Why No Treble and Bass Controls on High-End Audio Pre-amplifiers?

bonzo75 said:

He confused between two people who are at opposite ends of the digital analog spectrum, the political spectrum, and east and west coast

Click to expand...

And who sometimes agree on things, as is natural.

valkyrie said:

The absence of tone controls, is based on an observation concerning a certain ARC preamp - that HP, in his infinite wisdom and perfect hearing - found added noise to the signal when the tone controls were engaged. There was an article based on this in his marketing rag. From that point forward the conformist manufacturers, desperate for a positive review, eschewed implementing tone controls in their equipment. Unfortunately the so-called "high end" is ruled by orthodoxy and conformity.

Understandable when an arbitrary review by some fellow can make or break a product. This is true because the consumers of "high end" equipment are for the most part an uncertain bunch. Paying stratospheric prices for consumer equipment leads people to question their expensive decisions. Consequently the high end types need reassurance and validation about their decision making. The net result is that reviewers have an enormous impact on purchasing decisions. Makes no sense at all if viewed objectively - why pay any attention to some fellow, even if possessed of self proclaimed golden ears - who has differing tastes and a completely different room than the prospective consumer?

I used to read the marketing rags - I really enjoyed the adjectival and adverbial frothing of JV, the "just the fact's Ma'am" Joe Friday style of Harley - and the elitist pandering of the rest of the crew. The rags were some of the best surreal science fiction I have ever read. But the question always remained - who cares what these fellows like or don't like? I am listening for MY PLEASURE - not to conform to some ordained orthodoxy passed down by self-proclaimed masters from "on high" or to be a member of some gossamer hierarchy. No - as Hendrix noted - I will be the one to die when it is my turn to die, so I will LISTEN THE WAY I WANT TO. (slight paraphrase on the last clause - from if 6 were 9 - I think that was on Axis Bold as Love).

This leads to the other reason why tone controls should be included with your preamplifier - YOUR ROOM has not even a passing sonic similarity to that of the producing engineer. How can any reasonable person expect what the mix sounded like in the studio to be even remotely similar in a completely different sonic environment? Therefore tone controls are a substantial gain to the MUSIC LOVER.

I fully realize that this rant will no doubt cause me to lose my "audiophile card". Who cares?

See you fellows at RMAF. Where you can harangue and lambast me for my unorthodox views.

Click to expand...

I for one like your unorthodox and commonsense views. But then I am not sure if I ever had a real "audiophile card" among the 'elite community' either.

Question becomes with a lot of the recordings that we own...did the artist themselves actually listen to the finished product and approve of the result? Having spoken to a number of artists about this very issue, it would seem that many do not listen and simply accept what the mastering engineer has wrought. OTOH, there certainly are a few artists that are VERY involved in the process...and want to have control over what the finished product sounds like. Therefore, what you get is what your artist is hoping that you will hear. Next question becomes, do you want to alter that sound in order for it to be more pleasing to your ear?
If I remember correctly, Mark Levinson debuted a superb EQ unit with multiple tone controls when he was selling the Cello gear. Are there not members here who still own that piece and enjoy it?

DaveyF said:

OTOH, there certainly are a few artists that are VERY involved in the process...and want to have control over what the finished product sounds like. Therefore, what you get is what your artist is hoping that you will hear. Next question becomes, do you want to alter that sound in order for it to be more pleasing to your ear?

Click to expand...

Also here applies what I said before (exchange sound engineer for artist):

Al M. said:

What is more, the preference of the sound engineer may be influenced by the frequency response of his studio monitors in his particular control room. I have seen graphs showing markedly different frequency curves of the in room response of the same monitor in different studios around the world.

Click to expand...

There is just no objective way of knowing what your artist is hoping that you will hear.

Most Classical music this is a non issue ,except for recordings made with tube recorders(Ampex has a bump in the mid range). The transformers used, can color the sound. But all in all, I use a preamp that has every gadget and use none of it.

That’s why many preamps have a tape loop. It allows you to add tone control (parametric EQ) when you want it and bypass it completely when you don’t. There are many live recordings that can use some help from time to time....especially in the classic rock/pop genre.

JackD201 said:

I never understood Objective 2 Ron. What's on the master is what it is. What gets to the end consumer as far as analog goes, is never exactly what's on the master tape anyway. Ultimately what we get is information and that information is altered in varying degrees of acceptability and retrieved and transduce'd hopefully in an acceptable manner as well. The way I see it, everything is a tone control in one way or another. I've just accepted that.

Perhaps what people mean by Objective 2 is not really about hearing what the engineers heard but rather drawing the most information out of the media in our possession. I think I would fall into that camp.

Click to expand...

I would like to point out one studio had engineers compare between the master tape, vinyl, and digital. No one that worked there could tell the difference between the vinyl and tape. Everyone could tell the difference between analog and digital.

So it's not really all that true to claim you're never getting anything near the master tape. If they're mastered the same and you don't have the 5,000's pressed disc, you may be really hearing pretty much what the master sounds like.

rockitman said:

That why many preamps have a tape loop. It allows you to add tone control (parametric EQ) when you want it and bypass it completely when you don’t. There are many live recordings that can use some help from time to time....especially in the classic rock/pop genre.

Click to expand...

This is also because tapes almost always need tones. During the process of recording the only way to get certain dynamic bits onto the tape easily is with manipulation of certain frequencies that they can later correct. It's a huge problem in the industry when old master tapes need tones but no one wrote down what they need, as at the time they may have had dedicated machines so they never thought about it. Some record companies used the same tones on all machines so it wasn't an issue - others are a who-knows situation. Why it matters is because we're still using those tapes now, but we can slip up on some of the intention that was originally there without comparing closely to old album releases.

Folsom said:

No one that worked there could tell the difference between the vinyl and tape.

Click to expand...

This doesn't say much good about their critical listening abilities. Especially taking into account that while their tape deck was likely top notch, their vinyl setup probably was not. It would actually be amazing if they had a decent table, tonearm, cart and phono. Alternatively, their electronics were not transparent at all.

To get even two different turntables to sound identical is nearly impossible. Deaf studio engineers.

analogsa said:

This doesn't say much good about their critical listening abilities. Especially taking into account that while their tape deck was likely top notch, their vinyl setup probably was not. It would actually be amazing if they had a decent table, tonearm, cart and phono. Alternatively, their electronics were not transparent at all.

To get even two different turntables to sound identical is nearly impossible. Deaf studio engineers.

Click to expand...

I wish you were joking. They listened on the same table that cuts the albums you listen to.

You listening to gear that sounds so vastly different from one to another is merely showing their flaws, not the flaws of hearing from other people. The best two tables in the world would sound about as identical as possible, if they really were the best. The problem is people like subjective differences, they like different, so people sell different.

Folsom said:

I wish you were joking. They listened on the same table that cuts the albums you listen to.

Click to expand...

Can you give us some references or links on these listening tests?

If I come across any of it again. It was just a post from an engineer awhile back.

analogsa said:

To get even two different turntables to sound identical is nearly impossible. Deaf studio engineers.

Click to expand...

What did you say??

Bruce B said:

What did you say??

Click to expand...

Because everyone but tinkerrers with exotic materials are just charlotens - measurements, graphs, theories, etc are surpressive annoyances holding us all back.

Bruce, let's get real. How long until you replace all the bearings in your studio with sapphire, all your capacitors with teflon, custom graphite resistors upgrades, and remove all those pesky shields on XLR cables. You have to wonder why anyone takes you seriously while you're being weighed down by all the conventional BS. Maybe after you've fixed all these reliable measured products, into something exotic and invented by someone with enough money that they never needed to make a profit through engineering that can stand on its own.... your hearing will evolve into something credible.

Folsom said:

I would like to point out one studio had engineers compare between the master tape, vinyl, and digital. No one that worked there could tell the difference between the vinyl and tape. Everyone could tell the difference between analog and digital.

So it's not really all that true to claim you're never getting anything near the master tape. If they're mastered the same and you don't have the 5,000's pressed disc, you may be really hearing pretty much what the master sounds like.



This is also because tapes almost always need tones. During the process of recording the only way to get certain dynamic bits onto the tape easily is with manipulation of certain frequencies that they can later correct. It's a huge problem in the industry when old master tapes need tones but no one wrote down what they need, as at the time they may have had dedicated machines so they never thought about it. Some record companies used the same tones on all machines so it wasn't an issue - others are a who-knows situation. Why it matters is because we're still using those tapes now, but we can slip up on some of the intention that was originally there without comparing closely to old album releases.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not being able to tell the difference between two things and those two things not being identical my friend.

JackD201 said:

I never understood Objective 2 Ron. What's on the master is what it is. What gets to the end consumer as far as analog goes, is never exactly what's on the master tape anyway. Ultimately what we get is information and that information is altered in varying degrees of acceptability and retrieved and transduce'd hopefully in an acceptable manner as well. The way I see it, everything is a tone control in one way or another. I've just accepted that.

Perhaps what people mean by Objective 2 is not really about hearing what the engineers heard but rather drawing the most information out of the media in our possession. I think I would fall into that camp.

Click to expand...

Ron Resnick said:

I agree, Jack. I personally do not subscribe to Objective 2.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, these 4 Objectives, well at least the first 3, are a product of Jonathan Valin. I can imagine some people relate to them in some way, asking themselves, 'what category do I fall in' just as there is such inclination when presented with any set of personality constructs (are you a Type A personality?) But they are simplistic with only the connection to reality that we confer upon them by using them. I see them more as a literary mechanism or structure used by Valin in his reviews to parse through components, as if a component must appeal to some category of listener. The more categories the easier for the reviewer to say something that sounds objective or authoratative.

An extraordinarily high percentage of audiophiles will never hear a mastertape, much less the master of a specific record they like. Same goes for the live performance recrded onto that mastertape. To have as your objective something you will never experience must be extraordinarily frustrating, ergo the objective itself turns specious. If you do use these objectives, i think Jack's take on #2 is exactly right.

For myself, I can and do experience live music and that is the only so-called absolute sound possible. My notion of it is a composite built from experiences listening and playing. If my stereo can get close to the scale, vivacity, tonality and dynamics I hear in a concert hall, then I am quite happy.

Ron Resnick said:

No, Sir!

The four objectives to which I refer often began as three objectives which we here on WBF developed collectively a couple of years ago, and to which PeterA added the fourth and final alternative objective.

Jonathan may have his own list of high-end audio objectives, but I am confident that our WBF list has been more thoughtfully conceived and more thoroughly vetted.

Click to expand...

Okay, sure. I mean to make no comment about WBF or thoughtful conception. Just the list.
I'll try to locate the TAS issue, where Valin laid this out.

Valin describes not objectives but Three Types of Listeners. Perhaps he cast them in terms of objectives, but I don't remember, though I am wholly confident he laid these out in a review and refers to them in multiple places. His three kinds of listeners are in terms of priorities?, goals?, evaluation criteria? - I don't have the exact characterization. Its somewhat vague and by no means am I subscribing to or endorsing what he said. But in my earlier message I'm not pulling my comment out of thin air. According to what I remember of Valin's categories, there are those listeners i) who priortize the absolute sound, ii) those who seek fidelity to sources (I think was in terms of master tapes) and iii) those who are "as you like it" listeners, ie. those who want sound contoured to their specific notion of what is pleasing to them.

When he put this forward initially I don't recall but it has been a while. I am/was unaware of any collectve activity on WBF along similar lines; just trying to be sensitive Ron to your emphatic denial of things Valin.

As an example, search on "kinds of listeners" to see his remark in the comments section of this piece where he references his scheme:
[url]http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-m3-loudspeaker/[/URL]
But there is a review where he lays this out at some length.

Ideologically speaking, I have no problem with tone controls nor EQ (digital or analogue). To me, if a person finds their enjoyment is enhanced through utilisation of a tone control or EQ, more power to them.

And while it’s true we are limited to whatever subjective preferential decisions were made by the recording engineer, mix engineer and mastering engineer, it’s perhaps also true that those decisions may not always align with our own subjective preferences, and it seems logical that we should perhaps attempt to ameliorate those after the fact.

The problem I have with tone controls and EQ, then, even very well designed and implemented ones, is that the problem they are often employed to solve is fundamentally unsolvable. It’s much less of an ideological problem, then, as it is a practical one.

Once an album is mastered, its “sound” will be result of all the individual frequencies present relative to their amplitude, and more specifically, the combined harmonics of those frequencies producing a specific and identifiable timbral signature (1).

Let’s imagine we have a song of contemporary pop/rock that, in order to “cut through” on systems of lesser resolution (supermarket speakers, car stereos, Apple ear buds, Bluetooth speakers et al, that make up much of how the general populace listen to music), has a subjectively and objectively identifiable boost around 4K.

We could simply employ a low-Q filter centred on that particular frequency and apply reduction of a couple of dB, right? Problem fixed.

Not quite. Unfortunately, that 4K boost may be the result of a very cranked guitar run direct through a very hashy plug-in. The vocals and snare, also with harmonics present around 4K are fine. Attempting to reduce the presence of an individual instrument results in a general reduction in presence of all instruments, and we end up hearing less of the thing we don’t want at the expense of the things we do (2).

What’s more, the low-Q filter has effects on harmonics and fundamentals above and below 4K. We’re now altering frequencies that have nothing to do with the problematic area.

So the answer is a high-Q filter at 4K, right?

While that may more specifically target the problematic frequency, and perhaps have less effect on the harmonics and fundamentals of frequencies we want left untouched, we’re now suppressing dynamic range, since a reduction of amplitude is, well, a reduction of amplitude. We may indeed have succeeded in targeting the problematic area, but have brought down whatever dynamics are present in an area the ear is most sensitive to.

And that’s just that song. Every other song/album has a specific timbral signature, differentiating it from all other albums. Finding the exact frequency or frequencies to target - without diminishing fundamentals and harmonics either side and reducing dynamic range - takes time and a judicious hand. For those of us with thousands of albums, it begs the question: Is our time and energy really worth spending on an exercise that at best is a band aid, and at worst, causes more harm than it cures?

So again, while I have zero problem with those who choose to employ tone controls and/or EQ, I, the end-listener accept the limitations I am ultimately constrained by. A tone control or external EQ used within the context of a hi-fi system cannot and never will accomplish that which a recording engineer, mix engineer or mastering engineer can. It can only ever provide a very limited range of choice over a process that by and large has already been fixed in place - for better or worse - and almost only ever with more potential for downside than upside.

Best,

853guy


(1) When radio stations play sub-one-second snippets of albums and ask listeners to guess which song they’re playing to win prizes, the listener is identifying the timbral signature. The snippet itself is too short to provide any time-based or amplitude clues.

(2) No EQ or tone control can remix an individual track. If the problem is caused by an individual track or tracks, then they only way to remedy that problem is for someone to remix it. If the problem is caused by too much level across the mix causing harmonic distortion within the mix itself, the only way to remedy that problem is for someone to remix it. Mixing deals with specific, individual problems. Mastering deals with global ones. But even the best mastering engineer can’t solve problems created by the mix. We can’t use global solutions for individual problems.

Ron Resnick said:

No, Sir!

The four objectives to which I refer often began as three objectives which we here on WBF developed collectively a couple of years ago, and to which PeterA added the fourth and final alternative objective.

Jonathan may have his own list of high-end audio objectives, but I am confident that our WBF list has been more thoughtfully conceived and more thoroughly vetted.

Click to expand...

Just to keep the flame of WBF debates on I should remember that IMHO it seems to me we had more disagreement than agreement with the formulation of the famous three or four objectives ... I personally disagree with their formulation - for example, the introduction of types of equipment in the list generates a lot of confusion. F. Toole, for example, refers to control-room sound when debating these subjects. The definition of sound in the list is ambiguous - is it the physical wave form or the perception of it? Also IMHO the need of a fourth objective only confirmed that something was not right in the three original ones.

tima said:

(...) For myself, I can and do experience live music and that is the only so-called absolute sound possible. My notion of it is a composite built from experiences listening and playing. If my stereo can get close to the scale, vivacity, tonality and dynamics I hear in a concert hall, then I am quite happy.

Click to expand...

Curiously we share the same objective - you refer the main aspects I was looking for yesterday listening the Shostakovich Symphony No.8 (this time SoundLab A1 PX + VTL Siegfried II + ARC REF40 + Kondo KSL DAC).

But I understand some people would have other references - IMHO amplified music can be a reference.