What is a tone control?

[naturephoto1]

Tim,

If you call the things by their proper names there is nothing illogical on that.

Tone controls change the frequency response of the system. Cables, or some passive components change the perceived sound in a different way, that can not be explained by our usual measurements, but sometimes suggest a change in the sense of what we perceive by using a tone control. But, unhappily, no tone control can add the extra perceived resolution, detail or musical sense given sometimes by what you properly designate by tweaks.

Perhaps I should reformulate - what is a tweak?

Some may consider it a "tweak" but in the case of part replacement including caps and resistors we tend to call this an upgrade or possibly a modification to the circuit or component. But, upgrade would probably be more correct.

Rich

 

[ack]

It should add no noise and be distortion free. Do you agree?

From my limited EE knowledge, noise and distortion are inherent characteristics of electronics, apart perhaps from superconducting materials (but even then I can see balanced cables being used for long runs, so as to reduce picked up noise). Perhaps I am reading too much into it and you meant no _significant_ noise and distortion.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

If you call the things by their proper names there is nothing illogical on that.

Tone controls change the frequency response of the system. Cables, or some passive components change the perceived sound in a different way, that can not be explained by our usual measurements, but sometimes suggest a change in the sense of what we perceive by using a tone control. But, unhappily, no tone control can add the extra perceived resolution, detail or musical sense given sometimes by what you properly designate by tweaks.

Perhaps I should reformulate - what is a tweak?

Calling these tweaks "tone controls" is simply metaphor. I understand that they are not variable. Regarding the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in the magic of expensive cables and caps to add resolution where it did not exist before. I believe in their varying ability to pass the signal through unmolested. How that signal varies on the other side of the part or wire defines its transparency. If the variations are in noise or distortion, that is something else. If the variations are in frequency response (and they often are), that is tone alteration. If it is perceived to deliver extra detail or resolution, there are only two possible explanations: 1) The component it replaced was adding distortion (using this term broadly to cover variations in FR as well as traditional "distortions) and the new one is more resolving by comparison 2) The new component is adding distortion, you like it, and therefore perceive it as resolution.

I don't mean #2 to be a flippant response. The world of pro and consumer audio is full of products, particularly speakers, that are deliberately inaccurate and embraced by their proponents as better.

Tim

 

[naturephoto1]

Calling these tweaks "tone controls" is simply metaphor. I understand that they are not variable. Regarding the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in the magic of expensive cables and caps to add resolution where it did not exist before. I believe in their varying ability to pass the signal through unmolested. How that signal varies on the other side of the part or wire defines its transparency. If the variations are in noise or distortion, that is something else. If the variations are in frequency response (and they often are), that is tone alteration. If it is perceived to deliver extra detail or resolution, there are only two possible explanations: 1) The component it replaced was adding distortion (using this term broadly to cover variations in FR as well as traditional "distortions) and the new one is more resolving by comparison 2) The new component is adding distortion, you like it, and therefore perceive it as resolution.

I don't mean #2 to be a flippant response. The world of pro and consumer audio is full of products, particularly speakers, that are deliberately inaccurate and embraced by their proponents as better.

Tim

Hi Tim,

I suspect that the better parts such as caps and resistors that we use as a replacement allow more information through with better resolution than the parts that they replace (the lesser part masks the information in the original recording). However, at the same time they may also alter the sound to some extent rendering the more pleasing sound that we hear.

Rich

 

[Steve Williams]

Hi Tim,

I suspect that the better parts such as caps and resistors that we use as a replacement allow more information through with better resolution than the parts that they replace (the lesser part masks the information in the original recording). However, at the same time they may also alter the sound to some extent rendering the more pleasing sound that we hear.

Rich

so Rich

Is the sound that you are liking therefore a colorized version rather than the original ?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Just a quick jab at this .. I would have almost construed this as a defense from those who believed IC, Speakers and other cables make a huge difference in a system, I 'll let that slide for now ... It seems to me that anything that alters the signal is a "tone" control.. IOW it changes the tonality of what you hear .. whether it only acts on the FR or other response of the system is to me irrelevant .. I think the metaphor is well understood: We are trying to alter the signal in ways we find pleasant and that often bears no resemblance to the original and this too often at great cost ... The methods are numerous .. Changing tubes, Changing resisitors values, changing beand of resistors or caps or other passive componets ..., even some digital add-ons with large followings (One of these seems to have added some EQ in the bass that was construed by its proponents as "better" bass, this was removed later but I digress) ... Often it is entirely placebo since with the knowledge removed the same people who were extolling the virtues of some changes, are totally incapable of identifying it , even if their lives depended on that ... I am by no means suggesting that there aren't better components (caps, resistors, Pots, Tubes, etc) .. better being taken in the objective sense that is components whose performance are measurably superior ... These also alter what we hear ...

What we are into now is a shift toward euphony. High Audio currentl philosphy is toward pleasing sound with a good dose of placebo i-e imagined perception of better sound, of change, improvment or mere differences. It is about what one likes and whatever way one achieves it seems to be acceptable or correct .. The search toward reproducing Live Music , a very difficult endeavor and ultimately one that mY never be achieved seems to have given way to "whatever pleases me" .. The only consensus is that the non-audiophile who adores his Bose sound system is certainly a tin-ear.. He can't hear ... Else it is simply a matter of preference, mostly expensive preferences .. I am yet to see a well-heeled audiophile preferrring a less expensive cable of a given line the more expensive the "better" ... Never mind that the original signal is in many cases distorted beyond recognition ...

I think the definition of tone control is like pornography .. We know what it is ... we all know

 

[RogerD]

Hi

Just a quick jab at this .. I would have almost construed this as a defense from those who believed IC, Speakers and other cables make a huge difference in a system, I 'll let that slide for now ... It seems to me that anything that alters the signal is a "tone" control.. IOW it changes the tonality of what you hear .. whether it only acts on the FR or other response of the system is to me irrelevant .. I think the metaphor is well understood: We are trying to alter the signal in ways we find pleasant and that often bears no resemblance to the original and this too often at great cost ... The methods are numerous .. Changing tubes, Changing resisitors values, changing beand of resistors or caps or other passive componets ..., even some digital add-ons with large followings (One of these seems to have added some EQ in the bass that was construed by its proponents as "better" bass, this was removed later but I digress) ... Often it is entirely placebo since with the knowledge removed the same people who were extolling the virtues of some changes, are totally incapable of identifying it , even if their lives depended on that ... I am by no means suggesting that there aren't better components (caps, resistors, Pots, Tubes, etc) .. better being taken in the objective sense that is components whose performance are measurably superior ... These also alter what we hear ...

What we are into now is a shift toward euphony. High Audio currentl philosphy is toward pleasing sound with a good dose of placebo i-e imagined perception of better sound, of change, improvment or mere differences. It is about what one likes and whatever way one achieves it seems to be acceptable or correct .. The search toward reproducing Live Music , a very difficult endeavor and ultimately one that mY never be achieved seems to have given way to "whatever pleases me" .. The only consensus is that the non-audiophile who adores his Bose sound system is certainly a tin-ear.. He can't hear ... Else it is simply a matter of preference, mostly expensive preferences .. I am yet to see a well-heeled audiophile preferrring a less expensive cable of a given line the more expensive the "better" ... Never mind that the original signal is in many cases distorted beyond recognition ...

I think the definition of tone control is like pornography .. We know what it is ... we all know

I perceive the largest problem is having the ability to clearly identify the recording venue which includes everything the microphone can pick up,everything. Now making the master might degrade what is transmited and going down the chain degrade it further,but on balance the original event is preserved to a high percentage. Now, if the playback system is capable of that level of reproduction you should clearly tell by example if a good recording is made in the space where the event took place. A example is Michael Garson's Oxnard Sessions vol 1. Can you clearly tell that the venue was a auditorium and Garson is talking from the stage? Or does it sound just larger than other studios and Garson is talking through a coffee can.

Now not all recordings are the same in ambient information,if it isn't there,the system should not put it there, But if it is there and fails to convey it, there are advances to be made.

My point is until a system is able to resolve at that level, you cannot say what changes will or will not matter.

Can a tone control resolve at that level? Maybe one that enhances the the sprectrum of sound with distortion equal to the system distortion and is designed to convey that specific information that is in the recording.

"In their most basic form, tone control circuits attenuate the high or low frequencies of the signal. This is called treble or bass "cut". The simplest tone control circuits are passive circuits which utilize only resistors and capacitors or inductors. They rely on the property of capacitive reactance or inductive reactance to inhibit or enhance an AC signal, in a frequency-dependent manner. Active tone controls may also amplify or "boost" certain frequencies. More elaborate tone control circuits can boost or attenuate the middle range of frequencies"

Is that the perfect tone control? I think it is.

 

[Bruce B]

Then you have Michael Bishop recording using MIT cable or Paul Stubblebine using MIT cable to master. Ludwig uses Transparent to master. It's cumulative. If the recording/mix engineer uses EQ and then the mastering engineer uses EQ, much less the cables and such that alter freq. response, what was recorded can be the farthest thing from what anybody heard to begin with.

 

[naturephoto1]

so Rich

Is the sound that you are liking therefore a colorized version rather than the original ?

Hi Steve,

I am not necessarily saying that the replaced parts do alter the sound, I am indicating that that is possibly part of what is being heard. I am saying without question though that there may be some improvement by a replaced part largely because more information is being allowed to get through in part due to lower noise and probably less distortion than the part(s) replaced. The lesser part that was replaced may have masked detail and information and had more distortion, more grunge and haze over the sound, more noise, etc. The replacement part has less of the limitations of the part that was replaced. I am trying to have the sound be truer and as close to the original and a live performance as possible. By the same token swapping tubes can have a dramatic change in the sound of tube equipment. Is changing tubes considered a tone control or would you consider that by changing tubes you are adding more coloration to the sound (though this may be true)?

Taking things to look at the big picture, every component is made up of many constituent parts that all contribute to the overall sound of the item. That includes the the design, electrical design and circuitry (including SS and tube), the layout of the design, part selection and parts themselves, chassis, wiring, any material to lessen noise and dampen the machine, adhesives, feet... You get the idea. So in a sense by selecting the parts the designer or the person modifying the equipment has selected the parts to voice the equipment.

Manufacturers, DIYers, modders have for sometime looked at all of the things in design, material, and components and have made changes to improve performance over the years. These can be as an example as a MKII release of a product. By changing things in the design and parts is this considered tone control?

Rich

 

[microstrip]

(...) I don't believe in the magic of expensive cables and caps to add resolution where it did not exist before.

The information already existed - but was masked and something on these items allows it to be perceived.

(...) If the variations are in frequency response (and they often are), that is tone alteration. If it is perceived to deliver extra detail or resolution, there are only two possible explanations: 1) The component it replaced was adding distortion (using this term broadly to cover variations in FR as well as traditional "distortions) and the new one is more resolving by comparison 2) The new component is adding distortion, you like it, and therefore perceive it as resolution.
Tim

IMHO 1) Seems out of question unless we are prepared to accept new mechanisms of distortion and 2) seems to be the interesting question. What is the component quality that can operate some systematic enhancements of the system musical capability, that makes music more pleasurable for a great majority of listeners?

BTW, the word "distortion" is always connected with THD , IMD or similar properties, usually nasty sounding, and most of the time has a pejorative meaning in audio debates. If audiophiles could ignore it debates could be much more open.

 

[microstrip]

(...) It seems to me that anything that alters the signal is a "tone" control.. IOW it changes the tonality of what you hear .. whether it only acts on the FR or other response of the system is to me irrelevant .. I think the metaphor is well understood: We are trying to alter the signal in ways we find pleasant and that often bears no resemblance to the original and this too often at great cost (...)

I agree with you that we alter the signal in ways we find pleasant - using a well known concept most of us find pleasant what we find like reality, any thing that is far from what we perceive from reality is considered nasty by our brain. It is curious some audiophiles are afraid of the word "listening pleasure" - F. Toole uses it abundantly in his book "Sound Reproduction". He seems to trust more on the human nature discrimination capabilities to get pleasure from good sound systems than most of us.

Weather these alterations often bear no resemblance to the original is a matter of appreciation and I can not discuss it as I do not know what systems you are addressing. But from the high-end systems I know usually the alterations produced by "component tweaks" and cables make the sound more like reality.

 

[JackD201]

I think the tone control metaphor is a poor one. Yes you can change the tone but really, there isn't much control now is there.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This...

allow more information through with better resolution

...and this...

at the same time they may also alter the sound

...are a contradiction of terms.

Tim

 

[naturephoto1]

This...



...and this...



...are a contradiction of terms.

Tim

Hi Tim,

Not really. They may allow more information through with better resolution. But, though I do not believe that this is normally the case, they could potentially alter the sound a little. Normally, I just believe that these will allow more information through than the poorer caps or resistors which may mask the information in the original recording. The poorer quality caps and resistors probably suffer from more noise (EMI and RFI) and mask the sound with more grunge and haze.

Rich

 

[c1ferrari]

Yeah... they're pretty good. For mastering I prefer EQ's from Rupert Neve, EAR and Sontec

It's not hard at all to incorporate them. Some have 2 I/O config for -10 and +4.

Thanks, Bruce.

 

[JackD201]

I have attenuators for all 6 of my tweeters and active subwoofers. I use them any time I feel like it. If I had a quiet and transparent parametric EQ, I wouldn't hesitate to use it either.

Having said that, EQs can't do everything. Boosting gain into an inappropriate amplifier for a particular loudspeaker won't make it grow more watts. If the fundamentals are down pat, IMO anybody can and should do whatever they want for any given situation.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi Tim,

Not really. They may allow more information through with better resolution. But, though I do not believe that this is normally the case, they could potentially alter the sound a little. Normally, I just believe that these will allow more information through than the poorer caps or resistors which may mask the information in the original recording. The poorer quality caps and resistors probably suffer from more noise (EMI and RFI) and mask the sound with more grunge and haze. l

Rich

Not to be pedantic, Rich, but the theoretical ideal is transparency - the wire, cap, resistor that does not alter the signal at all, unless it is in a circuit that is meant to alter the signal. "Better" resolution of the signal is less alteration of the signal. Therefore, "better resolution" and "may alter the sound" are contradictory unless you meant "may alter the sound" in a very purist sense, in the sense that even the best parts are less than perfect. That doesn't really seem likely though. Good midfi has vanishingly low levels of distortion and noise, which is why many of us assume that if a hobbyist is changing things like caps and wire or a manufacturer is using premium caps and wire, they're either trying to alter the sound or deliberately over-engineering their product (not necessarily a bad thing).

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(... ) but the theoretical ideal is transparency - the wire, cap, resistor that does not alter the signal at all, unless it is in a circuit that is meant to alter the signal.(...)

It is curious that we are still bound to a notion that it is very easy to use in a subjective approximate way and impossible to quantify objectively. Unless one of them is really a bad design you can not say that an amplifier is more transparent than another one just looking at their measurements.

BTW, classical measurements can not be used to discuss the sound performance of components - according to them all, safe a few very bad ones, should sound the same. They are all "transparent".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

BTW, classical measurements can not be used to discuss the sound performance of components - according to them all, safe a few very bad ones, should sound the same. They are all "transparent".

Are you saying there are no measurable differences between the component parts (caps, wire, resistors...) that go into audio designs? Or that once integrated into the designs, all DACs, preamps, amps, etc. measure the same? Not following you...

Unless one of them is really a bad design you can not say that an amplifier is more transparent than another one just looking at their measurements.

Actually, you can. There are plenty of amps, preamps, DACs, analog sources, passive crossover networks, etc. that measure relatively high levels of noise and distortion, and compared to the clarity and precision of well-designed active sources playing good digital files, I can hear the difference as well. I'm confident those differences, shown in measurements, could also be easily identified in blind listening tests. Upgraded caps? I wouldn't bet on that being heard, even by trained listeners. Is it possible? Sure. But I'll bet it would have to be an upgrade from one of those really bad caps you referred to above.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Having said that, EQs can't do everything. Boosting gain into an inappropriate amplifier for a particular loudspeaker won't make it grow more watts.

It will, in fact, make matters worse.

Tim