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

[Ron Resnick]

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.

I knew what you were referring to. I remembered Jonathan’s categories from the Magico speaker review as well.

The “transparency to sources” may be close to our 1) “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

The “as you like it” is identical to our 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

Johnathan describes his “absolute sound” category as listeners who “search for those recordings and components that best preserve the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space.” This seems very close to our 2) “recreate the sound of an original musical event.” I think “musicality” is very difficult to define and not a useful term in this particular endeavor.

Our Objective 4) is “create a sound that seems live.”

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

Fair enough. These objectives as written are not immutable. I actually like the idea that they are a work in progress: that we are always reconsidering them, refining them and improving them.

By types of equipment do you mean the reference to “master tape”? How would you amend it?

I will let PeterA take the laboring oar on explaining and defending Objective 4).

 

[microstrip]

I knew what you were referring to. I remembered Jonathan’s categories from the Magico speaker review as well.

The “transparency to sources” may be close to our 1) “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

The “as you like it” is identical to our 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

Johnathan describes his “absolute sound” category as listeners who “search for those recordings and components that best preserve the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space.” This seems very close to our 2) “recreate the sound of an original musical event.” I think “musicality” is very difficult to define and not a useful term in this particular endeavor.

Our Objective 4) is “create a sound that seems live.”

Fair enough. These objectives as written are not immutable. I actually like the idea that they are a work in progress: that we are always reconsidering them, refining them and improving them.

By types of equipment do you mean the reference to “master tape”? How would you amend it?

I will let PeterA take the laboring oar on explaining and defending Objective 4).

The best summary I read from JV old thoughts comes from Robert Harley in TAS http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-q7-mk-ii-loudspeaker/?page=2

"This conundrum has a parallel in Jonathan Valin’s three types of listeners: 1)those who value transparency to sources above all else; 2) those who seek systems that best convey the sound of instruments in a concert hall; and 3) those who don’t care about these ideals and instead gravitate toward whatever components produce the most pleasing and enjoyable sound."

IMHO we must address if the words are used in an objective - ans this means instruments and measurements - or in a subjective way, based in our perception. Stereo is technically a very incomplete system, our brain feels the gaps according to our wishes, more or less successfully. IMHO JV point 1 should be taken objectively - people who trust the recording process in the control room is the reference and want to get the closest think to the sound the engineers got at the control room. They do it objectively - probably "master tape" should mean the distribution media to the consumer. Deviation from this objective should be measured with a null test, in their view. The assurance they are listening close to "source" is enough to create a gratifying experience for them.

Point 2 approaches the views of Harry Pearson and some people in this forum - but I would risk that people who listen essentially to small scale vocal / instrumental music or jazz have a different reference than the the sound of instruments in a concert hall. But our tool to quality of reproduction is still the enjoyment ...

Point 3 is the essence of the high-end and partially includes 2 - for most of us the enjoyment is created from our individual perception with life sources. Here we move from F. Toole view, that considered that enjoyment of the proper sound was an innate property to humans, independent of their musical experience.

IMHO these 3 points are nice to fill review pages, but trying to attach listeners and system to them do not help the debates on stereo. Surely IMMV, all IMHO.

 

[Al M.]

I was just listening to 'Everybody's mouth's a book' by Henry Threadgill & Make a Move. Great progressive jazz album, but waayyy too fat bass. I simply turned my subwoofers completely down and it's well listenable that way, just through my two-way monitors. But who would want to reproduce it "like it's on the tape"? Someone who doesn't want to enjoy the music and castigate themselves? Seriously. Audiophile purism really does go too far sometimes.

 

[NorthStar]

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

Because they add unwanted noise, from "incorrect"* audio signal path to hi-end music recordings from hi-end audio gear in hi-end sound acoustic rooms of hi-end audiophile purists?
____

* Incorrect: indirect, complex, obtrusive, detour, longer distance than the shortest A to B line.

___
___

In a hi-fi stereo sound system, with less than perfect music recordings from tapes, LPs, CDs, SACDs, hi-res DSD, upsampled PCM, FLAC, WAV, ... audio files, a volume control, a balance control, a tone bass control, tone midrange control, tone treble control, variable loudness control, parametric EQ tone controls, bass management EQ control, room correction EQ controls, room notch controls, DSP effect controls, ... could be fun to explore and elevate the music listening experience from them various music recordings and medium.

The volume control in a ultra hi-end preamp has to be pristine, pure, extremely sensible in its granularity.
If a balance control is offered, best is to have it separately in each channel, or a separate volume control for both the left and right channel.

But no Treble and Bass tone controls, not in purist audio systems. Purists only listen to the top best music recordings, and those don't need any more EQ.

Tone controls are for the less than perfect hi-fi stereo audio systems playing some less than perfect music recordings.

And to experience Pink Floyd's The Wall @ home in its full glory and delivery, the biggest your speakers, subwoofers, amplifiers...the better. ...Tone controls or not. IMO and limited/restricted real experience from both sides of the parallel; live and recreated @ home (real loud to get the decibels right). ...No drugs, just a small glass of premium dry red wine from France.

No bull, no nothing but good cheers.

 

[still-one]

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


____


But no Treble and Bass tone controls, not in purist audio systems. Purists only listen to the top best music recordings, and those don't need any more EQ.

.

From you definition being a purist would be boring and I would get out of this hobby if I only listened to "the top best music recordings". There are many crappy recordings that contain content much more enjoyable than some perfectly recorded. Boring is boring no mater how well it is recorded.

 

[NorthStar]

Then tone controls can be useful for those crappy music recordings.

* We would need to analyse each recording and each person's preference in their fine tuning from them recordings.

Also, analog and digital music recordings require different controls. ...The phono preamp for example; the best have zero controls. ...Audio Note.

In vast general, in the high end audio world treble and bass tone controls are not present in the preamplifier. They would add to the overall high cost, from deleterious "distorsion".

 

[Bruce B]

And to experience Pink Floyd's The Wall @ home in its full glory and delivery, the biggest your speakers, subwoofers, amplifiers...the better. ...Tone controls or not. IMO and limited/restricted real experience from both sides of the parallel; live and recreated @ home (real loud to get the decibels right). ...No drugs, just a small glass of premium dry red wine from France.
.

You would not believe how many "tone controls" this has been through before final production!

 

[tima]

I knew what you were referring to. I remembered Jonathan’s categories from the Magico speaker review as well.

The “transparency to sources” may be close to our 1) “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

The “as you like it” is identical to our 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

Johnathan describes his “absolute sound” category as listeners who “search for those recordings and components that best preserve the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space.” This seems very close to our 2) “recreate the sound of an original musical event.” I think “musicality” is very difficult to define and not a useful term in this particular endeavor.

Our Objective 4) is “create a sound that seems live.”

Fair enough. These objectives as written are not immutable. I actually like the idea that they are a work in progress: that we are always reconsidering them, refining them and improving them.

By types of equipment do you mean the reference to “master tape”? How would you amend it?

I will let PeterA take the laboring oar on explaining and defending Objective 4).

Thanks, Ron, I think we're square here.

Having not participated in whatever thread(s) created these objectives, I too am interested in the distinction between the 'absolute sound' and Objective 4.

 

[NorthStar]

You would not believe how many "tone controls" this has been through before final production!

I believe you Bruce; it's the double album that blew more tweeters than any other music recordings in my music life listening experience when trying to replicate the live impact. I've learned a lot financially from that recording. DON'T TOUCH any EQ controls, and only go to eleven if your ears, speakers and amplifiers can handle it.

My advice, don't go overboard more than it already is in that recording.
It's tough because I sure want to turn it up all the way and more.

* I would probably need a capable system like Mike Lavigne's system, and kick Mike and his wife out before I can proceed with my experimentation. And I would have to sign a contract that I am not responsible if I blow off anything in his sound system.

** Good catch from a professional music recording engineer.

 

[tima]

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.

Thanks, Francisco - perhaps not so curious after all. Yesterday I listened to Shostakovich Symphony No.11, The Year 1905, Berglund conducting.

I suppose if one primarily listens to amplified music or even electronically created music those could be a reference for them by default. I can enjoy such music but don't use it as a reference. There was a point while listening to the Shosty #11 I thought to myself - I wonder if Trentemøller fans might enjoy this. :-o

 

[Atmasphere]

The “transparency to sources” may be close to our 1) “reproduce exactly what is on the master tape.”

The “as you like it” is identical to our 3) “create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.”

Johnathan describes his “absolute sound” category as listeners who “search for those recordings and components that best preserve the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space.” This seems very close to our 2) “recreate the sound of an original musical event.” I think “musicality” is very difficult to define and not a useful term in this particular endeavor.

Our Objective 4) is “create a sound that seems live.”

The best summary I read from JV old thoughts comes from Robert Harley in TAS http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-q7-mk-ii-loudspeaker/?page=2

"This conundrum has a parallel in Jonathan Valin’s three types of listeners: 1)those who value transparency to sources above all else; 2) those who seek systems that best convey the sound of instruments in a concert hall; and 3) those who don’t care about these ideals and instead gravitate toward whatever components produce the most pleasing and enjoyable sound."

IMHO we must address if the words are used in an objective - ans this means instruments and measurements - or in a subjective way, based in our perception. Stereo is technically a very incomplete system, our brain feels the gaps according to our wishes, more or less successfully. IMHO JV point 1 should be taken objectively - people who trust the recording process in the control room is the reference and want to get the closest think to the sound the engineers got at the control room. They do it objectively - probably "master tape" should mean the distribution media to the consumer. Deviation from this objective should be measured with a null test, in their view. The assurance they are listening close to "source" is enough to create a gratifying experience for them.

Point 2 approaches the views of Harry Pearson and some people in this forum - but I would risk that people who listen essentially to small scale vocal / instrumental music or jazz have a different reference than the the sound of instruments in a concert hall. But our tool to quality of reproduction is still the enjoyment ...

Point 3 is the essence of the high-end and partially includes 2 - for most of us the enjoyment is created from our individual perception with life sources. Here we move from F. Toole view, that considered that enjoyment of the proper sound was an innate property to humans, independent of their musical experience.

IMHO these 3 points are nice to fill review pages, but trying to attach listeners and system to them do not help the debates on stereo. Surely IMMV, all IMHO.

I find that the better the playback system becomes, the more blurred the lines between these three. Even poor recordings come off better with no need for tone controls when the playback is really right.

 

[bonzo75]

Thanks, Francisco - perhaps not so curious after all. Yesterday I listened to Shostakovich Symphony No.11, The Year 1905, Berglund conducting.

I suppose if one primarily listens to amplified music or even electronically created music those could be a reference for them by default. I can enjoy such music but don't use it as a reference. There was a point while listening to the Shosty #11 I thought to myself - I wonder if Trentemøller fans might enjoy this. :-o

Sorry might have missed... Are you using phono Eq?

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .
IMHO these 3 points are nice to fill review pages, but trying to attach listeners and system to them do not help the debates on stereo. . . .

I very strongly disagree. By understanding each other’s objectives I think we can avoid a lot of tail-chasing and “talking past” each other.

 

[Al M.]

I very strongly disagree. By understanding each other’s objectives I think we can avoid a lot of tail-chasing and “talking past” each other.

Well said, Ron, I agree with you.

 

[tima]

Sorry might have missed... Are you using phono Eq?

Why no. If I said something that led to that notion, I wrote incorrectly.

 

[bonzo75]

Why no. If I said something that led to that notion, I wrote incorrectly.

No I asked because AR phono has non RIAA curves, so in case you tried with old vinyl

 

[tima]

No I asked because AR phono has non RIAA curves, so in case you tried with old vinyl

Well, for that, yes I do. I was not thinking of alternate curves, but tone controls. Last I recall was a Bruno Walter Mahler 2; I thought it sounded better with the Columbia curve.

 

[rsrzr]

who says there aren't tone controls in high end preamps? I just purchased a new Mcintosh preamp with tone controls/equilizer.

 

[Al M.]

who says there aren't tone controls in high end preamps? I just purchased a new Mcintosh preamp with tone controls/equilizer.

The Octave HP-700 preamp also has a tone control (optional):

http://www.octave.de/en/htdocs/verstaerker/hp700.php

I'll be interested in it when I have again more money to spend. I love my Octave RE 320 power amp, for sure.