Is a FLAT response the IDEAL?

Nice unsupported accusations about me there.

Here’s some quotes from Wiki

“The purposes of the equalization are to permit greater recording times (by decreasing the mean width of each groove), to improve sound quality, and to reduce the groove damage that would otherwise arise during playback.”

And…

”RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequenciesreduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback, the opposite occurs. The net result is a flat frequency response, but with attenuation of high-frequency noise such as hiss and clicks that arise from the recording medium. Reducing the low frequencies also limits the excursions the cutter needs to make when cutting a groove. Groove width is thus reduced, allowing more grooves to fit into a given surface area, permitting longer recording times. This also reduces physical stresses on the stylus, which might otherwise cause distortion or groove damage during playback.”

I suggest this is a much wider discussion than what has been raised so far. Your point could have been served by sharing this: 

I like flat, try to achieve it when possible.  Currently....*shrug*....tolerable, a whack space, basically.

Preferred with beverage, no.  Spouse isn't. *L*

@kenjit Truth, to beauty. 👍

@emrofsemanon , ditto...but take a breath, or at least, Caps. ;) *whew*L*

and even if you were so fortunate as to get truly accurate playback that was within a whisper of the control room's playback, you might not even like it that much. we all hear differently, lord knows i've heard mixes that made me scratch my head in wonderment at "what in tarnation was that blinkin' engineer thinking, was this recorded by a daggone committee?" 

It’s supposed to be…..I still like to use my ears, remember we’re “audio” philes.

@cmcaelestis 

Sigh ......

This is wrong. Ideally you are trying to match to what was done at the time of mixing and mastering. It is almost guaranteed that was done near field, one of the reasons why a flat direct sound is important, more so moving forward as studio monitors are fast becoming all active with very close to flat responses.

A room response declining in frequency matches more closely what a venue may do to the overall sound. Think about how music is recorded. Microphones close to the artists, absent the impact of where they are recorded. Not exclusively, but most. When someone is working on the mix and master, they are playing with left/right levels, and maybe frequency balance to place the artist in the recording, and then they are adjusting the overall tone so that it sounds right.

Sigh…

(1) Aspiring to make the the room response flat is desirable because it helps to remove the particular way that a particular room alters the sound of recorded media upon playback—it’s a room-specific endeavor, not a global ideal, and the point is not “it sounds good.” The point is accuracy. If the recording is bad no equalization will make it sound “good;” EQ to your heart’s delight to make it sound “good” to you;.