If you have them do you use them? If you don't have them do you miss them?

I run mine flat, however I do use a DBX 3BX when playing Lp's.



Jim

why lps

I believe the 3bx is a range expander, I had a 1bx a long time ago.

elroy

I used to do the smilie face thing with my SE7 equalizer. Better speakers have eliminated the need.

Sometimes I'll ad one click on the bass...............

In my comp setup with the Nad amp i use the tone controls maybe to have a little more db's.
In my main setup with the Super T-Amp or the mini Aria tube amp i only use the Behringer Ultrafex Pro EX3200 to have a little bass boost and more transparency.

And yes, i can't listen to "real" music without the EX3200.
When i doesn't have it i didn't miss nothing much, but now i find very difficult to listen music without it. I'm completly addicted to it.

I use them all the time. I find them very handy for correcting the frequency response on records that don’t use RIAA equalisation - early Decca FFRR recordings are pretty rough unless you tame the top end.

They are also handy to add a bit of stereo depth to re-mastered CD recordings that have become casualties of the ‘Loudness War’.

at the store i have none except on the vintage. i don't play the vintage.

I only use pre-amps with tone controls, but often run them direct. Probably 90-95% if not more.

At times a bad recording will require a bit of fine tuning. To me, although not often used, having tone controls are a godsend when the recording is a loved one, but not quite up to par.

i have them on my pre but have always found the sound to be better when the tone controls are bypassed. in my main rig, i havent heard any recording that was the exception to this rule.

My main system has a Parasound PLD-1100 "Line Drive" preamp that has no tone controls. In fact it has only two knobs: a volume, and a balance. The rest of the front panel is a series of input selectors and an on/off switch. It doesn't even have a tape monitor (which I think is silly).

Elsewhere, I have an Adcom GFP-565 that does have tone controls. While they provide very subtle effects, I still run the unit flat.

I've used EQ's in the past, but only when something, particularly speakers, were substandard. I always felt the dbx Soundfield 1a's sounded awful, but I was able to make them sound a helluva lot better with the judicious use of a dbx equalizer. Otherwise, no matter how I fooled around with the EQ's settings, the system always sounded worse with the EQ than without. At no time have I ever been able to "improve" upon the sound of my DQ-10's with an EQ, but I could make the dbx 1a's sound decent, and also made a pair of B&W 802F Specials sound a good deal better too. But then, that's just me...

Want an exception? Try an early Decca FFRR recording. 8dB of treble lift tends to be quite noticeable!

If you enjoy vintage high fidelity recordings (pre-'59) most of the 'alternative' equalisation curves need a touch of correction, so tone controls are good and a equaliser is even better.

I know some enthusiasts insist that tone controls don't work or argue you get improved sound quality if tone controls are bypassed (or better still, completely omitted from a design), but I have never 'heard' a tone control in circuit when its set flat. And I have plenty of LP's and CD's that are immeasurably improved by a judicious bit of tone bending. My cloth ears playing up again, I guess. They have terrible trouble hearing any difference between cables or other strange tuning tweaks involving special mats, cones, exotic fluids or silver plated fuses as well.

I can remember the debate that raged when tone and balance controls were abandoned on the (back then) 'new-boy' products from the likes of Naim. Minimalism was good, it sounded better and that was that. No argument, all dissension was crushed. In the end, even the Japanese brands got into the act with 'Special Editions'. For shame Dudes, for shame.

It never seemed to occur to anyone that every (so called) improvement actually reduced the component count and simplified the manufacturing process. I think any 'improvement' was limited to the bottom line of the company’s profit & loss spreadsheet.

I am such an old cynic...

Yep, range expander, I have used them by RG, and Pioneer also, I would like to hear the 4BX somtime with Impact Restoration.

I use them primarily with Lp playback to restore/enhance some of the highs that are lost when the Lp's are produced, they like many recordings are compressed, Telarc and some other recordings are not nearly as compressed, others benefit tremendously from a range expander.

I agree speakers make a big difference if you will benefit from an EQ or not, I used to use a Sound Shaper Paragraphic EQ, since swithcing to my Legacy's I have removed it from my system.

Jim

i have found by using tubes at the store i don't need the controls. at home i have a big ole rotel and i do use them. sometimes i feel as if i'm cheating by using them. lol

The 4bx introduced "Impact Recovery" to dbx's lineup of expanders, but was actually outperformed by the newer, and less expensive (!) 3bx-ds model. The Impact Recovery circuitry in each was 3-bands, but the expansion was a good deal better on the newer "ds" model, with far less "pumping and breathing" than previous units.

We in dbx's sales department often sold expanders on the basis that, since so many recordings were compressed (Telarc classical ones excepted), it only stood to reason that an expander was needed to "restore" these recordings to a more lifelike state. That may have sounded reasosnable, but it was highly innacurate, as the rate of compression and the rate of expansion were totally different, and a severely compressed recording rarely benefitted from the use of an expander since the thresholds were so different.