I definitely remember the discussion, maybe 40 years ago, about how the 'additional circuitry' involved with tone controls would kill the music. It was not a matter of the tone controls being to coarse or anything like that, it was the time that an additional transistor in the signal path could make or break the music, or so it was said. Manufacturers reading the market responded, and it started to lead its own life.
Jan
Buddy John van der Sluis showed me the influence of either PNP or NPN transistors and their non linear behaviour for muting and that removing them was the best thing to do (when they were only for power on/off plops). We tested both C and E to outputs etc. He was right. A single transistor per channel could have negative influence on signal quality. Often 2 were/are used per channel which makes it worse. Easy to test/compare with an output relay shorting to GND that has no influence at all.
Last edited:
You switched from "anyone who disagrees with me is a midwit dupe" to "I won't let them tell me what to do". Neither has much to do with the effectiveness or utility of tone controls.
Hope a vigorous defense of the Monica or Stereophile's technical acumen isn't expected, I would hate to disappoint. 😉
Some for sure will complain about tone controls. My bedroom system on the other hand has an example of a highly reviewer praised integrated that has them, the Rotel RA-820AX. Interestingly the area of audio gone full tilt into tone controls is portable digital players. Tone controls + nastiness like Jet Audio with reverb and other silliness.
Like you I'm not 'against' tone controls that have no utility for me, but when you're talking finance/energy sector money like a $60K preamp those clients are unlikely to be juicing the bottom end of $150K speakers 6 dB with tone controls to shortcut placement. It's a completely different market. Hypnosis isn't necessary presumption.
And like the internet, along with this "text" blog, with all it's convenience features, it still fails to accurately represent or even portray a conversation with all it's needed nuances that make up what's discussed between people in the same room, or on a park bench.
The ability to grasp what someone else is saying, the context, etc., just isn't there as it is in person.
Agree.
MANY (most) were based on "impressions/perceptions" based on certain records, as in:
" Violins sound airy and smooth in Swordkyn 7th Symphony track 3 - TELARC BS4427"
" Female voice sounds warm and projecting in Arnetha Harris "Voice of the Blues" collection - Deep South Records AB567"
" I could distinctly hear silk dress rustling in "Greek songs from the Pastoral Age" - Athinaia Records HR290"
and similar USELESS babble and I was left with the impression: "WTF does this mean and how does it describe sound?"
and I am NOT exaggerating it a bit, will search and post some actual examples from "respected" Audio magazines.
That crap/BS made my head hurt.
At least Popular Electronics and some sister magazines introduced the "Hirsch Houck Labs" testing which was the first to consistently TEST 😱 Audio/HiFi equipment for important magazines way back them (most from Technically minded Ziff Davis Publications) and provide actual measured numbers.
He dared to actually measure Distortion (all kinds), wow, flutter, frequency response, RF sensitivity, noise, etc.
I bet he would be dissed by our current crop of antiScience fanatics, fairy dust Believers and such.
EDIT: as of Tone Controls: I normally use them flat, why needlessly "distort" frequency response?
But they are a nice convenience to have, are inaudible when set flat and sometimes they are useful, as when listening at very low levels where frequency extremes disappear (a real and well documented effect) or on some recordings where tonal balance is not to my liking.
Like having heating or air conditioning in your car, it does not mean you will use them 24/7 but it´s certainly useful/convenient sometimes. so why not?
But they are a nice convenience to have, are inaudible when set flat and sometimes they are useful, as when listening at very low levels where frequency extremes disappear (a real and well documented effect) or on some recordings where tonal balance is not to my liking.
Like having heating or air conditioning in your car, it does not mean you will use them 24/7 but it´s certainly useful/convenient sometimes. so why not?
Consistent yes. But close to useless. That was one of the real bad ones i was thinking about when i typed my previous post.
dave
Cars were big money.
Still are.
John Z.DeLorean had written in his autobiography the his employers were selling cars for $3500, which cost them $2000 to make.
A lot of cars have huge development costs, which are lower in poorer countries.
As for tone controls, at least I can adjust the sound to my preferences, I do not like too heavy a bass, and I do that if needed in the software, not with pots that may have wear issues later.
Also, it depends on the maker's design thinking, whether to provide controls or not.
It is your choice to buy or not, you are paying for it.
Don't agree or like, buy some other product.
As for reviews. most times the equipment, and the calibration dates were never mentioned.
If it is out of calibration, the information is useless.
Apart from the output levels and the distortion measurements, a lot was lacking in those reviews.
The sound emphasis and quality changes from 10% to 100% on most amps.
The same amp will sound different with different levels of input and output.
So I take all reviews with some skeptical thoughts, as they are really part of the sales promotion.
How many reviews do you see of 5 year old equipment?
That said, most newer amps are much below the old ones in distortion and noise figures.
So it does not matter much these days, like cars, all are at least decent...
Still are.
John Z.DeLorean had written in his autobiography the his employers were selling cars for $3500, which cost them $2000 to make.
A lot of cars have huge development costs, which are lower in poorer countries.
As for tone controls, at least I can adjust the sound to my preferences, I do not like too heavy a bass, and I do that if needed in the software, not with pots that may have wear issues later.
Also, it depends on the maker's design thinking, whether to provide controls or not.
It is your choice to buy or not, you are paying for it.
Don't agree or like, buy some other product.
As for reviews. most times the equipment, and the calibration dates were never mentioned.
If it is out of calibration, the information is useless.
Apart from the output levels and the distortion measurements, a lot was lacking in those reviews.
The sound emphasis and quality changes from 10% to 100% on most amps.
The same amp will sound different with different levels of input and output.
So I take all reviews with some skeptical thoughts, as they are really part of the sales promotion.
How many reviews do you see of 5 year old equipment?
That said, most newer amps are much below the old ones in distortion and noise figures.
So it does not matter much these days, like cars, all are at least decent...
Last edited:
Not sure where you picked those numbers from:
Base price
1982 Monroney sticker
DeLorean clearance advertisement
Upon release in 1981, a DeLorean had a base MSRP of $25,000, or equivalent to $71,000 in 2020. MSRP increased in 1982, to $29,825,[58] equivalent to $80,000 in 2020, and again in 1983, to $34,000,[59] equivalent to $88,000 in 2020.
His book, 'On a Clear Day, You can See General Motors", I think.
Reference was to GM in those days.
Prices are late 60s to early 70s.
They (GM) still went bankrupt twice, after such a high profit margin...
Or you can go through Lee Iacocca, and his days at Ford.
Read them long back in college times.
DeLorean worked at GM before starting DMC.
Interesting lesson there, I think Ford is the only car maker around which did not go into administration by external appointees.
GM, Chrysler, AMC (now gone), so many others could not handle change, and ended up being forced to change by external management.
And this is sane compared to the car makers in Europe...so many names gone, companies bought and sold, factories shifted and so on.
Reference was to GM in those days.
Prices are late 60s to early 70s.
They (GM) still went bankrupt twice, after such a high profit margin...
Or you can go through Lee Iacocca, and his days at Ford.
Read them long back in college times.
DeLorean worked at GM before starting DMC.
Interesting lesson there, I think Ford is the only car maker around which did not go into administration by external appointees.
GM, Chrysler, AMC (now gone), so many others could not handle change, and ended up being forced to change by external management.
And this is sane compared to the car makers in Europe...so many names gone, companies bought and sold, factories shifted and so on.
Last edited:
Tone controls, parametric EQ and the like can be very useful to get good to very good sound in a practical listening space.
But many listeners are unfamiliar with room acoustics and insist on a flat frequency response at the speaker jacks.
So the possibility of well balanced and realistic sound reproduction gets sacrificed for the inaudible 0.0001% additional distortion of tone controls/paraEQ.
Jan
Agreed 100%, however the Golden Eared reviewers will see the 'extra' knobs and therefore be able to hear the 'veil' they so obviously cast over the sound due to expectation bias. Test them blind and they would not have a single statistically viable clue -it's largely smoke and mirrors to part buyers (very effectively, it seems) from their hard-earned money.
The Ability to be Able to Adjust sound to your Liking with Tone Controls is an Obvious Freedom that people are Entitled to.
The several posts about Cars brings to mind that naturally, each car has it's own steering wheel, allowing the driver to negotiate roads, go wherever they want to go - without that standard and necessary feature, if the front wheels were 'fixed' - they'd be limited to driving in a straight line.
It's all about having the 'option' and the 'freedom' of choice.
Indeed, there are some on here, and in the world, that are satisfied enough to live without using Tone Controls.
And that's their choice, their decision, their preference.
However, I do find it a bit strange, that those people, with their beliefs, adhere to a policy that seems to be ironically against reality when it comes to audio, and the talk about keeping the resulting sound as 'pure' as possible.
When in fact, in reality, systems themselves, room acoustics, and differences in human hearing are real things that vary in composition and effect.
This 'trend' has curiously been generated in recent times, because only a few decades ago, discussions about whether to use or not use tone controls was never an issue.
Going back to 1929 for instance, radios had tone controls for the consumer to use, this carried on through the decades up into present day.
But the marketing of products in recent times seems to have focused some minds on the withdrawl of the ability to adjust sonic behavior.
Instead, the creation of adjusting room acoustics to suit, instead of conveniently turning a simple knob is now born.
Manufacturers know things like this will create more revenue due to consumers having to buy other items like sound-damping products, in extreme cases, building materials to change room acoustics, and yes, even picking out another home if need be.
In a way, it's all about controlling the gullible ones with beliefs now implanted, resulting manufacturer's benefit.
The several posts about Cars brings to mind that naturally, each car has it's own steering wheel, allowing the driver to negotiate roads, go wherever they want to go - without that standard and necessary feature, if the front wheels were 'fixed' - they'd be limited to driving in a straight line.
It's all about having the 'option' and the 'freedom' of choice.
Indeed, there are some on here, and in the world, that are satisfied enough to live without using Tone Controls.
And that's their choice, their decision, their preference.
However, I do find it a bit strange, that those people, with their beliefs, adhere to a policy that seems to be ironically against reality when it comes to audio, and the talk about keeping the resulting sound as 'pure' as possible.
When in fact, in reality, systems themselves, room acoustics, and differences in human hearing are real things that vary in composition and effect.
This 'trend' has curiously been generated in recent times, because only a few decades ago, discussions about whether to use or not use tone controls was never an issue.
Going back to 1929 for instance, radios had tone controls for the consumer to use, this carried on through the decades up into present day.
But the marketing of products in recent times seems to have focused some minds on the withdrawl of the ability to adjust sonic behavior.
Instead, the creation of adjusting room acoustics to suit, instead of conveniently turning a simple knob is now born.
Manufacturers know things like this will create more revenue due to consumers having to buy other items like sound-damping products, in extreme cases, building materials to change room acoustics, and yes, even picking out another home if need be.
In a way, it's all about controlling the gullible ones with beliefs now implanted, resulting manufacturer's benefit.
How often do we see glorious photographs of elegant and beautifully finished seven-figure systems in appalling rooms having not the merest hint of room treatment? From a notionally and oft-revered flat (-ish) anechoic response to +/- 10dB peaks in a heartbeat. It really puts the issue of tone controls (or not) well and truly into the shade. The circles of professional PA in which I mostly gyrate are simply so refreshing in their more physics/results-based approach. And SOOOO much better value for money...
When you want it to sound like the orchestra is in the room, equalizing out the room response is illogical. Then again, maybe you don't want it to sound like the orchestra is in the room.
The first time I designed and built an audio preamplifier, I put a lot of effort into designing a loudness control that was actually usable (as opposed to the usual grossly overcompensating ones). In practice, I found I rarely used it anyway, so now I just have a source selector switch, a volume and a balance control.
The first time I designed and built an audio preamplifier, I put a lot of effort into designing a loudness control that was actually usable (as opposed to the usual grossly overcompensating ones). In practice, I found I rarely used it anyway, so now I just have a source selector switch, a volume and a balance control.