Tone controls?

[Empirical Audio]

I'm really curious where you are getting this from

I don't know what you are basing this information off of but I disagree 100%. When done correctly there is no loss in transparency. During blind testing I got just as many wrong as I did right. I couldn't tell if the control was in or out. And the purpose for the control is not to cure a bad crossover. It is to provide flexibility for placement and listener preference. We don't all like the same thing.

In a passive speaker the crossover itself is the EQ. Where we shape the frequency response of each driver for a flat response, and then combine with the other driver(s) to achieve flat response throughout it's entire response. Our volume control does not effect the linear response of the driver. It is just a volume control. The shape of the drivers response does not change. But since you are adjusting the speakers overall frequency response, technically you could call this tone control.

I understand all of this. I'm a EE with 38 years design experience. I have had my own audio design business for 22 years. I'm not arguing against speaker adjustments. I'm arguing against speaker adjustments using passive devices. I've modded a number of loudspeakers, including rebuilding their crossovers. I found that resistors, capacitors and inductors can all be improved upon and that using good DSP, such as Sonic Studio is even better. These passive devices never behave like their textbook ideals. Capacitors always have inductance and resistance as well as varying dielectric absorption depending on the technology. Resistors always have inductance. Inductors have saturation effects unless they are air-core.

The fact that I was able to improve the sound of these modded loudspeakers so significantly by changing the passive crossover components demonstrates that these passive devices are far from perfect and that ultimately a good DSP software providing files to individual DACs to each driver is optimum.

If you need convincing that passive devices are far from perfect, just replace the series woofer inductor on any of your speakers with a Jensen-capacitors air-core inductor of the same value in 12 gauge, or a series tweeter capacitor with a Duelund. You will be shocked at the level of improvement.

DSP has a long way to go to match up to a well designed speaker in a good room. But that's my opinion. There are a few things DSP doesn't calculate that is used in designing a passive crossover and this is what separates them. Also in a passive crossover the enclosure itself is factored in to all the measurements which are not with DSP. But like I said.....we don't all like the same thing.

I can understand your opinion because 90% of the DSP software currently available is not transparent IME. There are exceptions however, and DSP can do things that no passive design can do, including any type and order of crossover, many with no phase-shift. Anything that can be done with passives can be done with DSP. It can also be tweaked on-the-fly, ultimately doing fine frequency and level tuning for a speaker or even for each individual speaker or driver. Changing a driver mid-stream in a speakers production is no longer an issue. There is no crossover in the speaker to tweak, just new DSP settings for the new driver.

DEQX is a good start, and I've used it at trade shows with multiples of my DAC to do active crossover, but the ultimate goal should be DSP crossover function in the data files, eliminating the passive or external crossover altogether. It's just a matter of time. We have the small cool-running switching amps that can fit inside speakers now. This technology has the potential for lifting the performance of all loudspeakers, particularly less expensive ones.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[ack]

A tale of fine speaker tuning

As per Al's link, my story is that of tuning the speakers to the room over a 10 year period, the finest part of which was this past three months, with intense listening over the last year. The concept is a simple extension of tuning a speaker box and crossover to the drivers. There were multiple goals to achieve: a) fast bass transients; b) panel-woofer integration; c) Fletcher-Munson curves; d) do not excite room modes.

There are many reasons why it took 10 years, like learning everything from scratch, not having neutral enough electronics (which were throwing off my listening tests), and part selection. If I were to do it again, it would be a lot easier and faster, and I would be following the some basic requirements: 1) separate crossovers for bass and the rest; 2) bi-ampable speakers; 3) at the very least, a compensation network for the bass.

None of this is ground-breaking - many speakers, especially at very high price points, do things the way I think they should be done or better. I chose my MLs originally because they are bi-ampable, they already featured separate crossovers for the bass and panel, and already sported a -3dB bass cutoff switch. While the ML concept was stellar, the problem with the ML crossover was in the execution, and the sound out of the factory reflected the mediocre execution (nice, smooth, relaxing sound, but nothing I would ever call articulate or accurate). So I ripped everything out and built my own crossovers and bass attenuation, plus - and this key - additional phase correction (not to mention that the bass drivers - two per side - are entirely different). We find attenuation and phase-correction options in many high-end (and high-priced) speakers, like top Wilsons and von Schweikert.

To illustrate the importance and impact of fine tuning, just in the bass section, changing resistor values from, say, 0.42ohms to 0.45 resulted in profound sonic changes, and that's an understatement. In this last round of tuning, I started at 0.2ohms, incrementing to 0.45 in 0.02 or 0.03 ohm steps - and I have two woofers per side. One can imagine that the process is arduous and extremely painful, more so when one considers the fact I had to re-run up to 50 or so CD and LP tracks with every single change. Ouch. However, if there was one thing to learn here is that there are some designers who apparently do exactly that, day in and day out, and I now have a much better appreciation of their speakers' cost; it's called careful voicing. And again, the better products will enable the end user to further custom-tune in situ.

As an example of sonic changes between _tiny_ bass resistor values (like 0.03ohms)would be a thick and slow bass drum, vs a thin but fast bass drum, vs something that sounds oh-so-right. Treble performance in the panel's speaker was yet another frustrating area: different high-end capacitors sound quite different - not dramatically, but different enough to drive one crazy. So having neutral amplification electronics the last 2 years helped a lot.; the results have been truly rewarding, though I am sure far from perfect. In other words, this is good enough! Finally, what I don't do is adjust the speakers per recording.

Therefore, one can imagine that if I were to buy new speakers, I would be really looking for built-in adjustability.

 

[Leif S]

I understand all of this. I'm a EE with 38 years design experience. I have had my own audio design business for 22 years. I'm not arguing against speaker adjustments. I'm arguing against speaker adjustments using passive devices. I've modded a number of loudspeakers, including rebuilding their crossovers. I found that resistors, capacitors and inductors can all be improved upon and that using good DSP, such as Sonic Studio is even better. These passive devices never behave like their textbook ideals. Capacitors always have inductance and resistance as well as varying dielectric absorption depending on the technology. Resistors always have inductance. Inductors have saturation effects unless they are air-core.

The fact that I was able to improve the sound of these modded loudspeakers so significantly by changing the passive crossover components demonstrates that these passive devices are far from perfect and that ultimately a good DSP software providing files to individual DACs to each driver is optimum.

If you need convincing that passive devices are far from perfect, just replace the series woofer inductor on any of your speakers with a Jensen-capacitors air-core inductor of the same value in 12 gauge, or a series tweeter capacitor with a Duelund. You will be shocked at the level of improvement.



I can understand your opinion because 90% of the DSP software currently available is not transparent IME. There are exceptions however, and DSP can do things that no passive design can do, including any type and order of crossover, many with no phase-shift. Anything that can be done with passives can be done with DSP. It can also be tweaked on-the-fly, ultimately doing fine frequency and level tuning for a speaker or even for each individual speaker or driver. Changing a driver mid-stream in a speakers production is no longer an issue. There is no crossover in the speaker to tweak, just new DSP settings for the new driver.

DEQX is a good start, and I've used it at trade shows with multiples of my DAC to do active crossover, but the ultimate goal should be DSP crossover function in the data files, eliminating the passive or external crossover altogether. It's just a matter of time. We have the small cool-running switching amps that can fit inside speakers now. This technology has the potential for lifting the performance of all loudspeakers, particularly less expensive ones.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Again unfortunately I totally disagree again. DSP cannot factor in all the design aspects that take place in a passive speaker and I have been using DSP in Pro Audio since it first came out. Although they have improved by leaps and bounds the truth still remains that the only reason we use it is purely for convenience. But many people like using DSP for high end and if that is what they prefer then that's awesome. I don't know what speakers you have modded or how good of a speaker it was to begin with. There are many speakers out there that could seriously benefit with the use of DSP IMO. And for the record we have used Jensen and Dueland. This speaker is loaded with them.

 

[Leif S]

+1 to Mark and Al

 

[Leif S]

As per Al's link, my story is that of tuning the speakers to the room over a 10 year period, the finest part of which was this past three months, with intense listening over the last year. The concept is a simple extension of tuning a speaker box and crossover to the drivers. There were multiple goals to achieve: a) fast bass transients; b) panel-woofer integration; c) Fletcher-Munson curves; d) do not excite room modes.

There are many reasons why it took 10 years, like learning everything from scratch, not having neutral enough electronics (which were throwing off my listening tests), and part selection. If I were to do it again, it would be a lot easier and faster, and I would be following the some basic requirements: 1) separate crossovers for bass and the rest; 2) bi-ampable speakers; 3) at the very least, a compensation network for the bass.

None of this is ground-breaking - many speakers, especially at very high price points, do things the way I think they should be done or better. I chose my MLs originally because they are bi-ampable, they already featured separate crossovers for the bass and panel, and already sported a -3dB bass cutoff switch. While the ML concept was stellar, the problem with the ML crossover was in the execution, and the sound out of the factory reflected the mediocre execution (nice, smooth, relaxing sound, but nothing I would ever call articulate or accurate). So I ripped everything out and built my own crossovers and bass attenuation, plus - and this key - additional phase correction (not to mention that the bass drivers - two per side - are entirely different). We find attenuation and phase-correction options in many high-end (and high-priced) speakers, like top Wilsons and von Schweikert.

To illustrate the importance and impact of fine tuning, just in the bass section, changing resistor values from, say, 0.42ohms to 0.45 resulted in profound sonic changes, and that's an understatement. In this last round of tuning, I started at 0.2ohms, incrementing to 0.45 in 0.02 or 0.03 ohm steps - and I have two woofers per side. One can imagine that the process is arduous and extremely painful, more so when one considers the fact I had to re-run up to 50 or so CD and LP tracks with every single change. Ouch. However, if there was one thing to learn here is that there are some designers who apparently do exactly that, day in and day out, and I now have a much better appreciation of their speakers' cost; it's called careful voicing. And again, the better products will enable the end user to further custom-tune in situ.

As an example of sonic changes between _tiny_ bass resistor values (like 0.03ohms)would be a thick and slow bass drum, vs a thin but fast bass drum, vs something that sounds oh-so-right. Treble performance in the panel's speaker was yet another frustrating area: different high-end capacitors sound quite different - not dramatically, but different enough to drive one crazy. So having neutral amplification electronics the last 2 years helped a lot.; the results have been truly rewarding, though I am sure far from perfect. In other words, this is good enough! What I don't do is adjusting the speakers per recording.

Therefore, one can imagine that if I were to buy new speakers, I would be really looking for built-in adjustability.

That's awesome Ack!

 

[Leif S]

Steve it would also be cool if you are industry affiliated that it would show in your signature

 

[NorthStar]

It is already in Steve's signature, and even his username.
• http://www.empiricalaudio.com/about-empirical-audio/
___

Active DSP loudspeakers:
• https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2017/01/21/rare-sighting-of-bo-beolab-90-photo-set-from-vancouver/
° http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2015/10/06/beolab-90-behind-the-scenes/

 

[DaveC]

I'm really curious where you are getting this from

I don't know what you are basing this information off of but I disagree 100%. When done correctly there is no loss in transparency. During blind testing I got just as many wrong as I did right. I couldn't tell if the control was in or out. And the purpose for the control is not to cure a bad crossover. It is to provide flexibility for placement and listener preference. We don't all like the same thing.

In a passive speaker the crossover itself is the EQ. Where we shape the frequency response of each driver for a flat response, and then combine with the other driver(s) to achieve flat response throughout it's entire response. Our volume control does not effect the linear response of the driver. It is just a volume control. The shape of the drivers response does not change. But since you are adjusting the speakers overall frequency response, technically you could call this tone control.

DSP has a long way to go to match up to a well designed speaker in a good room. But that's my opinion. There are a few things DSP doesn't calculate that is used in designing a passive crossover and this is what separates them. Also in a passive crossover the enclosure itself is factored in to all the measurements which are not with DSP. But like I said.....we don't all like the same thing.

I agree.

We don't all like the same thing and we don't all hear the same either. There needs to be latitude for these things. The most important thing is the owner of the system is happy and doesn't suffer from listening fatigue. I have had customers who may have lost some hearing at high frequencies but also some that gain sensitivity at certain frequencies. Others simply have different priorities and tastes. This all requires some amount of adjustment and those with firmly held beliefs that things can only be one way may be missing opportunities to appeal to the largest number of tastes.

I've had potential customers with very high end systems prefer more forgiving cables at the expense of ultimate clarity and resolution. They are not wrong, nothing is wrong with them or their systems either.

 

[DaveC]

As per Al's link, my story is that of tuning the speakers to the room over a 10 year period, the finest part of which was this past three months, with intense listening over the last year. The concept is a simple extension of tuning a speaker box and crossover to the drivers. There were multiple goals to achieve: a) fast bass transients; b) panel-woofer integration; c) Fletcher-Munson curves; d) do not excite room modes.

There are many reasons why it took 10 years, like learning everything from scratch, not having neutral enough electronics (which were throwing off my listening tests), and part selection. If I were to do it again, it would be a lot easier and faster, and I would be following the some basic requirements: 1) separate crossovers for bass and the rest; 2) bi-ampable speakers; 3) at the very least, a compensation network for the bass.

None of this is ground-breaking - many speakers, especially at very high price points, do things the way I think they should be done or better. I chose my MLs originally because they are bi-ampable, they already featured separate crossovers for the bass and panel, and already sported a -3dB bass cutoff switch. While the ML concept was stellar, the problem with the ML crossover was in the execution, and the sound out of the factory reflected the mediocre execution (nice, smooth, relaxing sound, but nothing I would ever call articulate or accurate). So I ripped everything out and built my own crossovers and bass attenuation, plus - and this key - additional phase correction (not to mention that the bass drivers - two per side - are entirely different). We find attenuation and phase-correction options in many high-end (and high-priced) speakers, like top Wilsons and von Schweikert.

To illustrate the importance and impact of fine tuning, just in the bass section, changing resistor values from, say, 0.42ohms to 0.45 resulted in profound sonic changes, and that's an understatement. In this last round of tuning, I started at 0.2ohms, incrementing to 0.45 in 0.02 or 0.03 ohm steps - and I have two woofers per side. One can imagine that the process is arduous and extremely painful, more so when one considers the fact I had to re-run up to 50 or so CD and LP tracks with every single change. Ouch. However, if there was one thing to learn here is that there are some designers who apparently do exactly that, day in and day out, and I now have a much better appreciation of their speakers' cost; it's called careful voicing. And again, the better products will enable the end user to further custom-tune in situ.

As an example of sonic changes between _tiny_ bass resistor values (like 0.03ohms)would be a thick and slow bass drum, vs a thin but fast bass drum, vs something that sounds oh-so-right. Treble performance in the panel's speaker was yet another frustrating area: different high-end capacitors sound quite different - not dramatically, but different enough to drive one crazy. So having neutral amplification electronics the last 2 years helped a lot.; the results have been truly rewarding, though I am sure far from perfect. In other words, this is good enough! Finally, what I don't do is adjust the speakers per recording.

Therefore, one can imagine that if I were to buy new speakers, I would be really looking for built-in adjustability.

I agree here too.

I'm a big fan of active/dsp for woofers that don't cross too high. My speaker will require bi-amping or will have a built-in dsp capable bass amplifier.

I also think good IC cables are key to the puzzle. So many of them smooth out the information needed to create an immersive 3-D soundtage, and this is partially what I base my assessments on. This would be impossible to do with many IC cables as that information will never make it to the speakers.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Steve it would also be cool if you are industry affiliated that it would show in your signature

It is not clear how to do that on the profile page...

Steve N.

 

[Leif S]

It is not clear how to do that on the profile page...

Steve N.

It is in the settings section at the top right of page the you click on edit signature on the left hand side of page

 

[Mark Seaton]

Coming back to the topic directly vs. specific examples, IMO our issue is not if "tone" controls can be useful, but rather that classic implementations were not well suited for fine tuning most systems, and we really need more flexible and appropriate controls available in modern gear. These are very easy things to do digitally, and in the analog domain the issue is putting such control into a very well executed preamplifier with circuitry that belongs in a high resolution system. I think many audiophiles would be amazed with the fine tuning they could do with a high quality means to apply subtle tilt to the response of their system, along with a subtle high/low shelving filters with adjustable center frequency.

 

[thedudeabides]

Why are you telling me what I’m “talking about” when you apparently have not checked what I am talking about?

In case you haven't noticed, Empirical does this frequently on this forum as witnessed by his apparent self righteous posts and his broad, indefensible generalizations. With all due respect, he needs to "chill out" and act in a more respectful, polite, non aggressive manner.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Coming back to the topic directly vs. specific examples, IMO our issue is not if "tone" controls can be useful, but rather that classic implementations were not well suited for fine tuning most systems, and we really need more flexible and appropriate controls available in modern gear. These are very easy things to do digitally, and in the analog domain the issue is putting such control into a very well executed preamplifier with circuitry that belongs in a high resolution system. I think many audiophiles would be amazed with the fine tuning they could do with a high quality means to apply subtle tilt to the response of their system, along with a subtle high/low shelving filters with adjustable center frequency.

+1

It's like ICE cars versus Electric. No turning back once you have experienced it.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[SuperDave]

+1

It's like ICE cars versus Electric. No turning back once you have experienced it.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Agree 100%...nothing like the sound of V12 in a tunnel.

Dave

 

[DaveC]

Agree 100%...nothing like the sound of V12 in a tunnel.

Dave

Totally! I was thinking about the sound of my turbo spooling and the straight-through Ti exhaust system... the burble/pop as you rev-match the downshift... the skill it takes to drive a manual transmission well...

 

[NorthStar]

But this is macho style, there are other more subtle styles using controlled tones. :b

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

Yes, I don't get the purist non-adjustability

As we all know, bass output varies wildly with recordings (I hear that on any system, even the most expensive one). I just don't see why I am supposed to be at the whim of recording engineers' tastes or of their limitations of monitoring (the in-room response of their studio monitors may vary from ideal in ways that they may not even be aware of). I rather create my own reality. The whole purist 'reproduce-what's-on-the-recording' schtick is full of logical holes anyway; I just mentioned two.

BING-FREEKIN-O!
Thank you for saying that out loud.

 

[NorthStar]

 

[Al M.]

BING-FREEKIN-O!
Thank you for saying that out loud.

You're welcome. I know you also like to crank up the bass for anemic Seventies classic rock recordings.

But I guess this logical, music-enjoying, but non-purist attitude may firmly disqualify us in the eyes of some of belonging to the 'elite club' of "real" audiophiles.

(Writing this reminds me uncomfortably of some politicians speaking of the "real America"...oh well.)