What happened to tone controls? (2024)

Speaking of tone controls, I just added my vintage Luxman CL40 preamp back into my main system to see how it compared to the Backert Labs Rhumba Extreme w/my new speakers... vintage tube pre with tone controls versus modern technology. I actually preferred setting the bass up one click and the treble up 2 clicks on the CL40. The CL40 has a sound that is hard to describe, a very "GOLDEN" tone to it that shimmers in a way I haven't been able to replicate with other gear.

AJ Soundfield said:

Not based on evidence, like trust ears/just listen variety. Only conjecture, based on poor designs, as you mentioned.

And for all other recordings, aka 99.99999999999% of music based on what I posted previously?
Your ported box speakers don't excite any room modes Ralph?

Click to expand...

No conjecture- I've measured plenty of preamps and amps with tone controls and this sort of thing is common. A 'good' design is one that uses rotary switches as seen in the Citation 1 preamp; that sort of thing is pretty rare IME. Plus you simply have to have a tone control driver circuit and it will be adding noise, distortion and limiting bandwidth, so this really can't be a point of debate. So 99% of the time if you see tone controls you're looking at a lower performance product.

The speakers really don't seem to excite any nodes in my new listening room, nor did they in my old room. But the new room has a standing wave that is right at the primary listening position that kills bass- no amount of tone controls will make it right. So I will be adding a couple of small subs to break it up. Other recordings I've made come off fine on them without tone controls as well. having the master tapes and master files goes a long way towards helping establish a reference. So I have to assume that all the recordings are doing well- they certainly sound that way and its nice to be hear how well or how poorly a recording has been made although usually I'm just playing a particular cut because I like it.

I think it’s fair to say that many audiophiles see tone controls as unwanted and unnecessary. As Ralph points out they add circuitry and noise.

As for me, I really like my “loudness” button. For low level listening my ears are surprisingly insensitive to bass.

atmasphere said:

No conjecture- I've measured plenty of preamps and amps with tone controls and this sort of thing is common. A 'good' design is one that uses rotary switches as seen in the Citation 1 preamp; that sort of thing is pretty rare IME. Plus you simply have to have a tone control driver circuit and it will be adding noise, distortion and limiting bandwidth, so this really can't be a point of debate. So 99% of the time if you see tone controls you're looking at a lower performance product.

Click to expand...

That is pure conjecture. No data has been presented. I'm sure you've measure a poor example or two of old/pathological/audiophile etc examples Ralph, but that is meaningless without perspective. You couldnt possible have measured all or even most controls out there. It only takes a single example to refute the notion of your conjecture:
Parasound Halo

-3db 100kHz is good enough for bats, much less old guys..

atmasphere said:

The speakers really don't seem to excite any nodes in my new listening room, nor did they in my old room. But the new room has a standing wave that is right at the primary listening position that kills bass- no amount of tone controls will make it right. So I will be adding a couple of small subs to break it up. Other recordings I've made come off fine on them without tone controls as well. having the master tapes and master files goes a long way towards helping establish a reference. So I have to assume that all the recordings are doing well- they certainly sound that way and its nice to be hear how well or how poorly a recording has been made although usually I'm just playing a particular cut because I like it.

Click to expand...

Measurements would show exactly, but ok, you've been extremely lucky. Most audiophile rooms I've measured have been real horror show, bass "quality" follows. LF EQ is superior, but even a basic shelving filter bass knob would have been better than none.
What instrument do you play? Usually, stage perspective is quite different from audience. And recording quality is all over the place. That's why sensible design use to include tone controls, prior to the puritans.

cheers,

AJ

JSQT said:

Speaking of tone controls, I just added my vintage Luxman CL40 preamp back into my main system to see how it compared to the Backert Labs Rhumba Extreme w/my new speakers... vintage tube pre with tone controls versus modern technology. I actually preferred setting the bass up one click and the treble up 2 clicks on the CL40. The CL40 has a sound that is hard to describe, a very "GOLDEN" tone to it that shimmers in a way I haven't been able to replicate with other gear.

Click to expand...

Well, did the BL hold it's own, or are you saying the Luxman was as good?

Shadowfax said:

Well, did the BL hold it's own, or are you saying the Luxman was as good?

Click to expand...

They are two very different profiles... For now I am enjoying the more "golden" tone of the CL40 with the new Volti speakers as opposed to the somewhat more detailed & faster (transients) Rhumba Extreme. It is remarkable that a 37 year old Japanese valve preamp can hold its own with a state of the art Rhumba Extreme though - says tons about the Luxman and takes nothing away from Backert Labs.

I'm going to keep alternating between the two for a while... There are plusses and minuses for both for sure!

AJ Soundfield said:

That is pure conjecture. No data has been presented. I'm sure you've measure a poor example or two of old/pathological/audiophile etc examples Ralph, but that is meaningless without perspective. You couldnt possible have measured all or even most controls out there. It only takes a single example to refute the notion of your conjecture:
Parasound Halo

-3db 100kHz is good enough for bats, much less old guys..

AJ

Click to expand...

Your graph above makes my point.

The ear doesn't do well with minor FR errors, but when the error covers a spectrum it can detect it pretty easily. Like my comments about the effects of tone controls even when set flat, this is well-known. We can see in the above graph an excellent example of the problem- if no tone controls the graph would be a straight line. Again, not conjecture- this is well-known. I see no point in presenting well-known data to someone uninterested and my lack of reaction isn't proof of its non-existence- but if you really want to know about this its not hard to find.

What you don't know about me is that I've been servicing consumer electronics for decades (started at the Allied Radio service center in 1974; this is how I put myself thru engineering school and I still service consumer gear simply because I enjoy it) and I've seen the effects of tone controls in hundreds of products on the bench when I run FR sweeps. I can count on one hand those that are actually flat when so set. Some of the better setups of course have/had a bypass switch, which works great until you realize that the switch is usually pretty cheap. You'd think the switch would be fairly innocuous, but they fail due to corrosion, and I've seen units only a year or two old with this problem: introducing audible distortion or knocking out one or both channels entirely. The mere presence of the switch is responsible for stray capacitance which reduces bandwidth. While it may not seem that going past 50KHz is important, if you want to minimize the effects of phase shift over a spectrum then you need bandwidth to 10X either side of the base frequency band to be amplified. Stuart Hegeman recognized this over 60 years ago and facts like that don't go away with time, although are often forgotten or ignored.

From a designer perspective, its a simple fact that any additional circuitry that isn't needed reduces bandwidth, raises the noise floor and adds distortion- even if the tone controls were to be perfectly flat this is still an issue. IOW it simply can't be as neutral; your graphs above show that pretty well.

atmasphere said:

Some of the better setups of course have/had a bypass switch, which works great until you realize that the switch is usually pretty cheap. You'd think the switch would be fairly innocuous, but they fail due to corrosion, and I've seen units only a year or two old with this problem: introducing audible distortion or knocking out one or both channels entirely.

Click to expand...

You just described the problem I am having with my Hafler 945 Pre Amp. One channel drops out and when I toggle the Tone In-Tone Out button a few times, it comes back....for a while, then drops out again. It does seem to stay with both channels after 30-60 minutes of being on. I started to take the unit apart hoping I could resolve it with De Oxit but have not exposed the button yet. Am I on the right track?

Shadowfax said:

You just described the problem I am having with my Hafler 945 Pre Amp. One channel drops out and when I toggle the Tone In-Tone Out button a few times, it comes back....for a while, then drops out again. It does seem to stay with both channels after 30-60 minutes of being on. I started to take the unit apart hoping I could resolve it with De Oxit but have not exposed the button yet. Am I on the right track?

Click to expand...

Yes. Use the Deoxit spray in the green and black can. This will leave a lubricant deposit which will prevent damage to the switch, which has a lubricant installed. The latter may get ejected from the switch during the contact cleaning process. Use the least amount of spray you can manage, and if possible directly into any opening in the switch you can find. Then work the switch vigorously to allow the cleaner to do its job. You may want to add a second dose and work the switch a second time. If I were you I would consider cleaning other switches in the unit as they are probably similar construction and quality; so its reasonable to expect them to have similar amounts of corrosion. Don't be surprised if the preamp seems to sound better after this is done. A word of caution- the Deoxit is the strongest chemical you want to apply to the insides of any electronic product. Don't overuse it- always use the least amount you can. Try to avoid getting it on associated wiring and circuit boards. Use a cloth and Q-tips to clean up any excess.

Good Luck!

Mechnutt said:

I like tone controls and wish my BAT had defeatable tone controls. I have some music (mostly older CD's and poorly recorded music) that is too hot in the high end and it would be great to be able to turn the treble down so I can listen to it in my reference system.

Click to expand...

Although the digital industry does not like to admit this, aliasing is a form of distortion and is highly audible to the human ear, which converts any distortion into tonality- in this case brightness. Earlier digital recordings tended to have more aliasing than later ones... Don't be surprised therefore that using a tone control does not remove the brightness as it is not caused by a frequency response error. This can be confusing since we tend to think that because its bright we can just turn the treble down to sort it out. In this case if the treble control were somehow able to remove the distortion then it would remove this form of brightness as well.

atmasphere said:

Your graph above makes my point.

The ear doesn't do well with minor FR errors, but when the error covers a spectrum it can detect it pretty easily. Like my comments about the effects of tone controls even when set flat, this is well-known. We can see in the above graph an excellent example of the problem- if no tone controls the graph would be a straight line. Again, not conjecture- this is well-known. I see no point in presenting well-known data to someone uninterested and my lack of reaction isn't proof of its non-existence- but if you really want to know about this its not hard to find.

From a designer perspective, its a simple fact that any additional circuitry that isn't needed reduces bandwidth, raises the noise floor and adds distortion- even if the tone controls were to be perfectly flat this is still an issue. IOW it simply can't be as neutral; your graphs above show that pretty well.

Click to expand...

So you either a) didn't read the link b) don't understand the graph/data, the latter being more likely.
The graph was posited to show that a device with tone controls can still have very wide bandwidth (not that human ears care, nor can said ears demonstrate any ability to hear said ultra wide bandwidth, think audiophile ears vs Redbook).
The FR with tiny, inaudible (real, demonstrable, non-imaginary) deviation of 0.1db or less, is amp output into a simulated load. Demonstrating why a very low output impedance is important to signal spectral fidelity. It has approximately zero to do with tone controls in circuit. Please read link, it's clearly spelled out by JA!!
Your years of working on equipment is both irrelevant and zero proof that competently engineered (aka non-audiophile fashion "designer") tone controls are "bad". It's all Red Herring, because no one is arguing that "bad" examples of tone controls that may/may not have been found on old/poorly designed equipment, aren't bad. They are.
But gross engineering incompetence is not a reason to avoid tone controls altogether. It's a reason to avoid incompetent engineering, period. No shortage of that in audio fashion/puritan designer circles, agreed.

cheers,

AJ

Mechnutt said:

I have some music (mostly older CD's and poorly recorded music) that is too hot in the high end and it would be great to be able to turn the treble down so I can listen to it in my reference system.

Click to expand...

Here is the real, factual, verifiable, non-imaginary reason:

Overly bright recordings are reflective of HF hearing loss of the recording engineers making them. They have no idea how deaf they are, the product follows. All well documented in audiometric tests of them that can be found in Dr Floyd Tooles excellent books

AJ Soundfield said:

But gross engineering incompetence is not a reason to avoid tone controls altogether. It's a reason to avoid incompetent engineering, period. No shortage of that in audio fashion/puritan designer circles, agreed.

cheers,

AJ

Click to expand...

So what is your take on Tone Controls on Luxman Integrateds?

Shadowfax said:

So what is your take on Tone Controls on Luxman Integrateds?

Click to expand...

Specific model/data would be best...but, generally speaking, based on the Stereophile etc measurements I've seen, Luxmans are well engineered, the tone controls should be similarly well implemented. I'm sure owners aren't concerned and are enjoying bright/thin/etc recordings that puritans must suffer through. Not that puritans don't enjoy that sort of masochism. Different strokes for different folks. YMMV.

atmasphere said:

Although the digital industry does not like to admit this, aliasing is a form of distortion and is highly audible to the human ear, which converts any distortion into tonality- in this case brightness. Earlier digital recordings tended to have more aliasing than later ones... Don't be surprised therefore that using a tone control does not remove the brightness as it is not caused by a frequency response error. This can be confusing since we tend to think that because its bright we can just turn the treble down to sort it out. In this case if the treble control were somehow able to remove the distortion then it would remove this form of brightness as well.

Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is that in a secondary system I use a 1970's Technics Integrated amp with tone controls and turning down the treble makes bright recordings listenable for the most part.

I would be willing to pay a little extra for good tone controls with a defeat switch and put up with any slight degradation in sound quality which may or may not be significantly audible.

Mechnutt said:

turning down the treble makes bright recordings listenable for the most part.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
If what Ralph claimed was remotely true (it isn't), that would make every single MQA track bright.
I'm sure the MQA fans may call that into question

AJ Soundfield said:

Specific model/data would be best...but, generally speaking, based on the Stereophile etc measurements I've seen, Luxmans are well engineered, the tone controls should be similarly well implemented. I'm sure owners aren't concerned and are enjoying bright/thin/etc recordings that puritans must suffer through. Not that puritans don't enjoy that sort of masochism. Different strokes for different folks. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Any discussion of tones controls/equalizers always boils down to a "user" making snarky comments about those who don't. There is no masochism involved. In my case I don't have enough bad sounding recordings that tone controls are necessary. I suppose it has a lot to do with the music one listens to. If pop/rock is your choice there are plenty of truly awful recordings. However, that's generally not the case with jazz and classical.

If you have or want tone controls that's your business. No one makes snarky comments about your using or wanting them. That's your choice, just as mine is not to have any.

The solution is IMO quite simple. Listen to better recordings and/or stop making snarky comments about those who don't use tone controls.

For those who have gear with no tone controls and are lamenting that, take a long look at a Schiit Loki. The only thing I miss from the last preamp I had with tone controls (ARC-SP9) is the variable loudness control.

FWIW: I'm neither a puritan or a masoch*st. However, I have a dedicated, treated room. I also use a DSP in the feed to my subs. The DSP was set and adjusted using REW, a calibrated mic and a laptop. I realize and acknowledge that all recordings are not supposed to sound the same nor be at the same level (normalizing is a pet peeve of mine). I just want to hear what's there with as few effects from the room as possible.​

AJ Soundfield said:

Exactly.
If what Ralph claimed was remotely true (it isn't), that would make every single MQA track bright.
I'm sure the MQA fans may call that into question

Click to expand...

Its probably not germaine to this conversation to explain why MQA is irrelevent (not a fan BTW) other than to point out that this statement is false.

Whoa, looks like Joe was really triggered by my jest.

atmasphere said:

Its probably not germaine to this conversation to explain why MQA is irrelevent (not a fan BTW) other than to point out that this statement is false.

Click to expand...

Regarding your claim about aliasing/brightness, it is the most relevant. More than any other "digital" format. *IF* one understands digital/MQA etc.
If you are interested in learning Ralph, I'll provide. If not, no worries.