What happened to tone controls?

[bluegrassphile]

It's kind of slow around here so here goes...I remember my first time around as an audiophile in the mid to late '60s, '70s, and '80s. Almost all integrated amps and receivers had tone controls. About the only thing without tone controls were power amps.

Fast forward to today. Compared to the time period mentioned above there are relatively few amps in high end home audio with tone controls. Some preamps don't even have tone controls. What happened to tone controls?

Not only did most integrated amps and receivers have tone controls but a significant number of systems had graphic or parametric equalizers. Tonal flexibility and control-ability were highly desirable.

Heck, even the integrated amp I'll be purchasing in January has no tone controls. Is it because more controls "dirty up" the signal path? I'm not sure that argument holds water as there are some really impressive sounding amps with tone controls (Luxman and Accuphase to mention a couple). Is having no tone controls more of a purist approach to high end audio? I know this has been discussed before but as far as I can determine, it's been awhile. Are you a tone control or no tone control audiophile? Why?

[UltraFast69]

Yeah, I find that odd as well but it is a game of cumulative points to achieve the best sound one can manage.

Some view tone controls as messing with the recording source affecting the sound as intended by the artist.

Tone controls work in conjunction with the signal path in the preamp.

Every system I have owned has included tone controls, and I would not have it any other way.

As I’m using an interim turn table until my new one arrives, tone controls are a blessing.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bart]

I had tone controls on my Burmester integrated.
They surely helped me in our then untreated room, with also speakers not so well dialed in.
The room is optimised now, my Hegel is (absolutely) not bass shy.
I have no need for tone controls anymore.

[Shadowfax]

I have not had Tone Controls on my main system for at least 15 years. Still planning on that Luxman which does have them so we shall see how much use they get.

After the post above and realizing that if the Dan D'Agostino gear has them, they must not be all that bad. My guess is Money, and they told us it was to have a shorter path, which saves Money.

[CPP]

Tone controls just more tools for the audiophile. A good thing in my opinion.

[Randy Myers]

Back in the day I did have some equipment with tone controls; McIntosh Pre-amp for example. I never did use them and preferred when there was a tone control by pass. However, when I got what I considered my best sounding pre back then (Dayton Wright if I recall) it was as basic as you get. An input selector and a volume control. And that was the way I preferred it.

Since jumping back in I have not had a piece with tone controls (as far as I recall) and honestly do not care.

In the car it is a little different. With my Burmester system I do use some slight tone control adjustments .

[Leatherneck]

Supposedly, tone controls cause phase shift. I haven't missed them.

[aKnyght]

here in the 21st century, digital signal processing [DSP] is new tone controls -- for a digital source anyway. provides the desired effect but keeps the signal chain short and direct.

firmly residing in the 20th century, i do prefer the knobs. however, i am also currently a purist as my amp has only volume and input selector controls.

[AJ Soundfield]

For room bass modes, bass loading of speakers due to boundaries proximity/room size, bright recordings, dull recordings, bass heavy, bass light recordings, etc, etc, etc, tone controls make perfect sense.
Which is why they were banished from audiophile "purist" equipment. Unpure tools of the devil. Never mind 100,000 rounds of tone shaping took place during the creation of the recordings being played back. Pain and suffering from said modes, recordings, etc are all good.
Here are the wildly varying frequency responses of various recording studios:



http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/1...confusion.html

Can you guess which one "the artist intended" for you?? Use as much imagination as needed when sitting in your own, very different acoustics room/speaker setup, distances, objects, etc, etc, etc. playing back recordings.

cheers,

AJ

[bluegrassphile]

What A. J. said.

[Al M.]

For room bass modes, bass loading of speakers due to boundaries proximity/room size, bright recordings, dull recordings, bass heavy, bass light recordings, etc, etc, etc, tone controls make perfect sense.

Agreed. I have a monitor/sub system, and I use the volume knob on the subs as bass control, even though the bass quality in my room at standard setting is mostly excellent (no or hardly any nodes etc.; the JL Audio subs are DSP'd with microphone calibration). Especially in the bass recordings differ so wildly from one another, it is pathetic. For overripe recordings that on other systems would sound ruined I simply turn down the subs -- problem solved. For bass-anemic recordings that sound pathetic on other systems I turn up the subs. A sound engineer once told a friend that he had a monitor system in the studio that did not do deep bass, so he was simply just guessing what the right amount of bass was. That's probably not uncommon. Now there you have the "artist's intent". To be "purist" about the recording then would be just plain stupid.

My preamp does have tone controls, and I chose it partly for that. I use the controls rarely, but they do come in handy in special cases. I would use the bass control often if I would not have the sub adjustment, see above.

A vintage violin sonata recording is greatly helped by toning down the treble -5 dB. The 1988 Hyperion recording of Robert Simpson's fantastic, majestic 9th Symphony was unlistenable probably because it is one of those early day CDs that came with "pre-emphasis" which then had to be toned-down in the analog domain with "de-emphasis" (analogous to a vinyl RIAA curve). Early CD players did have a (disc encoded) de-emphasis function but that quickly went away as these kind of discs were not produced anymore. My preamp solves the problem with a -7 dB setting for the treble, and the previously unlistenable CD now sounds unexpectedly very good, borderline excellent.

On a good preamp, such as my Octave HP 700, tone controls are in practical terms sonically transparent. I compared the activated tone control on my preamp (which features an extra tube) at neutral setting with bypass mode, and I would have a really hard time reliably discerning any difference on my high-resolution system.

Here are the wildly varying frequency responses of various recording studios:



http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/1...confusion.html

Can you guess which one "the artist intended" for you?? Use as much imagination as needed when sitting in your own, very different acoustics room/speaker setup, distances, objects, etc, etc, etc. playing back recordings.

cheers,

AJ

As you said. The "purist" attitude to tone controls is silly.

[atmasphere]

Tone controls went the way for the simple reason of improved neutrality/transparency.

There were some preamps that had pretty good controls- the H/K Citation 1 being a good example: when you set the controls to flat, it actually was flat. I've worked on a lot of consumer gear over the decades; that bit is somewhat unusual. I've been working on a small integrated amp for my bedroom system and one of the frustrating things about it is that 12:00 on the bass and treble isn't anywhere near flat. I've found that adjusting them doesn't help; there is no position on the controls that yields a flat FR- the tone stack is just poorly designed. The thing is, its pretty typical of a lot of tone control stacks seen in many integrated amps and receivers during the 1970s.

When you get rid of the tone controls you also get rid of the gain stage required to drive them. But you also have wider bandwidth and less distortion; this sort of thing is both measurable and audible.

I play in a band so its nice to be able to hear the recordings we've made as we intended. Room correction is one thing- but just introducing a coloration that you can't remove is quite another. So most really competent preamps don't have tone controls, and I've found that if the system is really doing its job I don't miss them at all.

[JoeESP9]

I haven't had tone controls since 1983 when I sold my ARC SP-3. I haven't missed them at all.

[Ritmo]

I have tone controls in my D’Agostino Momentum Pre. I think I’ve used them a handful of times.

[AJ Soundfield]

Tone controls went the way for the simple reason of improved neutrality/transparency.

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

I play in a band so its nice to be able to hear the recordings we've made as we intended.

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?

[Al M.]

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

Indeed. As I said above, the tone controls of my Octave HP 700 preamp are very transparent, and unlike the controls in the preamp that Ralph has, they are in fact frequency linear in "0" position, as easily heard in comparison with the by me usually employed bypass mode. But then, Andreas Hoffman, the designer, approaches this very seriously, as he does with everything. For him, nothing is an afterthought.

And for all other recordings, aka 99.99999999999% of music based on what I posted previously?

As you pointed out above with Sean Olive's Circle of Confusion and its frequency graphs from in room studio monitor responses around the world, there is no way to tell if what you hear is "as the artist intended".

As easily proven, the "purist" argument is nonsense. Period.

[AJ Soundfield]

the tone controls of my Octave HP 700 preamp are very transparent

At bare minimum, at least as "transparent" to the audio signal as this:

[JoeESP9]

I don't miss tone controls, if my current preamp had them I'd most likely not use them. OTOH I truly miss the variable loudness control on the SP-3.

Years ago someone manufactured a stand alone variable loudness control. I regret not buying one then.

Posting pictures of a "zillion" track console has very little to do with someone using tone controls in their home.

All the best sounding recordings in my collection are either direct to disc or direct to two track masters. That alone should make someone wonder why all those tracks don't result in better sounding recordings.

[Al M.]

At bare minimum, at least as "transparent" to the audio signal as this:

Hehe. Of course I meant in comparison with the direct path. But seriously, sometimes I wonder how we can still get such good sound after it has traveled through all those devices...

[UltraFast69]

I have tone controls in my D’Agostino Momentum Pre. I think I’ve used them a handful of times.

I have them set for specific music, mostly Classic Rock


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JSQT]

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.

[atmasphere]

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?

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.

[kiwi_1282001]

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.

[AJ Soundfield]

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.

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..

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.

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

[Shadowfax]

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.

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

[JSQT]

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

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!

[atmasphere]

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

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.

[Shadowfax]

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.

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?

[Mechnutt]

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.

[atmasphere]

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?

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!

[atmasphere]

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.

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.

[AJ Soundfield]

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.

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

[AJ Soundfield]

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.

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

[Shadowfax]

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

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

[AJ Soundfield]

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

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.

[Mechnutt]

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.

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.

[AJ Soundfield]

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

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

[JoeESP9]

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.

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 masochist. 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.

[atmasphere]

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

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.

[AJ Soundfield]

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

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.

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.

[JoeESP9]

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



Regarding your claim abut 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.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned. My problem is that MQA is a closed system. It's a cash cow for Meridian. What happens if somewhere down the line Meridian decides that even the first "unfolding" should be fee based? How about they come out with a new version and won't support previous versions? The consumer is stuck. Besides, I can download any number of 24/96 and higher or DSD files. All of them are open source.

The closed system thing is the same reason I don't buy Apple products. Their monopoly has made anything Apple related ridiculously expensive. Just note the cost of an Apple PC or laptop with an equivalent Windows machine. They both use pretty much identical hardware yet Apple charges twice what a Windows box costs.

[atmasphere]

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



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.

The problem with your prior assertion is it assumes that all MQA recordings are derived from recordings where aliasing is a problem. On this account it renders the statement false. It was easy to demonstrate aliasing with some early digital recorders- simply record an analog sweep tone at a slow sweep and the 'birdies' are plain to hear. This problem varied from one ADC/DAC system to another.

[AJ Soundfield]

My problem is that MQA is a closed system

Don't disagree with you there Joe...but, like tone controls or not, I think folks should be allowed to choose. Including MQA if they like it vs other formats.
Here is a great, easily understood explanation by Information Theory Prof Jim Lesurf, of how it works, ironically, as a "tone control" http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origa...reAndBack.html

The more temporal ‘sharpening’ we want, the higher the levels and frequencies we may get from anharmonic aliasing added to the output. We tend to end up with a conflict between making changes to the filtering to get better temporal response versus changes that reduce the amount of unwanted HF aliasing. Optimising this seems to potentially be a matter of the extent to which people with ‘golden ears’ hear aliased components as if they were also part of the musical harmonics rather than unwanted distortion! So it seems to rely on people either not noticing the aliasing (which implies they might not be noticing the HF anyway) or hearing it without being able to notice its actual anharmonic nature in general.

Whether the much higher amounts of aliasing distortion inherent with MQA vs say Redbook, is preferred, is a subjective decision.

cheers,

AJ

[JoeESP9]

An uneeded explanation does nothing to change my mind about dealing with closed systems. I'm a retired BS EE, MS Comp Sc. So I believe I have a fairly good grasp about MQA, digital files and "folding/unfolding" in general. I won't embrace MQA nor will I purchase Apple products. As for tone controls, if you have them and want to use them that's your business.

I am a Linux fan and would use it for everything were the applications I prefer available for linux.