Preferences re: tone controls, EQ, etc.

[bigalxyz]

Hello forum.

Playing large iTunes library (most files in the Apple lossless format) on laptop through Behringer USB DAC into Arcam Alpha 8R/8P and then into Mission 752 Freedom speakers.

Mostly pop/rock/indie/electronica/hip-hop, some jazz, no classical. I'm not a hi-fi obsessive audiophile by any means, but would like to get the best out of the kit I've got (which ought to be pretty good).

Struggling a bit with tone controls, etc. If I switch off EQ in iTunes and use the Arcam amp in direct mode (bypassing tone controls) - as a purist surely would - it all sounds a bit flat & lifeless. I find myself wanting to whack bass & treble up to full on the amp and sometimes pushing things a bit further with the iTunes EQ.

I've weaned myself off the iTunes EQ. Not easy though because there's something superficially attractive, at first, about the big bass/sharp top end from the "double whammy" of iTunes EQ + tone controls. And yet after a while it does get quite tiring to listen to.

Not ready to ditch the Arcam's tone controls though. Should this bother me? Is the compulsion to go big on the tone controls an addiction of sorts? Are these things to some extent a case of "what you're used to"? Also, I'm 44 years old so I suppose my hearing at the upper end probably isn't quite what it was when I was younger (I had a hearing test recently, which was absolutely fine, but I guess "fine" is quite a broad definition).

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Alan.

 

[Native_bon]

No rules. If it pleases you use them.

 

[eggontoast]

That's why they are fitted, not everyone is the same and lets face it, most of the time recording engineers get it wrong to start with. Twiddle till it sounds good that's what I say !

 

[cheeseboy]

... and lets face it, most of the time recording engineers get it wrong to start with.

care to expand at all? Just wondering how somebody who is usually hired by the band to make it sound how the band want it to sound "get it wrong". unless you are stating that you know how it should sound, not the people making it?

 

[eggontoast]

Care to expand at all?

No

 

[Native_bon]

Care to expand at all?

No

simples!

 

[cheeseboy]

Care to expand at all?

No

fair enough. In which case I'll say you're talking out of yer bum

For the op, if you prefer it with tone controls in use, go for it, only you know what you like.

 

[eggontoast]

In which case I'll say you're talking out of yer bum

I'll be sure to point it in your direction then.

There is already another recent thread about sound quality etc, the OP asked about tone controls.

 

[cheeseboy]

I'll be sure to point it in your direction then.

I usually charge for that

 

[Covenanter]

Girls! Be careful how you swing those handbags.

Chris

 

[cheeseboy]

Girls! Be careful how you swing those handbags.

Chris

do you mind, I've pulled

 

[tonky]

Tone controls etc - that old chestnut - yawn!

 

[Frank Harvey]

Funny thread

But I will remember it the next time someone is told that digital is right and vinyl is wrong, and active is right and passive is wrong...

To the OP - if you want to use them, go ahead!

 

[cheeseboy]

But I will remember it the next time someone is told that digital is right and vinyl is wrong, and active is right and passive is wrong...

You'd better have a long memory as nobody has ever said that

 

[Frank Harvey]

But I will remember it the next time someone is told that digital is right and vinyl is wrong, and active is right and passive is wrong...

You'd better have a long memory as nobody has ever said that

It won't be long

 

[bigalxyz]

Tone controls etc - that old chestnut - yawn!

Thanks for that

 

[bigalxyz]

.

 

[The_Lhc]

But I will remember it the next time someone is told that digital is right and vinyl is wrong, and active is right and passive is wrong...

You'd better have a long memory as nobody has ever said that

Not for at least the last half hour at any rate.

 

[davedotco]

I have a somewhat different slant on this.

Many people, possibly including the OP, buy regular hi-fi systems, then try to torture them by the excessive use of eq, tone controls, whatever into sounding like something else altogether and I am not sure why.

Hi-fi, by definition, implies a degree of accuracy to the original recording, sure there are compromises to be made and different preferences to take into account but the gross manipulation of the sound as described by the OP leaves me a little bit stumped.

If you do not want hi-fidelity, why buy a conventional hi-fi, if you want driving bass and plenty of highs to go with it, why on earth buy an Arcam?

These days there are plenty of options, why stik with conventional hi-fi when your actual listening requirements are anything but?

 

[cheeseboy]

I have a somewhat different slant on this.

Many people, possibly including the OP, buy regular hi-fi systems, then try to torture them by the excessive use of eq, tone controls, whatever into sounding like something else altogether and I am not sure why.

Hi-fi, by definition, implies a degree of accuracy to the original recording, sure there are compromises to be made and different preferences to take into account but the gross manipulation of the sound as described by the OP leaves me a little bit stumped.

If you do not want hi-fidelity, why buy a conventional hi-fi, if you want driving bass and plenty of highs to go with it, why on earth buy an Arcam?

These days there are plenty of options, why stik with conventional hi-fi when your actual listening requirements are anything but?

It's a good point, but I'll take a crack at a half baked answer.

IMHO, there's a lot of people out there, including a lot of hifi buffs who don't actually know what hifi means or stands for. They think they do, when they don't. Couple that in to the fact that there's even less of those that know excatly what goes on in a studio, how things sound or whatever and you've got yourself a big muddled mess or unrealistic expectations, gross misconceptions and generally just a bunch of clueless people who think that purchasing expensive equipment means that they are getting great quality, or if they don't like the sound of it, then it must be x,y and z's fault.

Obviously just my 2p's worth, but that's what I tend to find. Been to people's houses with expensive set ups in rooms that sound like echo chambers, yet they still blame the sound engineer for it not sounding how *they* want it to! (head against brickwall time). Similarly so, and this goes for this board as well, those people who think that they are listening to a great recording as if they were in the room with the artist, when in fact, the sound of being in the room with the artist is as far removed from what they are actually listening to as chalk and cheese. For examples anyways.

 

[bigalxyz]

I have a somewhat different slant on this.

Many people, possibly including the OP, buy regular hi-fi systems, then try to torture them by the excessive use of eq, tone controls, whatever into sounding like something else altogether and I am not sure why.

Hi-fi, by definition, implies a degree of accuracy to the original recording, sure there are compromises to be made and different preferences to take into account but the gross manipulation of the sound as described by the OP leaves me a little bit stumped.

If you do not want hi-fidelity, why buy a conventional hi-fi, if you want driving bass and plenty of highs to go with it, why on earth buy an Arcam?

These days there are plenty of options, why stik with conventional hi-fi when your actual listening requirements are anything but?

I was hoping for advice, not to be patronised.

 

[davedotco]

I have a somewhat different slant on this.

Many people, possibly including the OP, buy regular hi-fi systems, then try to torture them by the excessive use of eq, tone controls, whatever into sounding like something else altogether and I am not sure why.

Hi-fi, by definition, implies a degree of accuracy to the original recording, sure there are compromises to be made and different preferences to take into account but the gross manipulation of the sound as described by the OP leaves me a little bit stumped.

If you do not want hi-fidelity, why buy a conventional hi-fi, if you want driving bass and plenty of highs to go with it, why on earth buy an Arcam?

These days there are plenty of options, why stik with conventional hi-fi when your actual listening requirements are anything but?

It's a good point, but I'll take a crack at a half baked answer.

IMHO, there's a lot of people out there, including a lot of hifi buffs who don't actually know what hifi means or stands for. They think they do, when they don't. Couple that in to the fact that there's even less of those that know excatly what goes on in a studio, how things sound or whatever and you've got yourself a big muddled mess or unrealistic expectations, gross misconceptions and generally just a bunch of clueless people who think that purchasing expensive equipment means that they are getting great quality, or if they don't like the sound of it, then it must be x,y and z's fault.

Obviously just my 2p's worth, but that's what I tend to find. Been to people's houses with expensive set ups in rooms that sound like echo chambers, yet they still blame the sound engineer for it not sounding how *they* want it to! (head against brickwall time). Similarly so, and this goes for this board as well, those people who think that they are listening to a great recording as if they were in the room with the artist, when in fact, the sound of being in the room with the artist is as far removed from what they are actually listening to as chalk and cheese. For examples anyways.

I think peoples expectations are sometimes way off, we have had a poster, on this forum, who bought a decent upper budget system and then complained that it didn't 'bang out' the bass like his car stereo.

The term hi-fi once meant something, now pretty much anything that makes a noise is termed hi-fi, there is no longer any distinction between equipment designed to accurately re-produce recorded music and 'normal' everyday audio.

When I was a lad 'real' hi-fi systems were rare, most people bought 'record players' and 'radiograms' and the more discerning would choose a set with 'a nice tone'.

It seems to me that we have come full circle, it is now customary for systems to be chosen in the same way as 'radiograms' once were, for the way that they make the music sound, ie 'a nice tone', except that no-one would actually say that.

 

[chebby]

I recommend reading posts #1 and #7 in this link ...

clicky

 

[davedotco]

I have a somewhat different slant on this.

Many people, possibly including the OP, buy regular hi-fi systems, then try to torture them by the excessive use of eq, tone controls, whatever into sounding like something else altogether and I am not sure why.

Hi-fi, by definition, implies a degree of accuracy to the original recording, sure there are compromises to be made and different preferences to take into account but the gross manipulation of the sound as described by the OP leaves me a little bit stumped.

If you do not want hi-fidelity, why buy a conventional hi-fi, if you want driving bass and plenty of highs to go with it, why on earth buy an Arcam?

These days there are plenty of options, why stik with conventional hi-fi when your actual listening requirements are anything but?

I was hoping for advice, not to be patronised.

The advice is in the post, buy something that makes the music sound like you want it to sound, not a hi-fi system that does not.

I thought that was pretty clear.

I was not being patronising which is why I tried not to be personal. A lot of people buy hi-fi systems and, like yourself, are disappointed as it does not give them what they want. Rather than try fiddling around and changing this and that, the real solution is to change to equipment that is designed to give you what you want.

Specific advice? Sell the Arcams and the Mission and buy a pair of Mackie HR824 for around £1100, or if that is a bit extreme, lose the Missions and the extra power amp and get a pair of Martin Logan Motion 15, I can not think of a 'ballsier' speaker in it's (£800) price range,

 

[Frank Harvey]

Specific advice? Sell the Arcams and the Mission and buy a pair of Mackie HR824 for around £1100, or if that is a bit extreme, lose the Missions and the extra power amp and get a pair of Martin Logan Motion 15, I can not think of a 'ballsier' speaker in it's (£800) price range,

But how do you know that the OP will like it?