| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"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? The well-informed, better-heeled consumers can use systems based on SMAART, ETF, Spectra Lab, and the better loudspeaker system design suites of software (Liberty, Clio, Sample Champion, Leap, etc.). People can get started with RMA 5.5's acoustical measrement facility which reliably tests both frequency response and nonlinear distortion. This is freeware - just a tiny half-meg download. Good test and analysis software can now easily cost more than the hardware required to support it. Berhinger's measurement mic is good, cheap, and readily avialable. Good audio interfaces for computers are getting to be cheap and readily available - even some of the better on-board interfaces are good enough for basic audio measurements. For example the SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit runs about $30, has 0.1 dB frequency response 50-15 KHz, and just about 90 dB dynamic range running through both its inputs and outputs. Some manfacturers of electronic crossovers and equalizers have been building fairly test signal sources and credible RTAs into their products for years. I've seen some very expensive surround receivers that appear to be able to semi-autonomously measure the acoustic environment in which they work, and adapt to it. A new higher end digital live sound console that was just announced includes an SMAART analysis system. Even an XBox has enough hardware to be the basis of a usable acoustic measurement system. I don't know if anybody has done to work required to exploit its power. (As if I don't already know) Some morons even imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. The RS SPL meter has many deficiencies, but they are so well-known that they can be worked around to the point where it can be better than nothing. At best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE measurements. For absolutes, it is useless. Agreed. You can tell someone who is serious about making absolute acoustic measurements - they have a mic calibrator that works with their mics, and use it periodically. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Robert Morein" wrote in
message rdnews.com Trevor exhibits all the characteristics of a borg - more concerned about technical specifications than the music. An utter waste of protoplasm, Trevor's existence. Trevor's little pinky finger probably has more useful audio knowlege and practical experience than Morein's whole body. Sad but true. If you see Morein attacking somone's intelligence, interpret that as a jealous rage. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Robert Morein" wrote in message rdnews.com... 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. The above is a forgery, by Brian L. McCarty. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message rdnews.com Trevor exhibits all the characteristics of a borg - more concerned about technical specifications than the music. An utter waste of protoplasm, Trevor's existence. Trevor's little pinky finger probably has more useful audio knowlege and practical experience than Morein's whole body. Sad but true. If you see Morein attacking somone's intelligence, interpret that as a jealous rage. Arny, the post is a forgery by McCarty. Now let's see if you play clean or dirty. McCarty will undoubtedly keep doing this. I post from Giganews. Check the headers. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message rdnews.com Trevor exhibits all the characteristics of a borg - more concerned about technical specifications than the music. An utter waste of protoplasm, Trevor's existence. Trevor's little pinky finger probably has more useful audio knowlege and practical experience than Morein's whole body. Sad but true. If you see Morein attacking somone's intelligence, interpret that as a jealous rage. Arny, the post is a forgery by McCarty. It's still 100% true. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote:
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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: 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. The only thing that matters IS preference in this case. If it sounds better to the listener, then it IS better, specious data point claims aside. After all, how do you establish an ABSOLUTE standard of "high fidelity" when individual listening abilities (read hearing curves) and biases (read, "I like a lot of bass" or "My wife has very acute hearing but I don't" sort of statements)? Test gear might not "lie" but it might be totally irrelevant. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: What makes you think that the average listener has some magical abilities which are lacking in professionals? What makes you think that "professionals" can always predict what a specific individual might value when listening to music? |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: What makes you think that the average listener has some magical abilities which are lacking in professionals? What makes you think that "professionals" can always predict what a specific individual might value when listening to music? **There are two dimensions to this question: 1) The professional who CREATES the music is an artist. The resulting music is what the artist has determined to be the correct product. Any alteration renders this artistry something other than what the artist created. For my part, I have several nice pieces of original art hanging on the walls of my home. I was fortunate to meet the artist of one of those pieces. Though I like the work a great deal, I was puzzled by what appeared to be a jarring discontinuity in the piece. After asking the artist why he treated the piece the way he did, it all made sense. I accept that artistic people think and act in ways that are fundamentally different to the ways I think and act. They add (literally) to the colour of my life. I would no sooner consider altering an artist's idea of a piece, than I would living on the Moon. 2) The professional who assisted the artist (the recording engineer) mixes that product according to his/her specific preferences, speaker choices, room effects, etc. Like it or not, #1 is correct. #2 is where serious problems can arise. Allowing professionals to muck about with tone controls can lead to the same disastrous results as when amateurs are allowed to use them. Some of the best recordings are the same ones where tone controls (equalisers) have not been used. Coincidence? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Robert Morein" wrote in message rdnews.com... 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. **Completely and utterly wrong. There are a great many absolutes. The systems are too complex. **No, they're not. Move a speaker 2mm and the measurements are vastly different. **Utter and complete bull****. A 2mm variation in speaker position would be completely inaudible to most listeners. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message rdnews.com Trevor exhibits all the characteristics of a borg - more concerned about technical specifications than the music. An utter waste of protoplasm, Trevor's existence. Trevor's little pinky finger probably has more useful audio knowlege and practical experience than Morein's whole body. Sad but true. If you see Morein attacking somone's intelligence, interpret that as a jealous rage. Arny, the post is a forgery by McCarty. Now let's see if you play clean or dirty. McCarty will undoubtedly keep doing this. I post from Giganews. Check the headers. The fact that it's a forgery has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information. I recall your insulting treatement of Dick Pierce when he disagreed with you. You are a petty, small minded twit. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "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? The well-informed, better-heeled consumers can use systems based on SMAART, ETF, Spectra Lab, and the better loudspeaker system design suites of software (Liberty, Clio, Sample Champion, Leap, etc.). People can get started with RMA 5.5's acoustical measrement facility which reliably tests both frequency response and nonlinear distortion. This is freeware - just a tiny half-meg download. Good test and analysis software can now easily cost more than the hardware required to support it. Berhinger's measurement mic is good, cheap, and readily avialable. Good audio interfaces for computers are getting to be cheap and readily available - even some of the better on-board interfaces are good enough for basic audio measurements. For example the SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit runs about $30, has 0.1 dB frequency response 50-15 KHz, and just about 90 dB dynamic range running through both its inputs and outputs. Some manfacturers of electronic crossovers and equalizers have been building fairly test signal sources and credible RTAs into their products for years. I've seen some very expensive surround receivers that appear to be able to semi-autonomously measure the acoustic environment in which they work, and adapt to it. A new higher end digital live sound console that was just announced includes an SMAART analysis system. Even an XBox has enough hardware to be the basis of a usable acoustic measurement system. I don't know if anybody has done to work required to exploit its power. (As if I don't already know) Some morons even imagine the Radio Shack SPL meter is actually usable for this purpose. The RS SPL meter has many deficiencies, but they are so well-known that they can be worked around to the point where it can be better than nothing. Trev has obviously remained unaware of the following: http://www.svsubwoofers.com/faq_rscomp.htm Maybe you already know how powerful a tool a simple Radio Shack Sound Pressure Meter is. If you use some of the popular test disks out there to check your room response there are some things you need to know about the meter. Some of these disks, like the popular "Autosound 2000 Bass CD #101", have sweeps or even chapter stops that show how even (or not) the response of your system is down low, below 20Hz even. The problem? The Radio Shack sound meter is not totally "linear" in its accuracy down there. All such meters are off by the same amount depending on the frequency however, which is good news! So that while its sensitivity below 20Hz is not what it is at 50Hz, there is a simple way to compensate for this deficiency. It's called a compensation chart. Using one is very simple, and a pencil and paper is all you need. Simply look to the below frequencies and add the required decibels (dBs) at the frequency in question. So if your system seems to be measuring 70dBs with a 20Hz tone, then really it's putting out 77.5dBs. This is a VERY substantial difference, roughly TWICE the acoustical energy, requiring many times the amplifier to achieve. You can see then how critical the below chart is if you are using an equalizer to even out room response of your bass. Maybe you are not bothered by any such variances, but if you are desirous of getting the most from your system it's something well worth investigating. Adding a simple equalizer like the ART 351 or the more complex and powerful Rane PE17 allow you the flexibility to affect your system response in the low bass regions easily. NOTE: Using sine waves at high SPLs can easily damage any subwoofer given their extreme stress on woofer voice coils. Use only a few seconds for any given tone during measurements, allow a minute or so in between frequencies, and keep actual SPL's low, in the 75-85dB range. Contact SVS if you have questions about room response measurements or proper use of sine waves in this process. So find out what your subwoofer(s) are REALLY doing, and add the following numbers as appropriate to your SPL meter readings: At 10Hz add 20dBs to the meter's readings and at ... 12Hz add 16.5dB 16Hz add 11.5dB 20Hz add 7.5dB 25Hz add 5dB 31.5Hz add 3dB 40Hz add 2.5dB 50Hz add 1.5dB 63Hz add 1.5dB 80Hz add 1.5dB 100Hz add 2dB 125Hz add .5dB Or this: http://www.audioc.com/library1/testcd/testcd.htm Using the ACI Subwoofer Test CD: Instructions for Using the Test CD Download Subwoofer Excel Worksheet Download Subwoofer PDF Worksheet for those without Excel * If asked for password just click cancel.* Adjusting the ACI Subs Using the ACI Test CD 1.. By Ear: Use the test tones, (most people prefer the sinewaves), to try to achieve the smoothest system response. Note, you will find very different results by just moving your head. This is because of the very strong effects that room modes have on low frequencies. 2.. Using the Radio Shack SPL meter and Excel spreadsheet: This method is relatively easy, inexpensive, and quite accurate. You must have Excel on your computer to be able to load and use the spreadsheet. It can be rather time consuming compared to methods four or five. 3.. Using the Radio Shack SPL meter and hand plotted graphs: Very similar to #2 but you'll have to do a little math when hand plotting. 4.. Using a test system such as ETF, CLIO or MLSSA: If you have this type of equipment you can run the measurements quickly and accurately. Usually the most expensive option. Most of these instruments are extremely powerful and can have a relatively steep learning curve. Separate measurement microphone and possibly microphone pre-amp will also be required. 5.. Using a RTA (Real Time Analyzer): This is probably the fastest method as you can see the results of your adjustments on-screen, in real time. RTAs used to be quite expensive. Computers with soundcards have drastically changed that! An excellent RTA can be found at: www.trueaudio.com. Separate measurement microphone and possibly a microphone pre-amp will also be required. The Steps 1.. We provide both sine waves and warble tones. Many people prefer sine waves for listening tests and warble tones for using the SPL meter. 2.. Insert the test disc in your CD player. Position the SPL meter at head height in the primary listening position. The meter should be aimed toward the speakers. A camera tripod can be used as the SPL meter has ¼ -20" threaded insert on the bottom. 3.. Set the SPL meter to "C" weighting, and response to slow. 4.. Start with the system volume turned down. Play a 60Hz warble tone and adjust the subwoofer volume to read 70dB on the SPL meter. 5.. Download the "Subwoofer One" MS Excel worksheet. 6.. Play the warble to tracks, read the measurements, and record in the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will make the calculations and show you a graph. 7.. Using the graph, you can now use the controls on your sub or experiment with placement to get the smoothest possible response. * If you don't have Excel, you can print the other PDF Subwoofer Worksheet out and do manual calculations. Your steps will be the same as above. However, for steps five and six you will need to manually plot your graph. Be sure to add or subtract the required correction for the meter. Or this: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=26728 The Radio Shack meter is a wonderful unit. About a two and a half years ago, I did a calibration curve for the RS meter using lab equipment, with Eric Busch from DLC Design adding the low bass down to 10 Hz. This was published in PSACS Sound Bytes in two issues. These are the corrections that should be added to the meter readout in order to achieve the correct SPL. These corrections are only valid for the meter set to C weighting, using 1/3 octave pink noise (easily available from various CDs), with the mic pointed at the speaker. Both my analog meters and my digital meter measured the same in October, 1996.These are corrections, they are to be added to the meter readout for the correct response in dB SPL. 10Hz +20.5 12.5Hz +16.5 16Hz +11.5 20Hz +7.5 25Hz +5 31.5Hz +3 40Hz +2.5 50Hz +1.5 63Hz +1.5 80Hz +1.5 100Hz +2 125Hz +0.5 160Hz -0.5 200Hz -0.5 250Hz +0.5 315Hz -0.5 400Hz 0 500Hz -0.5 630Hz 0 800Hz 0 1KHz 0 1.25Khz 0 1.6KHz -0.5 2Khz -1.5 2.5Khz -1.5 3.15Khz -1.5 4KHz -2 5KHz -2 6.3KHz -2 8KHz -2 10Khz -1 12.5KHz +0.5 16KHz 0 20KHz +1 To measure the in-room response of your speakers with the SLM, find a quiet and undistracted time, obtain a 1/3 octave pink noise CD, mic stand, and worksheet. With the speakers in their normal positions and using a mic stand for the SLM (I've had good results just holding the meter too, pink noise is forgiving), place its microphone where your ear would be at your favorite position or "sweet spot". Set the meter to "C" and "slow". Play the 1 Khz, 1/3 octave pink band and set the level on the amp or preamp, and the meter range, so the meter reads 80 dB at 0 dB on the meter. Higher levels might cause driver compression in the frequency extremes, rolling off the response. Now go back to the first ISO center 1/3 octave band on your CD (25 Hz on mine) and record the response: 3.5, or -1.0 , or -5.0, or whatever it is. Now step through the pink noise bands, recording the meter level each time. This is the raw data. Keeping the meter in the same measuring position, using an accurate CD, having a quiet room, repeating the measurements for accuracy, understanding what you are measuring, fresh batteries, not talking while measuring, having your meter calibrated for overall level (relative level comparison is unaffected), and doing only one speaker at a time if possible to avoid comb filtering (variations of plus or minus 2 dB are possible) are all important factors. Sometimes if I have to measure two speakers at a time, I move the meter around in a figure eight pattern, slowly, and try to obtain an average reading, as the microphone moves in and out of the combing peaks and troughs. Best accuracy would be obtained from taking several measurements at different listening positions, if one has the time and patience. Now take the raw data and make the corrections on the work sheet, entering the new values in the appropriate column. Time to either moan or marvel, since this is the actual in-room 1/3 octave pink noise frequency response of your speaker/system at that listening position. Plotting the results on graph paper in different colors for left, right, center, etc. makes it look cool. Yes, this way is tedious, but it is very inexpensive. And very accurate. For the third octave pink noise, I use Carver's Amazing Bytes CD, GRP Z-9907; other CD's with 1/3 octave pink noise ISO centers a My Disc, Sheffield 10045-2-T Sheffield/Coustic Test and Demonstration Disc, Sheffield 10040-2 Autosound 2000 CD #103, $18, 800-795-1830 IASCA Setup and Test CD HI-FI News and Record Review "CD-II", $30 Japan Audio Society Audio Test CD-1, YDDS-2 --- these last two available from DB Systems, 603-899-6415. For the others: http://www.audioxpress.com/ http://www.mcmelectronics.com/main.html http://www.parts-express.com/ Or this: http://www.prosoundweb.com/studyhall...lm/slm_4.shtml What, how, why, techniques and more 1 2 3 4 5 Relative vs absolute measurement Absolute measurements are those made with calibrated SLM's that provide actual sound pressure levels referenced to 20uPa (0dB-SPL). Such absolute SPL measurements may be used with and accurately compared to those provided by other calibrated and equal quality SLM's. Conversely, measurements made with un-calibrated SLM's or those with of low quality (including less then linear frequency response) do not accurately indicate actual sound pressure levels. SLM's that have been incorrectly user-calibrated or have simply lost their calibration over time also do not provide accurate absolute SPL values. Relative measurements are simply comparisons between sound pressure levels and do not require absolute calibration nor other "precision" performance characteristics such as a flat frequency response. Non-calibrated and lower-quality SLM's do provide meaningful comparative measurements as long as the same SLM is employed for these measurements and the measurements are made in the same manner. Example: A Radio Shack SLM, which is specified as providing +/-2.0dB-SPL accuracy and which has a less-than linear frequency response, is still able to provide realistic indication of the changes in relative sound pressure levels even though it does not provide accurate measurement of absolute sound pressure levels. Likewise, the SLM function contained in Smaart may be used "as is" (without calibration) for accurate relative SPL measurement. One relevant and valid relative SPL measurement that can be made in sound reinforcement work is determining the even-ness of coverage provided by a loudspeaker system. In this case virtually any SLM is able to indicate any deviations that may exist in the sound pressure levels as the SLM is moved about the coverage area of the loudspeaker system. In a similar manner we can observe changes in relative SPL as the gain of a sound system is brought up and down and we can accurately determine changes in SPL's as a noise source (machinery, for example) is turned on and off. Available SLM's As stated previously, SPL measurements made with Class-2 and Class-3 SLM's provide sufficiently accurate (within +/- 1.0dB) readings for what we require in sound reinforcement work. Until recently, SLM devices that met this level of accuracy were prohibitively expensive ($1,200 and up). Most of the old classic SLM's are cumbersome to set up and, due to their inherently fragile construction, are seldom used for touring sound or on-site installation work. In part 2 of this article we will provide information on several new low-cost SLM's that appear to meet the basic needs that we use in live sound. Without question the most common SLM's used by live sound folks have been those made by Radio Shack. These appear to represent a very good value, are easy to use and are readily available almost anywhere in North America. In researching for this article I have found that, along with all of the sound system operators and contractors who own a Radio Shack SLM (or two), there are large numbers of other users including university physics/acoustics and biology departments, municipalities, Hi Fi enthusiasts, home Hi Fi and theatre system installers and property management companies. And there are at least a few websites devoted to using the Radio Shack SLM for tweaking HiFi, project studio and sound reinforcement loudspeaker systems and for simple noise measurement. Note to Trevor: Bluster is no substitute for knowledge. At best, it merely allows VERY rough measurements and reasonable COMPARATIVE measurements. For absolutes, it is useless. Agreed. You can tell someone who is serious about making absolute acoustic measurements - they have a mic calibrator that works with their mics, and use it periodically. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "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? To master a recording, you mean? Please be more precise. 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. Absolute nonsense, obviously. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:12:39 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: 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. Then include a switch to short-out the tone controls. The switch WILL NOT affect sound quality negatively. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:51:32 GMT, wrote:
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. Yep, and the lack of the controls appeals to the audio snob, who really wants a piece of hardware "different" from the mass-market. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. That depends on whether it's really light on bass or if you just haven't optimized your setup with regards to speaker placement and or a subwoofer. An EQ properly integrated is the best option along with room treatment will give you the best possible sound you can get short of having a room built to be sonically correct. Check out the Alesis and Behringer units at places like zZsounds: http://www.zzounds.com/item--ALEDEQ230 If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:03:51 GMT, dizzy wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". The question still stands. 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. Are you saying that tone controls would do a BETTER job than an EQ? Personally, I tend to doubt it. If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Couldn't you say the same thing about a tone control circuit that would cost a couple of bucks? And, once that couple of bucks worth of circuitry is in the unit, can you change it? Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... Bad logic. 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... So, you'd prefer being stuck with a tone control that you can't change over the flexibility of being able to choose between many different options at many different price ranges. Weird. Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "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? To master a recording, you mean? Please be more precise. **What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? 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. Absolute nonsense, obviously. **Oh really? What makes you think that a specific room problem can be precisely corrected by any given tone control? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: 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. The only thing that matters IS preference in this case. If it sounds better to the listener, then it IS better, specious data point claims aside. After all, how do you establish an ABSOLUTE standard of "high fidelity" when individual listening abilities (read hearing curves) and biases (read, "I like a lot of bass" or "My wife has very acute hearing but I don't" sort of statements)? Test gear might not "lie" but it might be totally irrelevant. **Test equipment is NEVER irrelevant to high fidelity. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:56:02 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:03:51 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". The question still stands. The answer still stands. 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. Are you saying that tone controls would do a BETTER job than an EQ? Personally, I tend to doubt it. A parametric EQ could do it as well, no doubt. I was thinking of the far more common graphic EQ when I wrote the above. In any case, thought, there's a cost/performance trade-off that heavily favors the simple bass control, for what I'm talking about. If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Couldn't you say the same thing about a tone control circuit that would cost a couple of bucks? Only someone getting beat in the argument as badly as you are would say that. You're the person who paired the "cheap" EQ with the expensive preamp. I did not. The tone controls that I propose would be of the same quality as the rest of the preamp. And, once that couple of bucks worth of circuitry is in the unit, can you change it? It would be more than a "couple bucks", and you'll have to clarify your "change" question. Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... Bad logic. Wrong again. 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... So, you'd prefer being stuck with a tone control that you can't change What the hell are you talking about? over the flexibility of being able to choose between many different options at many different price ranges. What are these "many different options"? If you mean EQ's, then spit it out. Then, realize that I've already defeated that argument. Weird. Yes, your argument is weird. Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? Yes. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:57:52 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "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? To master a recording, you mean? Please be more precise. **What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? Are you mentally retarded? I'm talking about making the music sound better, which anyone with ears can do. 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. Absolute nonsense, obviously. **Oh really? What makes you think that a specific room problem can be precisely corrected by any given tone control? I see. You are mentally retarded and/or suffering from extreme reading comprehension problems. Just a few posts up in this thread, in message-id: I wrote "The vast majority of people like the sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted some." and "Many recordings benefit tremendously." You you really so dense that you think that I'm talking about correcting room problems? Or are you just an argumentative idiot who is making an ass of himself? You wrote of tone controls "**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." You were wrong. Period. You did not qualify your statements with "for correcting room problems." Analog tone controls are not useless. Now quite being such an obtuse ******* and admit it. Oh, here's another example, where I have already made plain you you what I'm talking about (and it's NOT room correction). On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:47:10 GMT, dizzy wrote in message id 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. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:33:08 GMT, dizzy wrote:
I see. You are mentally retarded and/or suffering from extreme reading comprehension problems. Just a few posts up in this thread, in message-id: I wrote "The vast majority of people like the sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted some." and "Many recordings benefit tremendously." You have posited this but is your information anything more than anecdotal? My experience is not the same. Kal |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:
**What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? What makes you think the average listener wants magical abilities? "Trevor Wilson" wrote: **Sure they are. Even professionals need a rough and ready measurement occasionally. I use mine that way. When I want PROPER, ACCURATE measurements, I use a system which has a calibration standard, with tracability. I think you've gone a long way to shooting yourself in the foot mate and proving the point made by NYOB. You clearly agree that the Tandy meters are useful occasionally, by a professional. They therefore are useful more than occasionally by the average listener, and are clearly better than nothing. I see no evidence that use of the Tandy meters can cause harm, and your comments above support this fact. If they were grossly inadequate they would have no use in a professional's kit. And if they were grossly in error, they would be considered broken and would not have been such good sellers. The fact that you can apparently get more detailed measurements from more expensive kit means nothing for the average hobbiest. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:57:52 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message m... 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? To master a recording, you mean? Please be more precise. **What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? Are you mentally retarded? I'm talking about making the music sound better, which anyone with ears can do. **"Better" is not necessarily more accurate. "Better" is a completely personal, totally subjective term. 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. Absolute nonsense, obviously. **Oh really? What makes you think that a specific room problem can be precisely corrected by any given tone control? I see. You are mentally retarded and/or suffering from extreme reading comprehension problems. Just a few posts up in this thread, in message-id: I wrote "The vast majority of people like the sound better when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted some." and "Many recordings benefit tremendously." **OK, provide me with the details which pertain to your study which proves that: 1) The vast majority of people like the sound when the inadequate bass on many recordings is boosted some. 2) Many recordings (presumably, "many" suggests the majority) benefit tremendously. You you really so dense that you think that I'm talking about correcting room problems? **What else would you be speaking of? The artist makes the music, not the listener. Or are you just an argumentative idiot who is making an ass of himself? **Nope. I just happen to know a little about the subject. I like to educate self appointed arbiters of what sounds best for everyone. You wrote of tone controls "**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." You were wrong. Period. You did not qualify your statements with "for correcting room problems." **That's because tone controls (the standard bass and treble ones) are useless for such a purpose. Analog tone controls are not useless. Now quite being such an obtuse ******* and admit it. **No point. They're useless in a decent system. Oh, here's another example, where I have already made plain you you what I'm talking about (and it's NOT room correction). On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:47:10 GMT, dizzy wrote in message id 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. **And again: You are now usurping the artist and his/her ideas of the music. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:59:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:54:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: 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. The only thing that matters IS preference in this case. If it sounds better to the listener, then it IS better, specious data point claims aside. After all, how do you establish an ABSOLUTE standard of "high fidelity" when individual listening abilities (read hearing curves) and biases (read, "I like a lot of bass" or "My wife has very acute hearing but I don't" sort of statements)? Test gear might not "lie" but it might be totally irrelevant. **Test equipment is NEVER irrelevant to high fidelity. You're avoiding the issue. Next thing you'll be telling me is that a listener doesn't even have to bother ever listening, or that test equipment is a REQUIREMENT for listening to music. Bah. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:16:36 GMT, dizzy wrote:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:56:02 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:03:51 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". The question still stands. The answer still stands. I still don't see why this would **** you off. First of all, you complain that the only high end preamps that have "proper" tone controls are "extremely expensive". This implies that they are out of your price range anyway. Then, you say later that spending a few hundred dollars on an EQ is a horrible thing, when the gear you are talking about is high dollar. THEN, you are willing to settle for a few dollars of cost in order to have inadequate knobs on your preamp. Additionally, there are PLENTY of preamps that have tone controls that you can choose from. They just don't have obscure names, heavy gold fronts and artsy designs. 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. Are you saying that tone controls would do a BETTER job than an EQ? Personally, I tend to doubt it. A parametric EQ could do it as well, no doubt. I was thinking of the far more common graphic EQ when I wrote the above. Well then that's YOUR problem, not mine. It's YOU who's now introducing this inner thought of yours. In any case, thought, there's a cost/performance trade-off that heavily favors the simple bass control, for what I'm talking about. When you're buying a $1500+ preamp, why worry about spending another $200-400 on a much better solution? Why take a substandard solution (you yourself claim that there are only two high end preamps that have proper tone controls anyway, and you don't seem willing to spend the money on either of them). If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Couldn't you say the same thing about a tone control circuit that would cost a couple of bucks? Only someone getting beat in the argument as badly as you are would say that. You're the person who paired the "cheap" EQ with the expensive preamp. I did not. No, you brought up the price relationship - I didn't. I didn't say for you to buy a "cheap" EQ. I didn't say spend $50 on some piece of Fisher junk. And you're the one who pairs a few dollars of cost with "an expensive preamp". So, you're spinning uncotrollably at this point because you've already lost. You're willing to settle on the cheapest possible solution. So don't start complaing about an EQ being "cheap", because it's far more expensive than what you're willing to settle for. The tone controls that I propose would be of the same quality as the rest of the preamp. And? And, once that couple of bucks worth of circuitry is in the unit, can you change it? It would be more than a "couple bucks", and you'll have to clarify your "change" question. Unless you're talking about using ALPS pots, it WILL just be a couple of bucks. And if you want to use such "quality" components, just get a Cello EQ. You seem hung up of the "quality" issue. I think for you it's just cosmetic. YOU really don't care about the result, just the bragging rights. About changing, I'm referring to the possibility that you might end up changing rooms and finding yourself stuck with a solution that MIGHT not be able to take care of any issues that the new room would offer. Tone controls are fine as far as they go, but they are STILL a compromise. Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... Bad logic. Wrong again. Just saying it doesn't make it so. You're equating dollars with quality on an absolute basis. If this were true, spending more money would ALWAYS buy you better components and this just isn't true. Also, you're comparing two different types of gear. That's like saying, if a proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a proper dishwahing compound would cost. 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... So, you'd prefer being stuck with a tone control that you can't change What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about being stuck with a couple of knobs that you can't change out for a better solution. Well, you can always add an EQ later, but then you're stuck with useless knobs. over the flexibility of being able to choose between many different options at many different price ranges. What are these "many different options"? If you mean EQ's, then spit it out. Then, realize that I've already defeated that argument. Of course I mean EQs. That's what we've been talking about, right? There are DOZENS of different models to choose from. There are also at least four different EQ solutions that have been mentioned (if you also count room treatments and careful consideration of speaker placement). Weird. Yes, your argument is weird. Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? Yes. Then why not buy something like these, since tone controls seem to be the only reason you want to buy a "high end preamp" chuckle: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...ubepreamp.html http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_4/v2n4g.html http://www.avahifi.com/root/review/f...preamp_hpr.htm http://www.avrev.com/news/0504/07.anthem.html |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:17:29 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: **What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? Are you mentally retarded? I'm talking about making the music sound better, which anyone with ears can do. **"Better" is not necessarily more accurate. "Better" is a completely personal, totally subjective term. Well yes. So tell me Trevor, if someone can use tone controls to make the system sound "better" to them, what's yer beef? What if a "more accurate" sound doesn't sound as good? |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:17:29 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
Or are you just an argumentative idiot who is making an ass of himself? **Nope. I just happen to know a little about the subject. I like to educate self appointed arbiters of what sounds best for everyone. Isn't that exactly what YOU'RE doing here when you deny a person the right to adjust for a subjectively better sound? |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "dizzy" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:57:52 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:08:43 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message om... 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? To master a recording, you mean? Please be more precise. **What makes you think that the average listener has magical abilities, to adjust tone controls and equalisers, to remove problems, without the use of calibrated equipment? Are you mentally retarded? I'm talking about making the music sound better, which anyone with ears can do. **"Better" is not necessarily more accurate. If you can make the sound more accurate with an EQ, what's the problem? "Better" is a completely personal, totally subjective term. And Audio is an entirely personal and subjective hobby for very many people. Personally, I prefer the most accurate sound I can get, which means some form of EQ. 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. You are so full of ****, that I don't know how you can stand yoruself. There is no magic about doing an EQ, if you some accurate tones and decent meter to measure them with. You you really so dense that you think that I'm talking about correcting room problems? **What else would you be speaking of? The artist makes the music, not the listener. Or are you just an argumentative idiot who is making an ass of himself? **Nope. I just happen to know a little about the subject. I like to educate self appointed arbiters of what sounds best for everyone. That's exactly what you are doing you dumb ass. Analog tone controls are not useless. Now quite being such an obtuse ******* and admit it. **No point. They're useless in a decent system. They are an inexpenisve feature that allow the listener some flexibility in tailoring the sound to his/her likes, and to tame hiisy FM reception or noisy old LP's. Oh, here's another example, where I have already made plain you you what I'm talking about (and it's NOT room correction). On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:47:10 GMT, dizzy wrote in message id 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. **And again: You are now usurping the artist and his/her ideas of the music. Are the music police going to come and arrest you if you **** around with the tone controls? Lots of people do some kind of tinkering with the sound of their systems, even if it's only moving their speakers around a bit. It's a matter of personal taste that high end gear should have built in. If you're not happy with the results of tone controls or choose not to use them or are not competent to use an EQ with an spl meter, that's your problem. I have done a few of them and never been unhappy with the results and neither have any of the people I've done them for. These days a 1/3 octave, digital, constant Q, EQ, can be had for as little as $165.00. so it's a small matter to insert one and try it out. A Radio Shack SPL meter is about $40.00 and when the corrections are factored into their measurements they are very useful in spite of your denials, even though confronted with multiple examples of their measured performance and comparisons to expensive meters. They are in fact pretty well QC'd so that a meter you bought 10 years ago is going to compare very well with one you bought last week. BTW since you seem to be unaware of who SVSubwoofers are, you might get off your ass and visit their website www.svsubwoofers.com and realize they make some of the best and best reviewed subs on the market. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:23:29 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:16:36 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:56:02 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:03:51 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:40:45 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:56:52 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. Why on earth would this "**** you off"? Read my last post again, starting with "has resulted". The question still stands. The answer still stands. I still don't see why this would **** you off. First of all, you complain that the only high end preamps that have "proper" tone controls are "extremely expensive". This implies that they are out of your price range anyway. What is it, exactly, about having a poor selection of components that fill my needs, is so hard for you to comprehend? Is it REALLLY so hard for you to understand that it would be "better" to have a mulitude of choices at different price points and from different companies? Sheesh! Then, you say later that spending a few hundred dollars on an EQ is a horrible thing, when the gear you are talking about is high dollar. I said it would be a mismatch, yes. Is that also difficult for you to understand? You are a real thinker, aren't you? THEN, you are willing to settle for a few dollars of cost in order to have inadequate knobs on your preamp. Nope. The "few dollars" things is your proposal. Additionally, there are PLENTY of preamps that have tone controls that you can choose from. I disagree, especially since some of those tone controls are inadequate, like the +/- 5dB controls on current NAD and Rotel preamps. They just don't have obscure names, heavy gold fronts and artsy designs. I would appreciate some examples, with good +/- 10 dB or better controls. The examples at the end of your post don't cut it for me, for various reasons, such as this. This is where having more choices would make help me. 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. Why, when adding an EQ is always an option, and is probably 99% always a better alternative? I don't agree that EQ's are "better", for the adjustments that I'm talking about - boosting the bass on bass-light recoerdings. Are you saying that tone controls would do a BETTER job than an EQ? Personally, I tend to doubt it. A parametric EQ could do it as well, no doubt. I was thinking of the far more common graphic EQ when I wrote the above. Well then that's YOUR problem, not mine. It's YOU who's now introducing this inner thought of yours. And it's YOUR problem that you can't understand that tone controls are a good compromise between the cost and complexity of an EQ and the (over) simplicity of a control-free preamp. In any case, thought, there's a cost/performance trade-off that heavily favors the simple bass control, for what I'm talking about. When you're buying a $1500+ preamp, why worry about spending another $200-400 on a much better solution? See above. Why take a substandard solution (you yourself claim that there are only two high end preamps that have proper tone controls anyway, and you don't seem willing to spend the money on either of them). A proper bass control does the task I'm talking about quite well, in my experience. Plus, remember the "mismatch"? Still, if you know of some "good" analog parametric EQ's, I'd be interested in checking them out... If we were talking about cheap gear forcing tightwads to buy EQs that cost more than the item in question, you might have a point. But for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation" that's probably a far better and more flexible solution? At least, it's an option, not something imposed on the buyer. Yes, it's an option. But what sense would it make to have a multi-$thousand preamp with a "few $hundred" EQ? That's not very balanced, now is it? Would not that "ruin" the sound? Couldn't you say the same thing about a tone control circuit that would cost a couple of bucks? Only someone getting beat in the argument as badly as you are would say that. You're the person who paired the "cheap" EQ with the expensive preamp. I did not. No, you brought up the price relationship - I didn't. No, you did, just a few paragraphs up. I didn't say for you to buy a "cheap" EQ. I didn't say spend $50 on some piece of Fisher junk. You wrote 'for someone spending thousands on a preamp, what's a few hundred more dollars for a "tone control situation"' And you're the one who pairs a few dollars of cost with "an expensive preamp". That's a bald-faced lie. It is you who continues with the "few dollars" nonsense. So, you're spinning uncotrollably at this point because you've already lost. That's very ironic, considering the ease at which I'm exposing the weakness of your case, plus your dishonesty. You're willing to settle on the cheapest possible solution. Your lies do not become you. So don't start complaing about an EQ being "cheap", because it's far more expensive than what you're willing to settle for. An argument based on lies. Pathetic. The tone controls that I propose would be of the same quality as the rest of the preamp. And? And? And, once that couple of bucks worth of circuitry is in the unit, can you change it? It would be more than a "couple bucks", and you'll have to clarify your "change" question. Unless you're talking about using ALPS pots, it WILL just be a couple of bucks. Just what kind of pot do you think would be a proper match for a $1,000 preamp? Those thinking skill of yours are something to behold... To spell it out for you, yes, I'm talking about high-quality tone controls, using high-quality pots, like ALPS. And if you want to use such "quality" components, just get a Cello EQ. No. I just want quality bass and trable controls. You seem hung up of the "quality" issue. I think for you it's just cosmetic. What you think is often quite stupid. YOU really don't care about the result, just the bragging rights. Another bald-faced lie from you. Sickening. Listen, idiot. I'm the one here who is concerned with performance. If I just wanted "bragging rights", any fancy tone-control-free preamp would provide the necessary snob appeal. About changing, I'm referring to the possibility that you might end up changing rooms and finding yourself stuck with a solution that MIGHT not be able to take care of any issues that the new room would offer. That's not what I want tone controls for. Tone controls are fine as far as they go, but they are STILL a compromise. Of course they are. Hell, if proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a "proper" EQ would cost... Bad logic. Wrong again. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Just saying "bad logic" doesn't make it so. You're equating dollars with quality on an absolute basis. If this were true, spending more money would ALWAYS buy you better components and this just isn't true. Straw man. Also, you're comparing two different types of gear. That's like saying, if a proper preamp with no tone controls costs over $1000, I'd hate to guess what a proper dishwahing compound would cost. Bad logic, considering that preamps and EQ's are both audio components and have many similarities. 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. If that's the case, then why be forced to buy something that's not "proper"? I'd prefer more selection. Both those brands are extremely expensive, for one thing... So, you'd prefer being stuck with a tone control that you can't change What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about being stuck with a couple of knobs that you can't change out for a better solution. Well, you can always add an EQ later, but then you're stuck with useless knobs. Oh my, how terrible that would be. In any event highly unlikely, since they have always worked quite well for me to adjust for different recording's bass levels. over the flexibility of being able to choose between many different options at many different price ranges. What are these "many different options"? If you mean EQ's, then spit it out. Then, realize that I've already defeated that argument. Of course I mean EQs. That's what we've been talking about, right? There are DOZENS of different models to choose from. There are also at least four different EQ solutions that have been mentioned (if you also count room treatments and careful consideration of speaker placement). A completely analog parametric EQ would be the only type I would consider. Weird. Yes, your argument is weird. Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? Yes. Then why not buy something like these, since tone controls seem to be the only reason you want to buy a "high end preamp" chuckle: Yet ANOTHER bald-faced lie from you. What does it say about you that you lie so easily, and then laugh about it? http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...ubepreamp.html http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_4/v2n4g.html These two have inadequate boost. I need at least +/-10 dB, which is extremely common, until you start to get into the "high end". http://www.avahifi.com/root/review/f...preamp_hpr.htm Doesn't say what the boost is. I don't think it's remote-controllable either. Kind of an oddball tube-thingy in general. Before you embarrass yourself further, note that I consider good tone controls a required feature, but hardly the only thing that matters. This is where having more selection helps. http://www.avrev.com/news/0504/07.anthem.html This one digitizes everything and runs it through a DSP. That's not what I want. I want a simple, high-quality, analog preamp with good tone controls (and yes, a remote for the volume). |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote:
I want a simple, high-quality, analog preamp with good tone controls (and yes, a remote for the volume). I should note that, fortunately for me, a preamp that meets the above criteria and is also reasonably priced is not totally non-existant. In fact I own one. It's no longer made, and I stumbled-upon it after months of searching. It retailed for about $1,000, and yes, it has ALPS pots in the tone-control circuits. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote:
Still, if you know of some "good" analog parametric EQ's, I'd be interested in checking them out... Go on eBay and look for SAE. The rest of your post is just blather... |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote:
I'm talking about being stuck with a couple of knobs that you can't change out for a better solution. Well, you can always add an EQ later, but then you're stuck with useless knobs. Oh my, how terrible that would be. In any event highly unlikely, since they have always worked quite well for me to adjust for different recording's bass levels. Then just get a damn preamp with tone controls. Simple. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:52:25 GMT, dizzy wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote: I want a simple, high-quality, analog preamp with good tone controls (and yes, a remote for the volume). I should note that, fortunately for me, a preamp that meets the above criteria and is also reasonably priced is not totally non-existant. In fact I own one. It's no longer made, and I stumbled-upon it after months of searching. It retailed for about $1,000, and yes, it has ALPS pots in the tone-control circuits. Well then, you've already got what you need. Unless you're just interested in churning your gear. If that's the case, then I can't help you. Your name is approriate, THAT'S for sure. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
"dizzy" wrote in message
Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? If I want a preamp with good tone controls I just patch some good parametrics (usually a pair of Rane SP-15s) in line right before my power amp. They work well with both my Conrad Johnson and my Apt Holman preamps. |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:04:11 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:52:25 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote: I want a simple, high-quality, analog preamp with good tone controls (and yes, a remote for the volume). I should note that, fortunately for me, a preamp that meets the above criteria and is also reasonably priced is not totally non-existant. In fact I own one. It's no longer made, and I stumbled-upon it after months of searching. It retailed for about $1,000, and yes, it has ALPS pots in the tone-control circuits. Well then, you've already got what you need. Unless you're just interested in churning your gear. If that's the case, then I can't help you. Not interested in churning gear. I just think it's a sad state of affairs that it's so difficult to find what is really the obvious design and which SHOULD be commonly-available. "Oh, a tone-defeat switch will hurt my sound", says the audio snob... Your name is approriate, In your opinion. THAT'S for sure. Nope. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:27:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: dave weil wrote in message Just out of curiousity, are you even IN the market for such a preamp? If I want a preamp with good tone controls I just patch some good parametrics (usually a pair of Rane SP-15s) in line right before my power amp. They work well with both my Conrad Johnson and my Apt Holman preamps. Why are you replying to something *I* wrote? |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:27:56 GMT, dizzy wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:04:11 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:52:25 GMT, dizzy wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:12 GMT, dizzy wrote: I want a simple, high-quality, analog preamp with good tone controls (and yes, a remote for the volume). I should note that, fortunately for me, a preamp that meets the above criteria and is also reasonably priced is not totally non-existant. In fact I own one. It's no longer made, and I stumbled-upon it after months of searching. It retailed for about $1,000, and yes, it has ALPS pots in the tone-control circuits. Well then, you've already got what you need. Unless you're just interested in churning your gear. If that's the case, then I can't help you. Not interested in churning gear. I just think it's a sad state of affairs that it's so difficult to find what is really the obvious design and which SHOULD be commonly-available. And *I* think it's weird that this ****es you off. And that you can't make up your mind, i.e. that you're in the market for a new preamp when you have one that you seem to be happy with already. Sounds like a churning situtation to me... Actually, the *obvious* design in a high end preamp is to eliminate the unnecessary and since parametrics or digitals (or even graphics, depending on your specific problem) can do so much of a better job, then why would you need tone controls? If you'd quit spinning, you wouldn't BE so dizzy. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tone Controls, EQ's Etc.
dave weil wrote :
Your name is approriate, THAT'S for sure. Name calling ? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Yamaha C-6 preamplifier tone controls | Tech | |||
| Issues bypassing tone controls. Did I screw up? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| DIY Amp - Tone controls update (semi-long). | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| DIY AMP Tone controls don't work - help? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Is it true you can't bypass the Behringer UB802's tone controls ? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
