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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

"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.

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.

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

I don't think they should. One of the untoward effects of high end marketing
has been the deletion of useful features. However, tone controls don't work
very well for any purpose.

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?

1. Match the speakers to the room. Find the right position.
2. Treat the room with absorbers.
3. As a last resort, attempt a touchup with an eq. Do not reverse this
order.

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?

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

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

That is because equalizers work poorly to correct defects of small rooms. In
very large spaces, the modes tend to merge toward a continuum, so the
professional problem is different.

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?

Any gadget damages the signal. However, it's a common tendency of the high
end to prefer simplicity to an actual solution. But remember: equalizers do
not work well in the home. Use one only as a touchup. In the past, speakers
had much less regular frequency response. Equalizers remain useful to
correct speaker anomalies, but little of these exist.

As an example of my personal use, I have a 36 band equalizer which is set to
provide a 2dB boost in the 2.15 kHz band to a set of Acoustat electrostatic
panels; no other adjustments are used. In another system, I use a bass
equalizer to flatten the room response of a closet subwoofer.

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?

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

It could be that. I have posted on a couple of occasions on the lack of
publications on how a home user can use an eq. From the lack of response, I
conclude that the subject has not received sufficient investigation for
someone to do a FAQ.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:41:56 -0600, (Mark D) wrote:

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

You mean "almost all" modern pre-amps do not have tone controls.
Basically, this is proof of how STUPID most "audiophiles" are.

You see, they are so ignorant, that they believe having this one extra
control will somehow hurt the sound. Even if they can switch the
control out. "Oh, I don't want a SWITCH in there..."

Of course, they're too stupid to understand that there's already
multiple switches/cable-connections in the signal chain, and one more
(high-quality) switch will NOT hurt the sound.

In a nutshell, it's painful example of the snob/nutcase/idiots of the
world out-numbering those who have brains in their heads. Many
recordings benefit greatly by boosting the bass.

"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.


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.


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.


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 (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.


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 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.


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.


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.


TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

**Yep.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
(Mark D) wrote:

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.

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.

Okay. Who are you quoting when you say, "destruction"?

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

No. It's more likely they agree with your first thought.

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?

Room treatments, speaker placement, parametric eq.

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?

Have to? Lord, no.

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

Why bother, when pro quality parametric and digital eq is available?

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

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?

TacT has a well-respected room-correction eq/preamp. Some have reported
good results from pro gear such as Behringer and Z-systems. Then there's
the Cello Palette.

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?

Generally, no, but some problems call for eq.

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

Probably just moderation delays.

Stephen

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

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

One should buy a DIGITAL, zero phase shift equaliser (not possible with
"simple" analogue tone controls),

Many people consider this to be at least partically incorrect, myself
included.
ANY causal filter causes phase shift. It doesn't matter whether the filter
is in the form of a distributed L-C cable, or a room resonance, or whatever.
It does not matter what PHYSICAL FORM the filter takes. The modes of a room
constitute a causal filter, and it causes phase shift.

An analog equalizer, since it is also a causal filter, also has phase shift.
But when it is used to correct frequency response, it exerts phase shift in
the opposite direction of the anomaly that requires the adjustment. Thus, an
analog equalizer actually reduces total phase shift when used in reaction to
room modes.

On the other hand, room absorption at far-field distances does not
constitute a linear system integrated with the speaker. Consequently, high
mid and treble frequency response that is not liked by the listener might be
optimally corrected with a zero phase shift equalizer. But this begs the
further question, does this technique work very well? Many people feel that
correcting absorptive room response with an equalizer results in
subjectively worse sound, consequent to the fact that reflected sound is not
perceived in the same way as direct sound.

So whether phase shift in analog equalizers can be a reason to switch to
digital depends upon the details of the intended use. As I have remarked on
multiple occasions, there seems to be no FAQ on how a residential user can
productively use an equalizer. In most cases, the opportunities seem to be
limited to perhaps one or two low modes. In afew cases, the user may be
dissatisfied with a speaker response anomaly that can be smoothed over. But
the phase angle of the speaker at that point is tyically not known to the
user, still begging the question of whether to use a zero phase shift
instrument.

Perhaps there are other reasons people would like to submit, such as the bad
behavior of op-amps giving gain. But eq boosts have other problems as well,
with the amplifier, and drivers. Perhaps an all digital chain would be a
sufficient reason, but as I recall, most digital eqs are used analog
in/analog out.

"Robert Morein" 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.

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.

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

I don't think they should. One of the untoward effects of high end
marketing
has been the deletion of useful features. However, tone controls don't
work
very well for any purpose.


Shouldn't high end gear have tone controls that are more useful and more
numerous, say several parametric controls instead of just a bass and treble
control? Digital controls that keep the Q constant are not that expensive.
Many rooms seem to cause a bump in bass response around 50 Hz or so, yet
even tone cotrols are set around 100 Hz in most cases.

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?

1. Match the speakers to the room. Find the right position.
2. Treat the room with absorbers.
3. As a last resort, attempt a touchup with an eq. Do not reverse this
order.

Why would that be bad? They are all forms of EQ?

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?

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

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

That is because equalizers work poorly to correct defects of small rooms.

In what respect do they work poorly?

In
very large spaces, the modes tend to merge toward a continuum, so the
professional problem is different.

Why wold n't a 31 band 1/3 octave Eq work just as well in a smaller room?

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?

Any gadget damages the signal.

It may add some distortion or noise, but typical EQ's are very quiet and low
distortion.
As long as these still are not audible when summed with the other devices,
what's the problem?

However, it's a common tendency of the high
end to prefer simplicity to an actual solution. But remember: equalizers
do
not work well in the home.

An offfer of proof would be good about now.

Use one only as a touchup. In the past, speakers
had much less regular frequency response. Equalizers remain useful to
correct speaker anomalies, but little of these exist.

You must not be reading the same speaker reviews I am. Most speakers seem
to have a bump in respnse at the low end strarting at around 100 Hz and
rising to a peak at around 40-50 Hz before falling off.

As an example of my personal use, I have a 36 band equalizer which is set
to
provide a 2dB boost in the 2.15 kHz band to a set of Acoustat
electrostatic
panels; no other adjustments are used. In another system, I use a bass
equalizer to flatten the room response of a closet subwoofer.

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?

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)


It could be that. I have posted on a couple of occasions on the lack of
publications on how a home user can use an eq. From the lack of response,
I
conclude that the subject has not received sufficient investigation for
someone to do a FAQ.

I know my response to this poster was approved and will show up soon. I
believe the poster is just not used to the delay from a moderated group.

"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.

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

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?


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?

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? Is phase audible at all
frequenicies?

(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.

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.


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

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.

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.


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
ERQ's come with a caibrated mic and tone generator and set the curve
automatically.

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

**Yep.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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.

A consequence of the widespread belief that any component
part that comes even vaguely near the signal path will
audibly corrupt the sound. This paranoia even extends to
chassis materials.

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
Circuitry.

I revel in the irony of people whose idea of "personal
preference" involves making choices that have no reliably
audible effect on sound quality, while eschewing making
choices with the knobs of an equalizer, which do have a
reliably audible effect on sound quality.

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

So it seems.

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?

There's a history behind this.

In the early days of stereo, there were lots of small
speakers (smaller size dictated by the need for 2) that
lacked bass. In order to sound good, you had to turn up the
bass, which was only a partial solution because the speakers
were so nonlinear at low frequences that bass boosting only
made them sound muddy. People turned the bass up anyway, but
a turned-up bass control was a sign of guilt.

The first *improvement* to this was provided by the loudness
switch. It provided a bass boost at low frequencies that was
reduced at higher volumes, partially alleviating the muddy
bass problem. The switch was far less conspicious than the
boosted bass control, so it provided reduced guilt.

The second improvement was low-efficiency small speakers
that actually had some bass. For many people neither a
loudness switch nor a bass boost control was required, and
all sins were *forgiven*. It thus became a status symbol to
have audio gear that lacked either tone controls or a
loudness countour because you had speakers that were good
enough to require neither.

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?

Current wisdom is that the best approach to getting good
sounds is room acoustics improvements, not equalizers. Room
acoustics treatments cost more money as well, so both audio
perfectionism and also snob appeal is optimized again by
means of avoiding tone controls, loudness switches or
equalizers.

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

I seriously doubt that there are many commercial recordings
that have not undergone some kind of signal processing, a
goodly chunk of which nets out to be some kind of
equalization.

So, if equalizers are a curse against good sound, virtually
all commercial recordings come from the factory, pre-cursed.

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

A lot of pro gear has crossed over to home use. Of all the
kinds of pro gear around, the equalizers are the most likely
to have RCA jacks in addition to the usual audio production
standard XLR and/or TRS jacks. Furthermore, pro equalizers
that don't come from the factory with RCA jacks are often
upgraded with RCA jacks in the field. For example I picked
up a number of Rane SP-12 parametric (a low-noise version of
the PE-12) equalizers on eBay from different sellers that
came with different *audiophile grade* RCA jacks added by
the previous owner.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:55:41 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:41:56 -0600, (Mark D) wrote:

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

You mean "almost all" modern pre-amps do not have tone controls.
Basically, this is proof of how STUPID most "audiophiles" are.

You see, they are so ignorant, that they believe having this one extra
control will somehow hurt the sound. Even if they can switch the
control out. "Oh, I don't want a SWITCH in there..."

Of course, they're too stupid to understand that there's already
multiple switches/cable-connections in the signal chain, and one more
(high-quality) switch will NOT hurt the sound.

There's some truth in this. I've never been able to hear the presence
of (flat) tone controls in an amp, switched in or out.

In a nutshell, it's painful example of the snob/nutcase/idiots of the
world out-numbering those who have brains in their heads. Many
recordings benefit greatly by boosting the bass.

Really? How many bass deficient recordings do you own?

One other use of equalisers that's often overlooked is in recording. I
use an equaliser quite a lot to improve the sound of vintage
recordings (50s and 60s) when transferring them to minidisc. Here an
equaliser really comes into its own. I've resurrected many CDs I would
not otherwise have been able to listen to this way.

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.

Moistly 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 evena 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.


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.


(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. 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.


How are the 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.



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


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.


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 ERQ'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.)


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I used a Tact for a while, the sound was dry, tried a bunch of Pro
Audio eq's until the Beringer Ultra Curve came out.

This was the bet unit I found for a natural sound and ease of control.
Look it up at Partsexpress.com.

I paid full price for plus shipping and it was the least expensive one
I bought. Get the Beringer Mic from them also if you do, they are
voiced together, I used other mic's for a while but theirs is the best
match,

I used it on Acoustats with Jeff Rowland amps, Using the Beringer as
the preamp. I sold it and bought the Rowland Consummate, after
figuring out how acoustics worked...


Ed
Mark D wrote:
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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

TIA, Mark
(PS: I posted this to RAHE, and it seems everyone there is afraid to
respond)

"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.

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? Does it
affect some frequencies more than others?
How many examples of NON-MINIMUM phase equalizers are there.
Isn't it true that ANY 2 equalizers generting the same EQ curve will create
theh exact same phase shift?

(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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 ERQ'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.

"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.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:02:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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

Bull**** they are. I find that many recordings I listen to have a
lack of bass. The bass control fixes that. FAR from useless - in
fact to me it's indispensable.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:48:54 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

In a nutshell, it's painful example of the snob/nutcase/idiots of the
world out-numbering those who have brains in their heads. Many
recordings benefit greatly by boosting the bass.

Really? How many bass deficient recordings do you own?

Quite a few, the worst offenders being older rock CD's, which I still
like to jam-to on occasion. Even newer recordings usually benefit
from some bass boost.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:09:28 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

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

Why bother, when pro quality parametric and digital eq is available?

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Some people
are afraid to have even a simple set of tone controls, with a
high-quality switch to take them out of the circuit. Some other
people think it's just dandy to stick a ADC/DSP/DAC in the circuit.

All most people need is tone controls. That's why they were/are so
popular. The only thing that amazes me is that the expensive stuff
doesn't have them!

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

In your opinion. In MOST people's opinions, some bass boost makes
most recordings sound ***much*** better.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:47:10 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:02:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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

Bull**** they are. I find that many recordings I listen to have a
lack of bass. The bass control fixes that. FAR from useless - in
fact to me it's indispensable.

Please keep this in context. The original response was to a question
about using tone controls to compensate for room conditions or speaker
aberrations. Using it as a tone control to sweeten a recording to
your subjective preference is an appropriate use.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:47:10 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:02:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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

Bull**** they are. I find that many recordings I listen to have a
lack of bass. The bass control fixes that. FAR from useless - in
fact to me it's indispensable.

Please keep this in context. The original response was to a question
about using tone controls to compensate for room conditions or speaker
aberrations. Using it as a tone control to sweeten a recording to
your subjective preference is an appropriate use.

Kal


What Dizzy was responding to eliminated that context, utterly and
completely.

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:09:28 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

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

Why bother, when pro quality parametric and digital eq is available?

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

No.

Some people
are afraid to have even a simple set of tone controls, with a
high-quality switch to take them out of the circuit. Some other
people think it's just dandy to stick a ADC/DSP/DAC in the circuit.

I have the first of those. No problem.

All most people need is tone controls. That's why they were/are so
popular. The only thing that amazes me is that the expensive stuff
doesn't have them!

Most tone controls aren't set for the frequencies where I would want
them.

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

Stephen

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:17:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:09:28 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

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

Why bother, when pro quality parametric and digital eq is available?

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

No.

Isn't "the truth" somewhere between those extremes? I think it is.

Some people
are afraid to have even a simple set of tone controls, with a
high-quality switch to take them out of the circuit. Some other
people think it's just dandy to stick a ADC/DSP/DAC in the circuit.

I have the first of those. No problem.

You'd also have no problem with tone controls and a "defeat" switch.

All most people need is tone controls. That's why they were/are so
popular. The only thing that amazes me is that the expensive stuff
doesn't have them!

Most tone controls aren't set for the frequencies where I would want
them.

They are not there for "room correction", you know...

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?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


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

Don't believe it. Never heard the slightest difference with tone
controls switched in or out whatever the measurements say.

Anyhow, you swore, so you have to put a coin in the box. :-)

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:17:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:09:28 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

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

Why bother, when pro quality parametric and digital eq is available?

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

No.

Isn't "the truth" somewhere between those extremes? I think it is.

No, because "the truth" is that analog graphic eqs are ill-advised for
home use, unless used just for fun.

Some people
are afraid to have even a simple set of tone controls, with a
high-quality switch to take them out of the circuit. Some other
people think it's just dandy to stick a ADC/DSP/DAC in the circuit.

I have the first of those. No problem.

You'd also have no problem with tone controls and a "defeat" switch.

That's what I have.

All most people need is tone controls. That's why they were/are so
popular. The only thing that amazes me is that the expensive stuff
doesn't have them!

Most tone controls aren't set for the frequencies where I would want
them.

They are not there for "room correction", you know...

That's not what I would use them for.

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?

No, if the feature is one I don't use anyway and has possible negative
effects.

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

Stephen

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


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

Don't believe it. Never heard the slightest difference with tone
controls switched in or out whatever the measurements say.

**Fair enough. I have. Many times. I will NEVER tolerate analogue tone
controls in any system of mine. Not ever. Digital ones are another story.


Anyhow, you swore, so you have to put a coin in the box. :-)

**Aw, **** it.

**** it, I swore again.

Bugger.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**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.


He got the part right about your intelligence, Mikey.
Good sarcasm, Trevor.

"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

"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.

Still in the end you'd probably only reveal other problems with other
frequencies.
Assuming the problems aren't to severe, an equalizer can help, particularly
in the bass, since most rooms with a sub will have a bump that's pretty
nasty, so being able to cut it will help your sub sound better and play
louder.

For many rooms with decent speakers the mid frequencies will probably need
the least help. Higher frequncies can be problematic if they need boost
because you can damage the tweeter if you boost to much.

Room treatments can be very helpful for some things but tend to be very
expensive. It migfht ber worthwhile to see if you can find some reliable
DIY treatments and give them a try. I've seen articles on home made bass
traps as well as diffusers that seemed like they could be done with a
modicum of skill.

In the end you will find that active EQ is used more than you might suspect,
espcially in places like THX theatres. They are not the curse that some
would have you believe but care needs to be taken and some learning about
where to place an spl meter and a source for test tones is essential.

I can't remember the name of the program but a free one os available so you
can generate tone files on your computer and burn them to a CD.

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.

"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

It wasn't the tone controls that did them in. It was amplification that was
not up to current standards. Ie., excessive distortion.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


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

Don't believe it. Never heard the slightest difference
with tone controls switched in or out whatever the
measurements say.

**Fair enough. I have. Many times. I will NEVER tolerate
analogue tone controls in any system of mine. Not ever.
Digital ones are another story.

I'm quite sure that the average audiophool would go
ballistic if they really understood real world audio
production.

For example I do a lot of work with a Yamaha 02R96, which is
a highly-regarded but modestly-priced (under $10,000)
digital console that is widely used for recording and live
sound. Like most digital consoles priced from $595.00 to
$595,000 it has a standard equalizer and dynamics processor
on all of the main inputs and outputs. If you go through
the equalizers on my 02R96 you'll find that just about every
input and output has some kind of frequency response shaping
that was dialed in by moi.

While Trevor might say - those are those good digital eqs,
the fact is that being digital confers no special magic on
an eq. For practical reasons, analog eqs are minimum phase
which Trevor seems to think is a bad thing at least some of
the time, but digital eqs can and do have just about any
phase/amplitude characteristic that someone cares to design
for them. A goodly number digital equalizers are also
minimum phase - in order to get that familiar "analog
sound".

If you look at just about *any* recording console analog or
digital, *every* channel has from 2 to *large number*
equalizers that are switched in and out at will. Many of
them can't readily be bypassed - as close as you can come to
bypassing them is to set them for flat response.

Bottom line - all this obsessing about elminating the tone
controls from the signal path is rendered completely
ineffective by most of the recordings that everybody listens
to.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:01:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


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

Don't believe it. Never heard the slightest difference
with tone controls switched in or out whatever the
measurements say.

**Fair enough. I have. Many times. I will NEVER tolerate
analogue tone controls in any system of mine. Not ever.
Digital ones are another story.

I'm quite sure that the average audiophool would go
ballistic if they really understood real world audio
production.

For example I do a lot of work with a Yamaha 02R96, which is
a highly-regarded but modestly-priced (under $10,000)
digital console that is widely used for recording and live
sound. Like most digital consoles priced from $595.00 to
$595,000 it has a standard equalizer and dynamics processor
on all of the main inputs and outputs. If you go through
the equalizers on my 02R96 you'll find that just about every
input and output has some kind of frequency response shaping
that was dialed in by moi.

While Trevor might say - those are those good digital eqs,
the fact is that being digital confers no special magic on
an eq. For practical reasons, analog eqs are minimum phase
which Trevor seems to think is a bad thing at least some of
the time, but digital eqs can and do have just about any
phase/amplitude characteristic that someone cares to design
for them. A goodly number digital equalizers are also
minimum phase - in order to get that familiar "analog
sound".

If you look at just about *any* recording console analog or
digital, *every* channel has from 2 to *large number*
equalizers that are switched in and out at will. Many of
them can't readily be bypassed - as close as you can come to
bypassing them is to set them for flat response.

Bottom line - all this obsessing about elminating the tone
controls from the signal path is rendered completely
ineffective by most of the recordings that everybody listens
to.

And yet, I bet that you'd throw a fit if your neighbor came in and
changed all of your EQ settings right before you mastered your
material.

"dizzy" wrote

In a nutshell, it's painful example of the
snob/nutcase/idiots of the world
out-numbering those who have brains in
their heads.

Words of a Broke-A$$®

"Mark D" wrote

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

Or phono head amps, too.


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.

Well, yes and no. There are other considerations
too.


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

For what purpose?


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?

Purchase better speakers or fix the room's
acoustic problems. In this regard nothing has
changed over the last 20 years.


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

Equalizers with less than 31 bands per channel
are toys (not high end). OTOH, 31 bands
amounts to 31 filters. One of the most common
complaints of equalizers are that they tend to add
a dullness to the overall sound.

If the equalizer is intended to compensate for
room problems they are often placed between
the pre-amp and power amp, as opposed to using
them in the tape loop function. In this regard they
are often used in the set-and-forget mode.


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

That has always been the case. However,
in terms of component parts much of the "pro
user" equipment is far below that of high end
equipment.


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?

In theory no, in practice yes. Equalization in
the digital domain can be very good.


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?

Powell said:

Words of a Broke-A$$®

dippy does sound very Kroogerish. May his soul R.I.P.


..
..
..

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

In your opinion. In MOST people's opinions, some bass boost makes
most recordings sound ***much*** better.

**I am not discussing subjective preferences. I am discussing ACTUAL,
objective performance. It is impossible for any average listener to make any
kind of improvement to an audio system with tone controls.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:08:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"dizzy" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

In your opinion. In MOST people's opinions, some bass boost makes
most recordings sound ***much*** better.

**I am not discussing subjective preferences. I am discussing ACTUAL,
objective performance. 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.

Oh wait, you're not talking about how a system SOUNDS to the listener.

Sorry. I thought you were talking about something important.

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.

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

**No.


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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 ERQ'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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au