"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

Since you seem to be so sure of yourself on the subject of equalizers,
why not join in on this same thread over on RAHE and see how it's
received.

**I can't submit to RAHE anymore. I used to, when I was on cable, but I
cannot with ADSL. I believe there's a workaround, but I really can't be
bothered.


--
Try asking the question on RAT. Plenty of eperts there.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
I know over the years, I've listened to quite a few vintage receivers,
many of which were Marantz from the good old golden '70's, and
honestly,
many of these sounded like crap to me, regardless of how pretty they
looked, and that on some, having 3 tone controls (Bass-Mid-Treble)
seemed more a detriment, than a help.

Didn't seem to matter what you did with the controls, I never could get
a satisfying sound with them. Maybe an outboard EQ would've helped in
these particular cases?

Maybe then again, nothing would resuscitate them? lol Mark

You have to know what frequencies the tone controls are set for. If you
do
and know that there is a problem with the same frequency, you coould
probably tame it. You would need a meter and a source of test tones,
preferably pink noise, not warble tones.

That is not correct.

Why?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
Hi All, Sorry if this has been covered a zillion times before, but I
have some questions concerning Hi-End equipment, and thier features,
or
I should say, lack of.

I notice that many modern high end Pre-Amplifiers have an absence of
simple Tone Controls.

**Of course. "Simple" tone controls are useless. Utterly useless.
Utterly and completely useless.

Mostly because they are set for frequencies that azre not ususally a
problem in typical rooms

**That is part of it. They are completely arbitrary in their operation
too. The chances of solving a problem with tone controls (or fixed
frequency equalisers) is about the same as pulling off a big lottery
win. Without proper, CALIBRATED measurement equipment, adjusting even a
sophisticated EQ is a total crap shoot.


I basically understand the reasoning behind this, as the simpler the
chain, the less interference, or "destruction" I should say of the
purity of sound by introducing Tone Controls into the Pre-Amplifier's
Circuittry.

**There's actually more to it, than that, but (simple) tone controls
can and do damage sound quality.

How?

**They shift phase in a fashion which is almost guaranteed not to equal
the phase shift of the problem which may exist.



Do purists now cringe at the thought of having at least a Bass-Treble
Control on thier Pre-Amps?

**If they do not, they most certainly should.


Why?

**Because they **** up sound quality.


Still no how.

**I've answered this question elsewhere.


We would all assume with these modern Pre-Amps, that the signal
produced
would be flat from xxHz to xx,xxxHz, but I wonder what one now does
due
to inefficiencies in room acoustics, or the inefficiencies of a given
speaker?

**Indeed. What does one do? Here's what one SHOULD do:

One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser

What happens if there is some phase shift?

**Musical information is damaged.

Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?

**That is a meaningless question. Please rephrase in a way in which it
can be answered.

I agree, badly asked. I meant to say how much phase shift is bad?

**Any phase shift which is audible is bad. Some listeners are untroubled
by quite large phase shift problems. Others are not.

Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?

**With graphic EQs, yes, of course. That is the fundamental problem with
graphic EQs.

How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.

**No idea.


ZERO.

Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will
create theh exact same phase shift?

**No.

Wrong again.

(not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls), a properly calibrated
microphone/preamp/processor and the knowledge to use the whole lot to
acheive the desired result. Adjusting it, so it sounds "good" is not
acceptable. All of that costs money, time and expertise.


It needs some sort of decent test tone generator and an spl meter.

**A CALIBRATED SPL meter. BIG difference. We're not discussing El
CheapoT Radio Shack things here.

Funny, I thought they were calibrated and that while they are not ruler
flat, their charcteristics are well known and one can easily compensate
for their deviations.

**Then you'd be wrong. VERY wrong. Radio Shack SPL meters (and their
equivalents) are built down to a price. As such, precision components are
not used. The sample to sample variations are large and readily audible.
They are useful for rough measurements, but useless for precision
purposes.

Possibly but I've read elsewhere that they operate as described with the
error noted in the manual.

We're discussing products which can, at least, be
capable of besting human hearing abilities. That is not a cheap
exercise.


Does one with these caliber of systems now have to typically resort
to
modifying thier speaker's x-overs, spend countless $100's, to
$1,000's
of dollars in room treatments, call in the "sound techs-geek squad"
for
advice-testing or what?

**They might. Or not.


Is the addition of a simple Graphic EQ such a taboo thing nowadays?

**Indeed. A "simple" graphic EQ is worse than a "simple" tone control.
MUCH worse. They generally **** up sound quality very seriously
indeed. Worse, they're capable of misuse, causing even more problems.

I'll agree with you bout misuse, since too much boost can cause drivers
to become damaged. The rest of the above statement needs explanation.

**There is simply no chance that the specific EQ curves and frequencies of
a simple graphic EQ will match the problems which the user is attempting
to solve (outside the afore-mentioned lottery winning chance). A
parametric EQ has a MUCH better chance of solving the problems. These, of
course, require considerably more expertise to use correctly.


How are they worse? So far there's a lot of condemnation and sweeping
statements but no reasons why.

**There is more room for people to make more of a mess of any given
system. Additionally, simple graphic EQs exhibit relatively high 'Q'
adjustment points. A good 3rd Octave EQ overcomes much of the problems,
but still exhibits problems of its own. A digital EQ need not exibit any
flaws.

If you can obtain flat response through passive equalization, is it going
to be better or worse than active EQ?

**That would be akin to saying:

"If there is a God, then......"

Just as there is no God, there is no chance that a passive EQ can solve a
problem either.


That must be why you never see them in recording studios. :-(

I do see EQ's in abundance for the pro user, but really not much
available for the home audio user?

**Sure. Musos and 'sound engineers' are pretty hopeless (generally) at
what they do. Pop into a studio sometime and you'll understand.

Oh, I get it, they're supposed to treat an arena or every venue they
work in.

**Huh? I'm discussing STUDIOS and the incompetent morons who work in
them. Just listen to a typical, modern recording and you'll understand.

I do listen, and it seems to me that they are doing a pretty fair job
with the music I listen too.

**Our experiences are very different. They are, in the main, doing a crap
job.

Sometimes I don't like the way someting sounds, but
I assume it's the way things were agreed on in the mixdown process.

**Exactly. They mix the stuff, to compensate for the crap monitors and
impaired hearing they live with.


Maybe the studios you are familiar with. Even if the speakers are not flat,
the engineers know what the problems are and EQ them out.

I'll wager
that most would sound (much) better, if the morons were unable to adjust
their equalisers.

While I only know one proferssional recording engineer, his philosophy
was get the room flat.

**A good start.


What is left out there? Is there such a thing as a good EQ that will
not
be a detriment to high-end audio components?

**Yep. A GOOD, zero phase shift DIGITAL EQ will do the trick.

Name some that aren't minimum phase.

**Most of the decent digital EQs will be zero phase shift. I've used
Sabine, but there are others.

All Equalizers are minimum phase.


Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have no
need for such an animal?

**They may have need of such things, but whether they have the rest of
what is required is another story. A calibrated mic, knowledge and
experience don't come cheap.


It is not rocket science to read an spl meter and run some test tones.
Some EQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set the
curve automatically.

**Really? OK, smart guy: Tell me where you put the microphone. (I have
followup questions, when you think you've answered correctly.)

No matter what I say here, you're going to argue with it, so why not just
tellus where you would do it. It should be interesting since you seem to
goitten so much other stuff wrong.

**I've goitten nothing wrong, so far. However, you stick the microphones
in the ear canals of the listener/s. The presence of a listener will
affect sound. More listeners will require more measurements and more
adjustments. There will be a time (not far away) when these adjustments
will be automatic and continuous. Until that time the AVERAGE listener is
far better off without any form of tone controls.


I EQ for my position when listening, seems to always work for me. Adding a
couple more people into the room makes very little difference compared to
what existed before.
If you have an EQ that has multiple memories you could even account for more
people in the room.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
I know over the years, I've listened to quite a few vintage receivers,
many of which were Marantz from the good old golden '70's, and
honestly,
many of these sounded like crap to me, regardless of how pretty they
looked, and that on some, having 3 tone controls (Bass-Mid-Treble)
seemed more a detriment, than a help.

Didn't seem to matter what you did with the controls, I never could
get
a satisfying sound with them. Maybe an outboard EQ would've helped
in
these particular cases?

Maybe then again, nothing would resuscitate them? lol Mark

You have to know what frequencies the tone controls are set for. If
you
do
and know that there is a problem with the same frequency, you coould
probably tame it. You would need a meter and a source of test tones,
preferably pink noise, not warble tones.

That is not correct.

Why?

Mikey's mental deficiency noted. Mikey, have some beer. Start with a couple
of cans, and proceed from there.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
I know over the years, I've listened to quite a few vintage
receivers,
many of which were Marantz from the good old golden '70's, and
honestly,
many of these sounded like crap to me, regardless of how pretty they
looked, and that on some, having 3 tone controls (Bass-Mid-Treble)
seemed more a detriment, than a help.

Didn't seem to matter what you did with the controls, I never could
get
a satisfying sound with them. Maybe an outboard EQ would've helped
in
these particular cases?

Maybe then again, nothing would resuscitate them? lol Mark

You have to know what frequencies the tone controls are set for. If
you
do
and know that there is a problem with the same frequency, you coould
probably tame it. You would need a meter and a source of test tones,
preferably pink noise, not warble tones.

That is not correct.

Why?

Mikey's mental deficiency noted. Mikey, have some beer. Start with a
couple
of cans, and proceed from there.

Once again, a simple direct question goesa unanswered.

It would be so cleansing for you just to admit you don;t know what you are
talking about.

nyob123 wrote


Try asking the question on RAT. Plenty of eperts there.




If you meant lepers, you're being rude far more than usual.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:06:17 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

If the preamp alone is ten times the price of the receiver adding tone
controls might add hundreds its total cost.

Well worth it, considering it makes damn near all recordings sound better...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:14:52 -0400, Powell wrote:

Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people
who own audio gear like $12K Krell Amps, $7K
Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems
have no need for such an animal?

Why is that notion perplexing to you?

Because these people have very expensive systems that sound horrible on a
vast selection of recordings, due to the inability to boost the bass?

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
I know over the years, I've listened to quite a few vintage
receivers,
many of which were Marantz from the good old golden '70's, and
honestly,
many of these sounded like crap to me, regardless of how pretty
they
looked, and that on some, having 3 tone controls (Bass-Mid-Treble)
seemed more a detriment, than a help.

Didn't seem to matter what you did with the controls, I never
could
get
a satisfying sound with them. Maybe an outboard EQ would've
helped
in
these particular cases?

Maybe then again, nothing would resuscitate them? lol Mark

You have to know what frequencies the tone controls are set for. If
you
do
and know that there is a problem with the same frequency, you coould
probably tame it. You would need a meter and a source of test
tones,
preferably pink noise, not warble tones.

That is not correct.

Why?

Mikey's mental deficiency noted. Mikey, have some beer. Start with a
couple
of cans, and proceed from there.

Once again, a simple direct question goesa unanswered.

It would be so cleansing for you just to admit you don;t know what you are
talking about.

Time to booze up, Mikey. Get happy.

I Wrote:
Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have no
need for such an animal?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why is that notion perplexing to you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Because these people have very expensive systems that sound horrible on
a vast selection of recordings, due to the inability to boost the bass?
======================================

I've experienced good audio a few times, that was quite satisfying, and
easily surpassed my own system. Once was with all top of the line Krell
Gear running through two older B+W Matrix 801 Series III's.

Of course the system was set up well acoustically, and with a few great
MFSL CD's, it didn't ever cross my mind that something was lacking, or
was needed. Never thought that "well, this system seems to lack bass,
slam, dynamics, clarity, or maybe an EQ could help this system"?

Really great sound, that made the hair raise on my arms, and I reckon it
should, as this particular system was very close to $50K.
The B+W's seemed to be a nice match for the Krell Amps. The CD Player
cost more than the Amp! ($15K)

After some serious thinking after posting my original post on this
topic, I think I have a clearer understanding in what others have said
about how important good room acoustics are.

I do recognize also, and agree, that many older recordings were a bit
anemic in ways, and could use something to perk them up. Mark

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
I Wrote:
Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have no
need for such an animal?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why is that notion perplexing to you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Because these people have very expensive systems that sound horrible on
a vast selection of recordings, due to the inability to boost the bass?
======================================

I've experienced good audio a few times, that was quite satisfying, and
easily surpassed my own system. Once was with all top of the line Krell
Gear running through two older B+W Matrix 801 Series III's.

Of course the system was set up well acoustically, and with a few great
MFSL CD's, it didn't ever cross my mind that something was lacking, or
was needed. Never thought that "well, this system seems to lack bass,
slam, dynamics, clarity, or maybe an EQ could help this system"?

Really great sound, that made the hair raise on my arms, and I reckon it
should, as this particular system was very close to $50K.
The B+W's seemed to be a nice match for the Krell Amps. The CD Player
cost more than the Amp! ($15K)

After some serious thinking after posting my original post on this
topic, I think I have a clearer understanding in what others have said
about how important good room acoustics are.

I do recognize also, and agree, that many older recordings were a bit
anemic in ways, and could use something to perk them up. Mark

None of which means that an EQ can't be usueful.
Most of the negatives about using them are complete nonsense.

Point your browser at www.rane.com and check out any the info files.
I'm suggesting Rane is the product for you, but they are a good source of
info.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:19:47 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


It is impossible for any average listener to make any
kind of improvement to an audio system with tone controls.

This is a pretty absurd statement.

It does seem a bit sweeping, Trevor. What about an old recording with
severe bass/treble imbalance? Could not tone controls make it more
listenable? What you're saying may be strictly true with regard to the
best new recordings, but in the real world tone controls can be
invaluable.

In article V2B8f.496147$_o.359745@attbi_s71,
dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:06:17 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

If the preamp alone is ten times the price of the receiver adding tone
controls might add hundreds its total cost.

Well worth it, considering it makes damn near all recordings sound better...

If damn near all recordings sound bad on your system, there may be
bigger problems than a couple of missing tone controls.

Stephen

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:44:22 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article V2B8f.496147$_o.359745@attbi_s71,
dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:06:17 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

If the preamp alone is ten times the price of the receiver adding tone
controls might add hundreds its total cost.

Well worth it, considering it makes damn near all recordings sound better...

If damn near all recordings sound bad on your system, there may be
bigger problems than a couple of missing tone controls.

Bingo! But, then again, he is entitled to do what he likes.

Kal

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:26:24 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:14:52 -0400, Powell wrote:

Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people
who own audio gear like $12K Krell Amps, $7K
Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems
have no need for such an animal?

Why is that notion perplexing to you?

Because these people have very expensive systems that sound horrible on a
vast selection of recordings, due to the inability to boost the bass?

Boost away. The vast majority of my recordings don't need it.

Kal

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either. Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
Hi All, Sorry if this has been covered a zillion times before, but I
have some questions concerning Hi-End equipment, and thier features,
or
I should say, lack of.

I notice that many modern high end Pre-Amplifiers have an absence of
simple Tone Controls.

**Of course. "Simple" tone controls are useless. Utterly useless.
Utterly and completely useless.

Mostly because they are set for frequencies that azre not ususally a
problem in typical rooms

**That is part of it. They are completely arbitrary in their operation
too. The chances of solving a problem with tone controls (or fixed
frequency equalisers) is about the same as pulling off a big lottery
win. Without proper, CALIBRATED measurement equipment, adjusting even a
sophisticated EQ is a total crap shoot.


I basically understand the reasoning behind this, as the simpler the
chain, the less interference, or "destruction" I should say of the
purity of sound by introducing Tone Controls into the
Pre-Amplifier's
Circuittry.

**There's actually more to it, than that, but (simple) tone controls
can and do damage sound quality.

How?

**They shift phase in a fashion which is almost guaranteed not to equal
the phase shift of the problem which may exist.



Do purists now cringe at the thought of having at least a
Bass-Treble
Control on thier Pre-Amps?

**If they do not, they most certainly should.


Why?

**Because they **** up sound quality.


Still no how.

**I've answered this question elsewhere.


We would all assume with these modern Pre-Amps, that the signal
produced
would be flat from xxHz to xx,xxxHz, but I wonder what one now does
due
to inefficiencies in room acoustics, or the inefficiencies of a
given
speaker?

**Indeed. What does one do? Here's what one SHOULD do:

One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser

What happens if there is some phase shift?

**Musical information is damaged.

Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?

**That is a meaningless question. Please rephrase in a way in which it
can be answered.

I agree, badly asked. I meant to say how much phase shift is bad?

**Any phase shift which is audible is bad. Some listeners are untroubled
by quite large phase shift problems. Others are not.

Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?

**With graphic EQs, yes, of course. That is the fundamental problem with
graphic EQs.

How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.

**No idea.


ZERO.

Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will
create theh exact same phase shift?

**No.

Wrong again.

**Nope. Unless you're discussing precision EQs, no two are identical.


(not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls), a properly calibrated
microphone/preamp/processor and the knowledge to use the whole lot to
acheive the desired result. Adjusting it, so it sounds "good" is not
acceptable. All of that costs money, time and expertise.


It needs some sort of decent test tone generator and an spl meter.

**A CALIBRATED SPL meter. BIG difference. We're not discussing El
CheapoT Radio Shack things here.

Funny, I thought they were calibrated and that while they are not ruler
flat, their charcteristics are well known and one can easily compensate
for their deviations.

**Then you'd be wrong. VERY wrong. Radio Shack SPL meters (and their
equivalents) are built down to a price. As such, precision components are
not used. The sample to sample variations are large and readily audible.
They are useful for rough measurements, but useless for precision
purposes.

Possibly but I've read elsewhere that they operate as described with the
error noted in the manual.

**Nope. They're cheap, crappy, IMPRECISE devices. Their faults are well
within the limits of poorly functioning human ears. They are of little use
in setting up an equaliser. They MAY be of some use in comparative
measurements (levels only), but of no use in frequency repsonse
measurements. Anyone who imagines otherwise is seriously deluded. Wanna
speculate on how many decent speaker manufacturers use Radio Shack equipment
for anything other than rough and ready approximations? Bottom Line: If a
lister wants to adjust his.her system to compensate for problems, they will
need test equipment at least as good as that used by decent speaker
manufacturers. And that costs serious Bucks and requires experience to use.


We're discussing products which can, at least, be
capable of besting human hearing abilities. That is not a cheap
exercise.


Does one with these caliber of systems now have to typically resort
to
modifying thier speaker's x-overs, spend countless $100's, to
$1,000's
of dollars in room treatments, call in the "sound techs-geek squad"
for
advice-testing or what?

**They might. Or not.


Is the addition of a simple Graphic EQ such a taboo thing nowadays?

**Indeed. A "simple" graphic EQ is worse than a "simple" tone
control. MUCH worse. They generally **** up sound quality very
seriously indeed. Worse, they're capable of misuse, causing even more
problems.

I'll agree with you bout misuse, since too much boost can cause drivers
to become damaged. The rest of the above statement needs explanation.

**There is simply no chance that the specific EQ curves and frequencies
of a simple graphic EQ will match the problems which the user is
attempting to solve (outside the afore-mentioned lottery winning chance).
A parametric EQ has a MUCH better chance of solving the problems. These,
of course, require considerably more expertise to use correctly.


How are they worse? So far there's a lot of condemnation and sweeping
statements but no reasons why.

**There is more room for people to make more of a mess of any given
system. Additionally, simple graphic EQs exhibit relatively high 'Q'
adjustment points. A good 3rd Octave EQ overcomes much of the problems,
but still exhibits problems of its own. A digital EQ need not exibit
any flaws.

If you can obtain flat response through passive equalization, is it
going to be better or worse than active EQ?

**That would be akin to saying:

"If there is a God, then......"

Just as there is no God, there is no chance that a passive EQ can solve a
problem either.


That must be why you never see them in recording studios. :-(

I do see EQ's in abundance for the pro user, but really not much
available for the home audio user?

**Sure. Musos and 'sound engineers' are pretty hopeless (generally)
at what they do. Pop into a studio sometime and you'll understand.

Oh, I get it, they're supposed to treat an arena or every venue they
work in.

**Huh? I'm discussing STUDIOS and the incompetent morons who work in
them. Just listen to a typical, modern recording and you'll understand.

I do listen, and it seems to me that they are doing a pretty fair job
with the music I listen too.

**Our experiences are very different. They are, in the main, doing a crap
job.

Sometimes I don't like the way someting sounds, but
I assume it's the way things were agreed on in the mixdown process.

**Exactly. They mix the stuff, to compensate for the crap monitors and
impaired hearing they live with.


Maybe the studios you are familiar with. Even if the speakers are not
flat, the engineers know what the problems are and EQ them out.

**They can't. Unless the engineer has PRECISE measurements of the speakers,
in the room used, then that engineer cannot EQ any problems out.


I'll wager
that most would sound (much) better, if the morons were unable to
adjust their equalisers.

While I only know one proferssional recording engineer, his philosophy
was get the room flat.

**A good start.


What is left out there? Is there such a thing as a good EQ that will
not
be a detriment to high-end audio components?

**Yep. A GOOD, zero phase shift DIGITAL EQ will do the trick.

Name some that aren't minimum phase.

**Most of the decent digital EQs will be zero phase shift. I've used
Sabine, but there are others.

All Equalizers are minimum phase.


Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear
like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have
no
need for such an animal?

**They may have need of such things, but whether they have the rest
of what is required is another story. A calibrated mic, knowledge and
experience don't come cheap.


It is not rocket science to read an spl meter and run some test tones.
Some EQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set the
curve automatically.

**Really? OK, smart guy: Tell me where you put the microphone. (I have
followup questions, when you think you've answered correctly.)

No matter what I say here, you're going to argue with it, so why not
just tellus where you would do it. It should be interesting since you
seem to goitten so much other stuff wrong.

**I've goitten nothing wrong, so far. However, you stick the microphones
in the ear canals of the listener/s. The presence of a listener will
affect sound. More listeners will require more measurements and more
adjustments. There will be a time (not far away) when these adjustments
will be automatic and continuous. Until that time the AVERAGE listener is
far better off without any form of tone controls.


I EQ for my position when listening, seems to always work for me. Adding
a couple more people into the room makes very little difference compared
to what existed before.
If you have an EQ that has multiple memories you could even account for
more people in the room.

**You put the mics in your ear canals?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

**You put the mics in your ear canals?

Entirely feasible. I've seen it done.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
Hi All, Sorry if this has been covered a zillion times before, but
I
have some questions concerning Hi-End equipment, and thier
features, or
I should say, lack of.

I notice that many modern high end Pre-Amplifiers have an absence
of
simple Tone Controls.

**Of course. "Simple" tone controls are useless. Utterly useless.
Utterly and completely useless.

Mostly because they are set for frequencies that azre not ususally a
problem in typical rooms

**That is part of it. They are completely arbitrary in their operation
too. The chances of solving a problem with tone controls (or fixed
frequency equalisers) is about the same as pulling off a big lottery
win. Without proper, CALIBRATED measurement equipment, adjusting even
a sophisticated EQ is a total crap shoot.


I basically understand the reasoning behind this, as the simpler
the
chain, the less interference, or "destruction" I should say of the
purity of sound by introducing Tone Controls into the
Pre-Amplifier's
Circuittry.

**There's actually more to it, than that, but (simple) tone controls
can and do damage sound quality.

How?

**They shift phase in a fashion which is almost guaranteed not to
equal the phase shift of the problem which may exist.



Do purists now cringe at the thought of having at least a
Bass-Treble
Control on thier Pre-Amps?

**If they do not, they most certainly should.


Why?

**Because they **** up sound quality.


Still no how.

**I've answered this question elsewhere.


We would all assume with these modern Pre-Amps, that the signal
produced
would be flat from xxHz to xx,xxxHz, but I wonder what one now does
due
to inefficiencies in room acoustics, or the inefficiencies of a
given
speaker?

**Indeed. What does one do? Here's what one SHOULD do:

One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser

What happens if there is some phase shift?

**Musical information is damaged.

Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?

**That is a meaningless question. Please rephrase in a way in which it
can be answered.

I agree, badly asked. I meant to say how much phase shift is bad?

**Any phase shift which is audible is bad. Some listeners are untroubled
by quite large phase shift problems. Others are not.

Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?

**With graphic EQs, yes, of course. That is the fundamental problem with
graphic EQs.

How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.

**No idea.


ZERO.

Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will
create theh exact same phase shift?

**No.

Wrong again.

**Nope. Unless you're discussing precision EQs, no two are identical.


(not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls), a properly calibrated
microphone/preamp/processor and the knowledge to use the whole lot
to acheive the desired result. Adjusting it, so it sounds "good" is
not acceptable. All of that costs money, time and expertise.


It needs some sort of decent test tone generator and an spl meter.

**A CALIBRATED SPL meter. BIG difference. We're not discussing El
CheapoT Radio Shack things here.

Funny, I thought they were calibrated and that while they are not ruler
flat, their charcteristics are well known and one can easily compensate
for their deviations.

**Then you'd be wrong. VERY wrong. Radio Shack SPL meters (and their
equivalents) are built down to a price. As such, precision components
are not used. The sample to sample variations are large and readily
audible. They are useful for rough measurements, but useless for
precision purposes.

Possibly but I've read elsewhere that they operate as described with the
error noted in the manual.

**Nope. They're cheap, crappy, IMPRECISE devices. Their faults are well
within the limits of poorly functioning human ears. They are of little use
in setting up an equaliser. They MAY be of some use in comparative
measurements (levels only), but of no use in frequency repsonse
measurements. Anyone who imagines otherwise is seriously deluded. Wanna
speculate on how many decent speaker manufacturers use Radio Shack
equipment for anything other than rough and ready approximations? Bottom
Line: If a lister wants to adjust his.her system to compensate for
problems, they will need test equipment at least as good as that used by
decent speaker manufacturers. And that costs serious Bucks and requires
experience to use.


We're discussing products which can, at least, be
capable of besting human hearing abilities. That is not a cheap
exercise.


Does one with these caliber of systems now have to typically resort
to
modifying thier speaker's x-overs, spend countless $100's, to
$1,000's
of dollars in room treatments, call in the "sound techs-geek squad"
for
advice-testing or what?

**They might. Or not.


Is the addition of a simple Graphic EQ such a taboo thing nowadays?

**Indeed. A "simple" graphic EQ is worse than a "simple" tone
control. MUCH worse. They generally **** up sound quality very
seriously indeed. Worse, they're capable of misuse, causing even
more problems.

I'll agree with you bout misuse, since too much boost can cause drivers
to become damaged. The rest of the above statement needs explanation.

**There is simply no chance that the specific EQ curves and frequencies
of a simple graphic EQ will match the problems which the user is
attempting to solve (outside the afore-mentioned lottery winning
chance). A parametric EQ has a MUCH better chance of solving the
problems. These, of course, require considerably more expertise to use
correctly.


How are they worse? So far there's a lot of condemnation and
sweeping statements but no reasons why.

**There is more room for people to make more of a mess of any given
system. Additionally, simple graphic EQs exhibit relatively high 'Q'
adjustment points. A good 3rd Octave EQ overcomes much of the
problems, but still exhibits problems of its own. A digital EQ need
not exibit any flaws.

If you can obtain flat response through passive equalization, is it
going to be better or worse than active EQ?

**That would be akin to saying:

"If there is a God, then......"

Just as there is no God, there is no chance that a passive EQ can solve
a problem either.


That must be why you never see them in recording studios. :-(

I do see EQ's in abundance for the pro user, but really not much
available for the home audio user?

**Sure. Musos and 'sound engineers' are pretty hopeless (generally)
at what they do. Pop into a studio sometime and you'll understand.

Oh, I get it, they're supposed to treat an arena or every venue they
work in.

**Huh? I'm discussing STUDIOS and the incompetent morons who work in
them. Just listen to a typical, modern recording and you'll
understand.

I do listen, and it seems to me that they are doing a pretty fair job
with the music I listen too.

**Our experiences are very different. They are, in the main, doing a
crap job.

Sometimes I don't like the way someting sounds, but
I assume it's the way things were agreed on in the mixdown process.

**Exactly. They mix the stuff, to compensate for the crap monitors and
impaired hearing they live with.


Maybe the studios you are familiar with. Even if the speakers are not
flat, the engineers know what the problems are and EQ them out.

**They can't. Unless the engineer has PRECISE measurements of the
speakers, in the room used, then that engineer cannot EQ any problems out.


I'll wager
that most would sound (much) better, if the morons were unable to
adjust their equalisers.

While I only know one proferssional recording engineer, his philosophy
was get the room flat.

**A good start.


What is left out there? Is there such a thing as a good EQ that
will not
be a detriment to high-end audio components?

**Yep. A GOOD, zero phase shift DIGITAL EQ will do the trick.

Name some that aren't minimum phase.

**Most of the decent digital EQs will be zero phase shift. I've used
Sabine, but there are others.

All Equalizers are minimum phase.


Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear
like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have
no
need for such an animal?

**They may have need of such things, but whether they have the rest
of what is required is another story. A calibrated mic, knowledge
and experience don't come cheap.


It is not rocket science to read an spl meter and run some test
tones. Some EQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set
the curve automatically.

**Really? OK, smart guy: Tell me where you put the microphone. (I have
followup questions, when you think you've answered correctly.)

No matter what I say here, you're going to argue with it, so why not
just tellus where you would do it. It should be interesting since you
seem to goitten so much other stuff wrong.

**I've goitten nothing wrong, so far. However, you stick the microphones
in the ear canals of the listener/s. The presence of a listener will
affect sound. More listeners will require more measurements and more
adjustments. There will be a time (not far away) when these adjustments
will be automatic and continuous. Until that time the AVERAGE listener
is far better off without any form of tone controls.


I EQ for my position when listening, seems to always work for me. Adding
a couple more people into the room makes very little difference compared
to what existed before.
If you have an EQ that has multiple memories you could even account for
more people in the room.

**You put the mics in your ear canals?


No I put the SPL meter at ear level and make the reading that way with the
mic pointing at the ceiling.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
Hi All, Sorry if this has been covered a zillion times before, but
I
have some questions concerning Hi-End equipment, and thier
features, or
I should say, lack of.

I notice that many modern high end Pre-Amplifiers have an absence
of
simple Tone Controls.

**Of course. "Simple" tone controls are useless. Utterly useless.
Utterly and completely useless.

Mostly because they are set for frequencies that azre not ususally a
problem in typical rooms

**That is part of it. They are completely arbitrary in their operation
too. The chances of solving a problem with tone controls (or fixed
frequency equalisers) is about the same as pulling off a big lottery
win. Without proper, CALIBRATED measurement equipment, adjusting even
a sophisticated EQ is a total crap shoot.


I basically understand the reasoning behind this, as the simpler
the
chain, the less interference, or "destruction" I should say of the
purity of sound by introducing Tone Controls into the
Pre-Amplifier's
Circuittry.

**There's actually more to it, than that, but (simple) tone controls
can and do damage sound quality.

How?

**They shift phase in a fashion which is almost guaranteed not to
equal the phase shift of the problem which may exist.



Do purists now cringe at the thought of having at least a
Bass-Treble
Control on thier Pre-Amps?

**If they do not, they most certainly should.


Why?

**Because they **** up sound quality.


Still no how.

**I've answered this question elsewhere.


We would all assume with these modern Pre-Amps, that the signal
produced
would be flat from xxHz to xx,xxxHz, but I wonder what one now does
due
to inefficiencies in room acoustics, or the inefficiencies of a
given
speaker?

**Indeed. What does one do? Here's what one SHOULD do:

One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser

What happens if there is some phase shift?

**Musical information is damaged.

Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?

**That is a meaningless question. Please rephrase in a way in which it
can be answered.

I agree, badly asked. I meant to say how much phase shift is bad?

**Any phase shift which is audible is bad. Some listeners are untroubled
by quite large phase shift problems. Others are not.

Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?

**With graphic EQs, yes, of course. That is the fundamental problem with
graphic EQs.

How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.

**No idea.


ZERO.

Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will
create theh exact same phase shift?

**No.

Wrong again.

**Nope. Unless you're discussing precision EQs, no two are identical.


(not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls), a properly calibrated
microphone/preamp/processor and the knowledge to use the whole lot
to acheive the desired result. Adjusting it, so it sounds "good" is
not acceptable. All of that costs money, time and expertise.


It needs some sort of decent test tone generator and an spl meter.

**A CALIBRATED SPL meter. BIG difference. We're not discussing El
CheapoT Radio Shack things here.

Funny, I thought they were calibrated and that while they are not ruler
flat, their charcteristics are well known and one can easily compensate
for their deviations.

**Then you'd be wrong. VERY wrong. Radio Shack SPL meters (and their
equivalents) are built down to a price. As such, precision components
are not used. The sample to sample variations are large and readily
audible. They are useful for rough measurements, but useless for
precision purposes.

Possibly but I've read elsewhere that they operate as described with the
error noted in the manual.

**Nope. They're cheap, crappy, IMPRECISE devices. Their faults are well
within the limits of poorly functioning human ears. They are of little use
in setting up an equaliser. They MAY be of some use in comparative
measurements (levels only), but of no use in frequency repsonse
measurements. Anyone who imagines otherwise is seriously deluded. Wanna
speculate on how many decent speaker manufacturers use Radio Shack
equipment for anything other than rough and ready approximations? Bottom
Line: If a lister wants to adjust his.her system to compensate for
problems, they will need test equipment at least as good as that used by
decent speaker manufacturers. And that costs serious Bucks and requires
experience to use.


We're discussing products which can, at least, be
capable of besting human hearing abilities. That is not a cheap
exercise.


Does one with these caliber of systems now have to typically resort
to
modifying thier speaker's x-overs, spend countless $100's, to
$1,000's
of dollars in room treatments, call in the "sound techs-geek squad"
for
advice-testing or what?

**They might. Or not.


Is the addition of a simple Graphic EQ such a taboo thing nowadays?

**Indeed. A "simple" graphic EQ is worse than a "simple" tone
control. MUCH worse. They generally **** up sound quality very
seriously indeed. Worse, they're capable of misuse, causing even
more problems.

I'll agree with you bout misuse, since too much boost can cause drivers
to become damaged. The rest of the above statement needs explanation.

**There is simply no chance that the specific EQ curves and frequencies
of a simple graphic EQ will match the problems which the user is
attempting to solve (outside the afore-mentioned lottery winning
chance). A parametric EQ has a MUCH better chance of solving the
problems. These, of course, require considerably more expertise to use
correctly.


How are they worse? So far there's a lot of condemnation and
sweeping statements but no reasons why.

**There is more room for people to make more of a mess of any given
system. Additionally, simple graphic EQs exhibit relatively high 'Q'
adjustment points. A good 3rd Octave EQ overcomes much of the
problems, but still exhibits problems of its own. A digital EQ need
not exibit any flaws.

If you can obtain flat response through passive equalization, is it
going to be better or worse than active EQ?

**That would be akin to saying:

"If there is a God, then......"

Just as there is no God, there is no chance that a passive EQ can solve
a problem either.


That must be why you never see them in recording studios. :-(

I do see EQ's in abundance for the pro user, but really not much
available for the home audio user?

**Sure. Musos and 'sound engineers' are pretty hopeless (generally)
at what they do. Pop into a studio sometime and you'll understand.

Oh, I get it, they're supposed to treat an arena or every venue they
work in.

**Huh? I'm discussing STUDIOS and the incompetent morons who work in
them. Just listen to a typical, modern recording and you'll
understand.

I do listen, and it seems to me that they are doing a pretty fair job
with the music I listen too.

**Our experiences are very different. They are, in the main, doing a
crap job.


In your opinion.

Sometimes I don't like the way someting sounds, but
I assume it's the way things were agreed on in the mixdown process.

**Exactly. They mix the stuff, to compensate for the crap monitors and
impaired hearing they live with.


Maybe the studios you are familiar with. Even if the speakers are not
flat, the engineers know what the problems are and EQ them out.

**They can't. Unless the engineer has PRECISE measurements of the
speakers, in the room used, then that engineer cannot EQ any problems out.


Which they do in every studio I've evere been in, Boulevard Sound, A&M,
Capitol, and a few others.

I'll wager
that most would sound (much) better, if the morons were unable to
adjust their equalisers.

While I only know one proferssional recording engineer, his philosophy
was get the room flat.

**A good start.

But they also used EQ to flatten out the bumps here and there.

What is left out there? Is there such a thing as a good EQ that
will not
be a detriment to high-end audio components?

**Yep. A GOOD, zero phase shift DIGITAL EQ will do the trick.

Name some that aren't minimum phase.

**Most of the decent digital EQs will be zero phase shift. I've used
Sabine, but there are others.

All Equalizers are minimum phase.

Notice you didn't respond here, thanks for admitting I was correct.


Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people who own audio gear
like
$12K Krell Amps, $7K Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems have
no
need for such an animal?

**They may have need of such things, but whether they have the rest
of what is required is another story. A calibrated mic, knowledge
and experience don't come cheap.


It is not rocket science to read an spl meter and run some test
tones. Some EQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set
the curve automatically.

**Really? OK, smart guy: Tell me where you put the microphone. (I have
followup questions, when you think you've answered correctly.)

No matter what I say here, you're going to argue with it, so why not
just tellus where you would do it. It should be interesting since you
seem to goitten so much other stuff wrong.

**I've gotten nothing wrong, so far.

Now that's just not true, is it.

However, you stick the microphones
in the ear canals of the listener/s. The presence of a listener will
affect sound. More listeners will require more measurements and more
adjustments. There will be a time (not far away) when these adjustments
will be automatic and continuous. Until that time the AVERAGE listener
is far better off without any form of tone controls.

That would be the case no matter what you did.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:49:03 -0400, Kalman Rubinson
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:44:22 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article V2B8f.496147$_o.359745@attbi_s71,
dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:06:17 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

If the preamp alone is ten times the price of the receiver adding tone
controls might add hundreds its total cost.

Well worth it, considering it makes damn near all recordings sound better...

If damn near all recordings sound bad on your system, there may be
bigger problems than a couple of missing tone controls.

Bingo! But, then again, he is entitled to do what he likes.

Nope. My system is fine. Indeed, I've never heard a stereo system
that did not benefit greatly, on most recordings, by boosting the
bass. I believe the recordings themselves are just lacking the proper
balance in the bass.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:48:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either.

Complete nonsense, obviously. The vast majority of people like the
sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted
some.

Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

It's just stupid not to have these very useful controls on the preamp.
Many recordings benefit tremendously.

Maybe if all you listen to is classical, it doesn't matter...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:48:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either.

Complete nonsense, obviously. The vast majority of people like the
sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted
some.

**I didn't realise we were discussing PREFERENCES. I thought we were
discussing high fidelity. The two are not necessarily compatible. The vast
majority of people lack the ability and equipment to make adjustments on any
kind of tone controls to achieve any levle of improvements in a high
fidelity system. They can only adjust a system to please themselves.


Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:
---


---

Now list the typical equipment used by most amateurs to diagnose and adjust
room/speaker acoutic problems:

---


---

Can you see a slight discrepancy between the two?




It's just stupid not to have these very useful controls on the preamp.

**Incorrect. They are a pointless waste of space and money. They serve no
useful purpose.

Many recordings benefit tremendously.

**No. Unless you have some kind of reference, it is impossible to adjust for
recording deficiencies. I know of no commercial recordings (outside special
test recordings, not normally used by the public) which have reference
levels available to consumers.


Maybe if all you listen to is classical, it doesn't matter...

**Tone controls can damage ALL types of music equally.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:02:52 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:19:47 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

It is impossible for any average listener to make any
kind of improvement to an audio system with tone controls.

This is a pretty absurd statement.

It does seem a bit sweeping, Trevor. What about an old recording with
severe bass/treble imbalance? Could not tone controls make it more
listenable? What you're saying may be strictly true with regard to the
best new recordings, but in the real world tone controls can be
invaluable.

Yes. Someone else who "gets it". What really is ****ing me off is
this ridiculous notion in the high-end, that "tone controls are bad,
even when they can be switched-out", has resulted in there being
vitually zero selection of high-quality pre-amps that have this
feature.

Really, people, the extra (tone defeat) switch will NOT hurt. And
yes, people, for the price of "high end" pre-amps, tone-controls
should be part of the standard feature set.

I know NAD and Rotel have them, still, but they are limited to (IIRC)
+/- 5dB, which is not enough for some recordings. Why not give me +/-
10dB and let me decide if I only want to use 5 of it?

AFAIK, only McIntosh and Accuphase make preamps with proper tone
controls.

dippy said:

My system is fine.

How many pairs of pyjamas do you have now?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:

Non sequitur. Whatever they use does not render analogue tone
controls useless.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:41:10 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:49:03 -0400, Kalman Rubinson
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:44:22 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article V2B8f.496147$_o.359745@attbi_s71,
dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:06:17 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

If the preamp alone is ten times the price of the receiver adding tone
controls might add hundreds its total cost.

Well worth it, considering it makes damn near all recordings sound better...

If damn near all recordings sound bad on your system, there may be
bigger problems than a couple of missing tone controls.

Bingo! But, then again, he is entitled to do what he likes.

Nope. My system is fine.

Who said anything about your system! ;-)

Kal

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:48:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either.

Complete nonsense, obviously. The vast majority of people like the
sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted
some.

**I didn't realise we were discussing PREFERENCES. I thought we were
discussing high fidelity. The two are not necessarily compatible. The vast
majority of people lack the ability and equipment to make adjustments on
any kind of tone controls to achieve any levle of improvements in a high
fidelity system. They can only adjust a system to please themselves.


Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:
---


---

Now list the typical equipment used by most amateurs to diagnose and
adjust room/speaker acoutic problems:

---


---

Can you see a slight discrepancy between the two?




It's just stupid not to have these very useful controls on the preamp.

**Incorrect. They are a pointless waste of space and money. They serve no
useful purpose.

Many recordings benefit tremendously.

**No. Unless you have some kind of reference, it is impossible to adjust
for recording deficiencies. I know of no commercial recordings (outside
special test recordings, not normally used by the public) which have
reference levels available to consumers.


Maybe if all you listen to is classical, it doesn't matter...

**Tone controls can damage ALL types of music equally.


No, they change it in ways you don't like.

It seems since there is much made of the fact that prefernce is
sacrosanct,and that one should not chide the owner of an SET amp because
even though it is an unmitigated piece of **** as a hi-fidelity device, it
please the ear of some audiophiles, then tone controls ought to be part of
any preamp, so long as they can be defeated.

My hunch as to why the high end companies launched a propaganda campaign to
convince people they should not be included, is that it saves them money
while allowing them to charge just as much as if they were included.

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:

Non sequitur.

**OK, I'll phrase it another way:

What makes you think that the average listener has some magical abilities
which are lacking in professionals?

Whatever they use does not render analogue tone
controls useless.

**Oh, yes it does. Without serious measurement equipment and the knowledge
to use that equipment, ALL tone controls are useless. Including high
performance digital equalisers. Regular analogue tone controls are just a
waste of time, money and space.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:48:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either.

Complete nonsense, obviously. The vast majority of people like the
sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted
some.

**I didn't realise we were discussing PREFERENCES. I thought we were
discussing high fidelity. The two are not necessarily compatible. The
vast majority of people lack the ability and equipment to make
adjustments on any kind of tone controls to achieve any levle of
improvements in a high fidelity system. They can only adjust a system to
please themselves.


Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:
---


---

Now list the typical equipment used by most amateurs to diagnose and
adjust room/speaker acoutic problems:

---


---

Can you see a slight discrepancy between the two?




It's just stupid not to have these very useful controls on the preamp.

**Incorrect. They are a pointless waste of space and money. They serve no
useful purpose.

Many recordings benefit tremendously.

**No. Unless you have some kind of reference, it is impossible to adjust
for recording deficiencies. I know of no commercial recordings (outside
special test recordings, not normally used by the public) which have
reference levels available to consumers.


Maybe if all you listen to is classical, it doesn't matter...

**Tone controls can damage ALL types of music equally.


No, they change it in ways you don't like.

**Wrong. They change it in ways which are completely arbitrary. They are the
antithesis of high fidelity. I don't like SET amplifiers for EXACTLY the
same reasons. Tone controls and SET amplifiers have much in common. The
users of both products are deluded.


It seems since there is much made of the fact that prefernce is
sacrosanct,and that one should not chide the owner of an SET amp because
even though it is an unmitigated piece of **** as a hi-fidelity device, it
please the ear of some audiophiles, then tone controls ought to be part of
any preamp, so long as they can be defeated.

**I am quite happy to chide SET owners. They are just as deluded as those
who imagine tone controls are any use whatsoever.


My hunch as to why the high end companies launched a propaganda campaign
to convince people they should not be included, is that it saves them
money while allowing them to charge just as much as if they were included.

**Possibly. There are alternate explanations, however:

* Their inclusion affects sound quality negatively.
* They are utterly useless for the purpose they have been designed for.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by
professionals to diagnose and adjust room/speaker
acoustic problems: ---

Probably, the most commonly used system would be SMAART
software, running on a laptop pc, using a variety of pro
audio mic preamps, audio interfaces, and measurement
microphones.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by
professionals to diagnose and adjust room/speaker
acoustic problems: ---

Probably, the most commonly used system would be SMAART software, running
on a laptop pc, using a variety of pro audio mic preamps, audio
interfaces, and measurement microphones.

**Thank you. And I wonder what the list of equipment used by a TYPICAL
consumer would consist of? (As if I don't already know) Some morons even
imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. At
best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE
measurements. For absolutes, it is useless.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:26:24 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:14:52 -0400, Powell wrote:

Or am I missing the boat somehow, that people
who own audio gear like $12K Krell Amps, $7K
Krell Pre-Amps, and $14K Speaker systems
have no need for such an animal?

Why is that notion perplexing to you?

Because these people have very expensive systems that sound horrible on a
vast selection of recordings, due to the inability to boost the bass?

Boost away. The vast majority of my recordings don't need it.

Kal

His frame of reference may be live rock.
I find that in classical recordings, bass is usually more prominent than in
my reference venue, Verizon Hall in Philly.

In article , "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Thank you. And I wonder what the list of equipment used by a TYPICAL
consumer would consist of? (As if I don't already know) Some morons even
imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. At
best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE
measurements. For absolutes, it is useless.

That's where your analysis falls about. In audio, there ARE NO ABSOLUTES.
The systems are too complex. Move a speaker 2mm and the measurements are
vastly different.

In article , "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Tone controls can damage ALL types of music equally.

If a tone change really damaged music, no one would be allowed to listen to
anything except the reference system, now would they?

Trevor exhibits all the characteristics of a borg - more concerned about
technical specifications than the music. An utter waste of protoplasm,
Trevor's existence.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:20:31 +1000, Robert Morein
wrote:

In article , "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**Thank you. And I wonder what the list of equipment used by a TYPICAL
consumer would consist of? (As if I don't already know) Some morons even
imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. At
best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE
measurements. For absolutes, it is useless.

That's where your analysis falls about. In audio, there ARE NO ABSOLUTES.
The systems are too complex. Move a speaker 2mm and the measurements are
vastly different.


forgot to mention that my hifi is best moved about 50 metres away into
my backyard.
That is because it sounds like ****.
any closer and it is terrible.

reflected sound from my hifi is ok
maybe Bose is right

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:48:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:13:40 GMT, dizzy wrote:


Isn't the expensive stuff pricey enough as it is?

Oh, come on! $100 recievers have a tone controls but $1,000+ preamps
do not? You don't think that for that kind of money you should be
able to get a quality preamp with freaking tone controls? You don't
think it's a bit ludicrous that you LOSE features as you spend more
money?

I can't see why high end stuff isn't fitted with mild tone controls
(like those fitted to Rotel amps with a +/- of 6db) and a by-pass
switch to give the best of both worlds. Don't tell me that would add
much to the cost.

**It wouldn't, but it would not add any functionality either.

Complete nonsense, obviously. The vast majority of people like the
sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted
some.

**I didn't realise we were discussing PREFERENCES. I thought we were
discussing high fidelity. The two are not necessarily compatible. The
vast majority of people lack the ability and equipment to make
adjustments on any kind of tone controls to achieve any levle of
improvements in a high fidelity system. They can only adjust a system to
please themselves.


Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:
---


---

Now list the typical equipment used by most amateurs to diagnose and
adjust room/speaker acoutic problems:

---


---

Can you see a slight discrepancy between the two?




It's just stupid not to have these very useful controls on the preamp.

**Incorrect. They are a pointless waste of space and money. They serve
no useful purpose.

Many recordings benefit tremendously.

**No. Unless you have some kind of reference, it is impossible to adjust
for recording deficiencies. I know of no commercial recordings (outside
special test recordings, not normally used by the public) which have
reference levels available to consumers.


Maybe if all you listen to is classical, it doesn't matter...

**Tone controls can damage ALL types of music equally.


No, they change it in ways you don't like.

**Wrong. They change it in ways which are completely arbitrary.

And if that's someone's preference, so what? When did you become the
arbiter of what is the right way to listen to a stereo?

They are the
antithesis of high fidelity. I don't like SET amplifiers for EXACTLY the
same reasons. Tone controls and SET amplifiers have much in common. The
users of both products are deluded.

I would agree on the SET issue, but a freind of mine has a 100Hz bum imposed
by his room, which we tamed with the bass control on his reciever. It
sounded better after.

It seems since there is much made of the fact that prefernce is
sacrosanct,and that one should not chide the owner of an SET amp because
even though it is an unmitigated piece of **** as a hi-fidelity device,
it please the ear of some audiophiles, then tone controls ought to be
part of any preamp, so long as they can be defeated.

**I am quite happy to chide SET owners. They are just as deluded as those
who imagine tone controls are any use whatsoever.

You seem quite happy to condemn anybody who disagrees with you. It's about
enjoyment and ifsomebody wants to adjust the tone controls to get, so be it.
The trebel control can come in handy when listening to hissy FM stations, so
it's hardly usueless either.

My hunch as to why the high end companies launched a propaganda campaign
to convince people they should not be included, is that it saves them
money while allowing them to charge just as much as if they were
included.

**Possibly. There are alternate explanations, however:

* Their inclusion affects sound quality negatively.

In you r opinion.

* They are utterly useless for the purpose they have been designed for.

In your opinion.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by
professionals to diagnose and adjust room/speaker
acoustic problems: ---

Probably, the most commonly used system would be SMAART software, running
on a laptop pc, using a variety of pro audio mic preamps, audio
interfaces, and measurement microphones.

**Thank you. And I wonder what the list of equipment used by a TYPICAL
consumer would consist of? (As if I don't already know) Some morons even
imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. At
best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE
measurements. For absolutes, it is useless.


And yet with said meter and some correctionfiles I've found, I've managed to
EQ a few systems that sounded better afterwards.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Analogue tone
controls are useless. High end listeners are well aware of this fact.

Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves, just as many delude
themselves into buying expensive cables and $5,000 preamps that sound
no different from $1,000 preamps.

**Really? Please list the typical equipment used by professionals to
diagnose and adjust room/speaker acoustic problems:

Non sequitur.

**OK, I'll phrase it another way:

What makes you think that the average listener has some magical abilities
which are lacking in professionals?

Whatever they use does not render analogue tone
controls useless.

**Oh, yes it does. Without serious measurement equipment and the knowledge
to use that equipment, ALL tone controls are useless.

Aside from a source for test tones, and your stated requirement for a high
quality spl meter, what special knowledge is need to use an equalizer? The
instruction manuals should pretty much cover it. Place the meter in the
right place, play the reference pink noise covering the audio band, then
measure each of the 31 bands one by one. Adjust them till each one is the
same as your reference level and repeat until they all match.

I had occasion to use a friends EQ on my own system and then played an A/B
comparison for the most jaded subjectivist vinyl and tube loving guy I know.
His comment on the EQ'd sound: "there's more information." That was with
the RAT shack meter.

Including high
performance digital equalisers. Regular analogue tone controls are just a
waste of time, money and space.


For you.