. To
show you how, let's pick a real-world example of your
analogy.

The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with an in-
built optical flaw due to a procedural error during the
optical figuring process. The result was an excess of
spherical abberation. After a very long and detailed
analysis, the optical scientists involved determined that
the resulting image suffered from a specific amount of
spherical abberation. The amount of that abberation was
very precisely known.

WIth the amount of abberation known, first they were
able to put together an image coorection algorithm
that, when applied to the downloaded images, could
correct for significant amounts of that abberation in
existing images. That was, however, an interim
solution. The ultimate solution was, in fact, to build
a set of, literally, "corrective" lenses (actually, a mirror
that had the opposite amount of spherical aberation:
the HUbble is, in essence an all-mirror system). WIth
such corrective lenses, the HUbble has, for all intents
and purposes, achieved and possible surpassed its
original design goals.

Seems like a good idea, especially when applied, as you
have done, to the notion of "tone controls" as "corrective
lenses." But your idea is flawed.

MOst significantly, tyhe reason the technique worked for
the HST and DOESN'T work in your model is becuase
in HST, the exact nature and magnitude of the abberations
was known, indeed, it HAD to be knownm in order for
the corrective lenses to work.

In your model, how do you know what the nature and
magnitude of the "abberation" applied to a recording
are? If you DON'T know what the nature and amount
of the EQ applied is, it's impossible to "correct" it later.

Essentially, in the face of such a dilemma, what your
premise boils down to is very simple: "I like to hear
my music after I have diddled with the tone controls."

And that's perfectly okay for you to do, and not a single
reasonable person will find fault with listening to music
the way you like.

But trying to "justify" it with some notion of "correcting"
what may or may not have been done to the
recording simply fails unless you have a means of
knowing exactly what it is that's been done that you're
intending to "undo."

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively
that my hearing is not what it once was (and I suspect I am
NOT alone in this).

Yes, a lot of us believe you're hearing is not what it once
was :-)

Is it so terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can
hear recordings as I would years ago??

How do you deal with hearing live music NOW vs what
you heard at such a conert years ago? Where are the
tone controls that compensate for THAT?

I know I said this elsewhere in this thread, but it bears
repeating since this is one of your original questions.
You used same ears listening to both recorded and
live music 20 years ago.

Guess what? Today you use the same ears listening
to both recorded and live music. Yes, the ears have
changed, but they're the same at home as they are
at the concert?

If tone controls are a valid means of adjusting your hifi
at home, how come they're not a valid means of adjusting
the concert (rhetorical question, to be sure)? Conversely,
if you can improve on your hearing by adjusting to the
tone controls on your hifi when listening to recorded
music at home, then does the lack of the ability to do
so at a concert therefore mean that the live concert
sound CANNOT, by your model, be as good as listening
at home?

(hint: there is not "right" or "wrong" answer to this, since
it is a matter of personal preference. But be prepared,
if you want to pursue your model, to deal with the logical
contradiction inherent in that model).

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the
resulting sound at the discretion of some sound
engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea
how my system sounds in MY room. Consequently,
there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

"Tone controls," as conventionally found on equipment,
your AR1500 being just one example, are completely
UNsuitable for correcting room problems. The regions
most affected by the room, essentially the bottom
3-4 octaves (at most), tend to exhibit anomolies that
are narrow-band and both minimum- and non-minimum
phase in nature. Tone controls are useless to correct for
such.

Over the rest of the band, it's remarkable to many people
how closely the response at the preferred listening
position mirrors most speaker's anechoic response, i.e.,
the room has relatively minor effects at best on the overall
response at mid and high frequencies.

[bob]

wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art
through CORRECTIVE lenses? And isn't boosting
high frequencies, where some of us have lost our
hearing sensitivity, similar to folks who have lost
some visual acuity?

So that hi-frequency boost control you're using for
correcting your hearing: how's that working out for
you at live concerts?

You have the same pair of ears, with the same properties
and, alas, defects, when you listen to speakers as you
take with you to a concert. At home, you have the option
of fiddling with tone controls. At the concert, you don't.

So, at the concert, your auditory periphery presents you
with a sonic image. At home, you say, you can modify
that sonic image to be "more like live" by compensating
for your hearing loss. But that suggests that listening
"live" is less like listening at home, because you can
"correct" for the defects when listening at home, and
you CAN'T at a live concert.

So if you can't correct for your ears when listening to
live music, how is it "better" to correct for them at home?

("Better" is a term that, in this case, needs definition:
you can supply that definition, any definition you want,
but the one you SEEM to be supplying now is logically
contradictory. That may be fine for you, if you're willing
to live with that contradiction.)

What Jerry is suggesting is that he doesn't want to hear at home what
he hears in the concert hall NOW. He wants to hear at home what he
HEARD in the concert hall 20 years ago. Think of it as Viagra for the
ears.

Joking aside, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's not
what most of us choose to do, I don't think.

bob

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art
through CORRECTIVE lenses? And isn't boosting
high frequencies, where some of us have lost our
hearing sensitivity, similar to folks who have lost
some visual acuity?

So that hi-frequency boost control you're using for
correcting your hearing: how's that working out for
you at live concerts?

At the Beach Boys concert I went to the past summer, what I really needed
was ... attenuation. I must admit that I'm really NOT accustomed to hearing
music that ... LOUD!

You have the same pair of ears, with the same properties
and, alas, defects, when you listen to speakers as you
take with you to a concert. At home, you have the option
of fiddling with tone controls. At the concert, you don't.

So what?? I went to concerts back when I was in college and today wish to
"re-live" the music. Back then I had better high frequency hearing. Dick,
am I doomed to missing the experience since my hearing is no longer as good?

So, at the concert, your auditory periphery presents you
with a sonic image. At home, you say, you can modify
that sonic image to be "more like live" by compensating
for your hearing loss. But that suggests that listening
"live" is less like listening at home, because you can
"correct" for the defects when listening at home, and
you CAN'T at a live concert.

Ok, but you are negelecting the time shift. I don't go to concernts nearly
as often as I did when younger, yet I still enjoy the same old music. I
mean it's my music ... the music I grew up with ... the music I understand.

I don't understand Hip Hop ... I can't relate to it and consequently, I
don't enjoy ANY of it.

So if you can't correct for your ears when listening to
live music, how is it "better" to correct for them at home?
("Better" is a term that, in this case, needs definition:
you can supply that definition, any definition you want,
but the one you SEEM to be supplying now is logically
contradictory. That may be fine for you, if you're willing
to live with that contradiction.)

Dick, did I use the word "better", because I can only find "better" in my
initial post where I talked about hearing specific tones from my audio
oscillator. In that case, better just equates to louder.

Nevertheless, let me take a stab at answering your question. I think it's
OK (better) to use tone controls at home because at LIVE concerts the sound
is so LOUD that I doubt I'm missing much. Frankly, I think the sound levels
at some concerts are too high.

Next, most of the concerts I'd like to "re-live" occured 20 to 30 years ago
(would you believe 40). Back then the music was probably too loud (and I'm
paying for it today), but I did have better hearing back then. So why,
Dick, is it so wrong for me to try to "re-live" or "re-experience" the music
with the treble boosted and the entire volume ratched down?

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Stevel wrote on 9/24/2006:
For me the tonal ballance is part of the artistic
statement. I tend to consider messing with tone
controls is a bit like looking at works of art
through colored glasses.

Ok, I like really this analogy!!

Unfortunately, the analogy contradicts your premise. If
you don't like blue, does putting on a pair of "minus-blue)
(e.g. yellow) glasses make Picasso's art from his Blue
Period better? More "accurate? Ansel Adams deliberately
chose black and white AND manipulated the non-linear
properties of the photographic medium to achieve a very
specific artistic statement that is NOT a reflection of literal
reality. Does colorizing his pictures make them "better?"
More "accurate?"

I liked the analogy of glasses, because it allowed me to throw in corrective
lenses in place of colored glasses to look at art.

Steve, how do you feel about looking at works of art
through CORRECTIVE lenses?

Your extension of the conradictory analogy fails on
several levels, including that which I cited above. To
show you how, let's pick a real-world example of your
analogy.

The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with an in-
built optical flaw due to a procedural error during the
optical figuring process.

"procedural error"??? They tried to save pennies and never assembled the
Hubble on earth to see whether it worked before assembling in space.

What you call a "procedural error", I'd call a major FU.

The result was an excess of
spherical abberation. After a very long and detailed
analysis, the optical scientists involved determined that
the resulting image suffered from a specific amount of
spherical abberation. The amount of that abberation was
very precisely known.

WIth the amount of abberation known, first they were
able to put together an image coorection algorithm
that, when applied to the downloaded images, could
correct for significant amounts of that abberation in
existing images. That was, however, an interim
solution. The ultimate solution was, in fact, to build
a set of, literally, "corrective" lenses (actually, a mirror
that had the opposite amount of spherical aberation:
the HUbble is, in essence an all-mirror system). WIth
such corrective lenses, the HUbble has, for all intents
and purposes, achieved and possible surpassed its
original design goals.

Seems like a good idea, especially when applied, as you
have done, to the notion of "tone controls" as "corrective
lenses." But your idea is flawed.

MOst significantly, tyhe reason the technique worked for
the HST and DOESN'T work in your model is becuase
in HST, the exact nature and magnitude of the abberations
was known, indeed, it HAD to be knownm in order for
the corrective lenses to work.

In your model, how do you know what the nature and
magnitude of the "abberation" applied to a recording
are? If you DON'T know what the nature and amount
of the EQ applied is, it's impossible to "correct" it later.

I'm confused, I thought you were unhappy because I don't know the EXACT
magnitude of my hearing loss. My argument is, so what? Years ago before
we perfected the science of visual correction, people would try on different
glasses until they could see or read. Why can't I do the same? Why must I
grope in the darkness because I don't know the exact magnitude of my
blindness when any amount of light will help?

Essentially, in the face of such a dilemma, what your
premise boils down to is very simple: "I like to hear
my music after I have diddled with the tone controls."

And that's perfectly okay for you to do, and not a single
reasonable person will find fault with listening to music
the way you like.

But trying to "justify" it with some notion of "correcting"
what may or may not have been done to the
recording simply fails unless you have a means of
knowing exactly what it is that's been done that you're
intending to "undo."

Dick, I'm correcting because I NEED TO in order to hear some frequencies and
I'm NOT concerned about maintaining a "perfectly flat response", because I
reject the notion that one exists. Far too many people and hands have
"diddled with the sound" before it ever gets to our speakers.

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Chris Malcolm wrote on 9/24/2006:

Jerry wrote:

Rather than feel bad about using tone controls, given all the variation
that
can occur throughout the process PLUS our know hearing deficiencies, we
should expect to use tone controls and use them fairly frequently.

That sounds a plausible argument, except for my own age-related
hearing deficiencies. I listen to live musical performances with my
naked ears and no tone controls. I don't see the point of making
recordings sound different.

Ok, Chris, but what if you really, really like the Beatles and attended
their concerts back in ... well you get the picture. Today you'd like to
"re-live" the music (experience). You no longer have the same ears
(hearing) that you had eons ago.

Is it so terribly wrong, Chris, to correct for the hearing loss?

Further, I have absolutely no qualms about destroying the "perfectly flat
response", because I totally reject the notion the one exists. Far too many
people have "diddled" with the sound before it ever gets to your speakers.

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:

Jerry wrote:
Is it so terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can
hear recordings as I would years ago??

How do you deal with hearing live music NOW vs what
you heard at such a conert years ago? Where are the
tone controls that compensate for THAT?

I know I said this elsewhere in this thread, but it bears
repeating since this is one of your original questions.
You used same ears listening to both recorded and
live music 20 years ago.

Guess what? Today you use the same ears listening
to both recorded and live music. Yes, the ears have
changed, but they're the same at home as they are
at the concert?

Not exactly, because many of the artists don't sound the same today as they
did years ago. I can prove that because if we were to dig them up, I'm
positive we'd get little in the way of music.

All we have left of so many great artists is their recordings. Why in
heavens NOT try to experience those recordings as we did eons ago, when we
had "young ears".

If tone controls are a valid means of adjusting your hifi
at home, how come they're not a valid means of adjusting
the concert (rhetorical question, to be sure)?

I'm NOT so sure that's a fair question. We all know from the
Fletcher-Munson curves that our hearing is less sensitive to bass and treble
at low volumes than at high volumes. At concerts the problem for me is too
much volume. At typical concert volumes, I doubt I'm missing much ...
unfortunately.

Conversely,
if you can improve on your hearing by adjusting to the
tone controls on your hifi when listening to recorded
music at home, then does the lack of the ability to do
so at a concert therefore mean that the live concert
sound CANNOT, by your model, be as good as listening
at home?

Dick, you are ignoring the Fletcher-Munson curves and the terriffic volumes
that are typical at LIVE concerts.

To me it's totally consistent with the loudness contours that once were
common on amps.

Regards,
Jerry

[Jerry]

Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:

Jerry wrote:
From my perspective, failing to do this leaves the
resulting sound at the discretion of some sound
engineer whose ultimate goal is to sell CD's.
Further, this engineer, when mixing, has no idea
how my system sounds in MY room. Consequently,
there is zero chance that the resulting sound
will be "conditioned" for my room/system.

"Tone controls," as conventionally found on equipment,
your AR1500 being just one example, are completely
UNsuitable for correcting room problems. The regions
most affected by the room, essentially the bottom
3-4 octaves (at most), tend to exhibit anomolies that
are narrow-band and both minimum- and non-minimum
phase in nature. Tone controls are useless to correct for
such.

Ok, but what about the presence of sound absorbing materials in some rooms
and a prevalence of hard surfaces in others?

Certainly tone controls can help in those situations.

In any event, Dick, my argument wasn't so much that tone controls are the
answer. It's more a total rejection of the notion that there exists a
"perfectly flat response". I short, I believe that folks who religiously
set all controls at 12 o'clock are seeking a mirage.

Regards,
Jerry

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with an in-
built optical flaw due to a procedural error during the
optical figuring process.

"procedural error"??? They tried to save pennies and
never assembled the Hubble on earth to see whether
it worked before assembling in space.

Urban legend. The telescope could NOT be properly
assembled on earth, The test the used, a form of optical
null test, would have revealed the error precisely if
they had placed a single precision spacer in the correct
position.

What you call a "procedural error", I'd call a major FU.

Yes. it was a major FU BECAUSE of a procedural error.

But, you obviously miss the point. IOt's that same test
that enabled them to calculate, with great precision,
what the error was and how to correct it.


In your model, how do you know what the nature and
magnitude of the "abberation" applied to a recording
are? If you DON'T know what the nature and amount
of the EQ applied is, it's impossible to "correct" it later.

I'm confused, I thought you were unhappy because I don't know the EXACT
magnitude of my hearing loss.

I'm not the least bit unhappy. I could care less. But you've
spent a huge amount of effort, it seems, trying to technically
justify to the world using the tone controls when you don't
have to justify to ANYONE what you're doing. If you want to
twiddle your knobs, have at it: it's entirely your choice and
no one else has to care.

My argument is, so what? Years ago before
we perfected the science of visual correction, people would try on different
glasses until they could see or read. Why can't I do the same? Why must I
grope in the darkness because I don't know the exact magnitude of my
blindness when any amount of light will help?

Nobody says you do. Certainly I didn't.

Essentially, in the face of such a dilemma, what your
premise boils down to is very simple: "I like to hear
my music after I have diddled with the tone controls."

And that's perfectly okay for you to do, and not a single
reasonable person will find fault with listening to music
the way you like.

But trying to "justify" it with some notion of "correcting"
what may or may not have been done to the
recording simply fails unless you have a means of
knowing exactly what it is that's been done that you're
intending to "undo."

Dick, I'm correcting because I NEED TO in order to hear some frequencies and
I'm NOT concerned about maintaining a "perfectly flat response", because I
reject the notion that one exists. Far too many people and hands have
"diddled with the sound" before it ever gets to our speakers.

Fine. Have at it. No one, most assuredly me, is standing
in your way, despite your seeming objection that I am.
Did you, perchance, read the part where I said:

"Essentially, in the face of such a dilemma, what your
premise boils down to is very simple: 'I like to hear
my music after I have diddled with the tone controls.'

"And that's perfectly okay for you to do, and not a single
reasonable person will find fault with listening to music
the way you like."

[[email protected]]

Jerry wrote:
Dick wrote on 9/25/2006:

"Tone controls," as conventionally found on equipment,
your AR1500 being just one example, are completely
UNsuitable for correcting room problems. The regions
most affected by the room, essentially the bottom
3-4 octaves (at most), tend to exhibit anomolies that
are narrow-band and both minimum- and non-minimum
phase in nature. Tone controls are useless to correct for
such.

Ok, but what about the presence of sound absorbing
materials in some rooms and a prevalence of hard
surfaces in others?

You failed to quote the relevant part of my post:

"Over the rest of the band, it's remarkable to many
people how closely the response at the preferred
listening position mirrors most speaker's anechoic
response, i.e., the room has relatively minor effects
at best on the overall response at mid and high
frequencies."

Certainly tone controls can help in those situations.

Certainly, they cannot.

In any event, Dick, my argument wasn't so much that tone controls are the
answer.

They don't even remotely answeer the right question.

It's more a total rejection of the notion that there exists a
"perfectly flat response". I short, I believe that folks who religiously
set all controls at 12 o'clock are seeking a mirage.

Despite your attempts to skew the argument in
that direction, I have no dispute with that point
whatsoever.

Tone controls are extremely useful for adjusting the
overal frequency balance of the sound to something
that is more suitable and preferable to you, the listener.
If some people want to weld the knobs precisely at
their center positions, who are you to argue with them?
If you want to change yours until you get something
you like, who are they to argue with you? It's as simple
as that.

But what tone controls, especially of the sorts found on
your AR1500, CAN'T do is:

1. Reasonably compensate for the effects of narrow-
band, high-Q minimim- and non-minimum-phase
errors introduced by the room and causing low
frequency response errors,

2. Undoing the processing applied during the mastering
process that in any way even remotely returns the
result to "flat,"

3. anything more than very crudely compensate for age-
related or other hearing loss phenomenon,

If the results YOU get from adjusting YOUR tone controls
satisfies YOU, then WE'RE done. There is not a single
argument ANYONE can bring that suggests what YOU
are doing is wrong.

If the results SOMEONE ELSE gets from NOT adjusting
THEIR tone controls satisfies THEM, then WE'RE done.
There is not a single argument YOU can bring that
suggest what THEY are doing is wrong.

Get it?

[---MIKE---]

I tested my hearing yesterday. I used a homemade signal generator and
my Rane analyzer to pinpoint the frequency. I could hear 10kHz but
nothing at 12.5kHz. I set my HF tone control (on my Apt-Holman preamp)
at 3 o'clock to compensate for my fading high frequency hearing (I am
almost 77). As Jerry stated, I want to hear the music more like I heard
live music 50 years ago.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[JimC]

wrote:
Jerry wrote:

Returning to the tone control issue. Now I know positively
that my hearing is not what it once was (and I suspect I am
NOT alone in this).


Yes, a lot of us believe you're hearing is not what it once
was :-)


Is it so terribly wrong for me to boost treble so that I can
hear recordings as I would years ago??


How do you deal with hearing live music NOW vs what
you heard at such a conert years ago? Where are the
tone controls that compensate for THAT?

I know I said this elsewhere in this thread, but it bears
repeating since this is one of your original questions.
You used same ears listening to both recorded and
live music 20 years ago.

Guess what? Today you use the same ears listening
to both recorded and live music. Yes, the ears have
changed, but they're the same at home as they are
at the concert?

If tone controls are a valid means of adjusting your hifi
at home, how come they're not a valid means of adjusting
the concert (rhetorical question, to be sure)? Conversely,
if you can improve on your hearing by adjusting to the
tone controls on your hifi when listening to recorded
music at home, then does the lack of the ability to do
so at a concert therefore mean that the live concert
sound CANNOT, by your model, be as good as listening
at home?

(hint: there is not "right" or "wrong" answer to this, since
it is a matter of personal preference. But be prepared,
if you want to pursue your model, to deal with the logical
contradiction inherent in that model).

Did you ever hear of the Fletcher-Munson curve? It relates, of course,
to the change in hearing response all of us experience relative to high
and low frequencies as listening levels decrease (to the "normal" levels
at which most of us listen unless we have an isolated, sound-proof
room). It also explains why many listeners think the sound, at moderate
volume levels, improves when they attenuate the bass and treble, either
with tone controls or with a "loudness" control circuit, which, of
course, is one form of tone control. In other words, our hearing isn't
flat, and it changes with changes in volume, and adjustment by some form
of tone controls is one way to resolve the problem.

One significant difference between systems having tone controls and
those that don't is that the former can usually be operated in either of
two modes (either flat, or with a selected level of control when
desired), whereas the latter can only be operated in one mode, i.e., no
controls. In both cases, of course, the listener may be able to make
adjustments by working on the room acoustics, speake positining, etc. -
This difference (the "two option" vs "one option" difference) often
seems to be ignored by those criticising the use of TCs.

Incidentally, the fact that we don't use tone controls when listening to
a live performace (e.g., because of faulty acoustics in the hall, bad
hearing, etc.), isn't really of much relevance to whether tone controls
should be used at home and is probably of little interest to anyone on
the ng. - Also, I suspect that the volumes heard in most performances
are sufficiently high to overcome most of the Fletcher-Munson issues.

Jim

[Jerry]

MIKE wrote on 9/26/2006:

I tested my hearing yesterday. I used a homemade signal generator and
my Rane analyzer to pinpoint the frequency. I could hear 10kHz but
nothing at 12.5kHz. I set my HF tone control (on my Apt-Holman preamp)
at 3 o'clock to compensate for my fading high frequency hearing (I am
almost 77). As Jerry stated, I want to hear the music more like I heard
live music 50 years ago.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mike, my experience with my signal generator was very similar to yours. Did
you attempt the same test with headphones?

I found that with headphones and VOLUME I could hear more of the high
frequencies than I could through the speakers. Actually, I'm not so sure
how good my speakers are at those frequencies, but I'm fairly confident the
Koss headphones can handle with ease.

Actually, I went to a concert this past summer (Beach Boys) and the volume
was so LOUD, that I doubt I missed anything in the way of high frequencies.
Were I to play a recording of that concert at home, however, I'd miss a lot
of the high frequency sound. The reason is very simple, I can't play music
that loud at home and not disturb everyone in my neighborhood.

So people like us, Mike, have to compensate and that goodness for tone
controls.

Regards,
Jerry