psnyder149,
Thanks for revealing your musical background and professional accomplishments which enables a more fruitful discussion. BTW, in 1976 I did medical internship in Pittsburgh and took care of a retired Pgh Symphony violist and principal 2nd violinist. They gave me great violin lessons.
My experience is that most pro classical musicians have mediocre low fi audio systems at home. They spend so much time practicing, rehearsing and performing music that they don't want any more recreational listening at home. They know that even fancy audio systems don't come close to what they hear at close range on stage. But they know that midhall sound is so dull compared to stage sound. Here is the opportunity for the audiophile who doesn't have the opportunity to hear the exciting stage sound. A decent system often has more exciting detailed sound than the live midhall sound. This is because a good recording is usually made with close mikes near the 1st row, with very close spot mikes on individual players, with variations due to engineer taste for ambience mikes mixed in.
I learned these things from my experience over many decades, starting when my HF sensitivity was better--my preferences haven't changed. As for my use of EQ to boost HF, the defining moment came in 1995 when I started to do recordings of my orchestra at a medical school lecture hall. I used good equipment--Neumann KM 184 cardioid mikes in stereo ORTF configuration close above and behind the conductor's head, Bryston preamp, Prism A/D converter into digital input of the Panasonic DAT pro recorder. The young conductor and I heard the immediate playback on my headphones, and we were both disappointed by the dull thud of the overblown bass and dull HF. All that great recording equipment and mike placement didn't matter. I then went to Sam Ash, a store for rock/pop bands, disc jockeys and such, and bought the Rane EQ. I cut the bass and boosted HF. For my next recording shortly later, we were both pleased with the newfound brilliance and overall balance/musicality. This conductor had his mediocre home speakers on the floor, but he knew good sound. Of course, this lecture hall was not designed for music and really was acoustically dead and dull, but I managed to salvage it with the EQ. I used similar EQ settings in better halls with other orchestras, and had excellent results which were far more detailed than commercial recordings of the same pieces.
My audiophile days began in 1977, and I was brought up on the prejudices of typical audio retailers who shunned EQ. So in 1995 with that conductor's blunt criticism I had to do something. I shed this audiophile prejudice, and am grateful to him for his constructive criticism, which opened up worlds for me. I continued to use the EQ for my home system with commercial recordings, and did well, adjusting the boosts for different recordings. Even in the flat position without EQ, the Rane ME 60 was more open than my Spectral DMC 10 gamma preamp, and with the EQ settings everything rose to a transformative level. It does great things for the cello, your instrument. Without EQ, on dynamic speakers and even my clearer electrostatics, there is too much boom without enough artificulation. Then with EQ HF boost, it is remarkable how the buzz of the string is revealed. You can hear the naturally gritty effect of the rosin on the bow. I start boosting above 8 kHz, but the EQ bands extend down to about 1 kHz to reveal the upper midrange harmonics. Yes, it can be artificial, so you have to adjust this effect according to your preference. Even the great cellist, Pablo Casals used crude match sticks between the strings and the ebony fingerboard to correct imperfect fifths, etc. As a musician, you do what you have to do to get results. Many audiophiles are trying all kinds of tricks to get better sound, and I admire all of this. It's just a pity that many are not open minded to try this with EQ, based on audiophile prejudice.
None of the above is preaching or commandments--it's just mentioning the possibilities learned from my experience, so there is no need for people to think I need to be counselled.
Like you, I got my inspiration from my father, an EE who built his mono Altec Voice of the Theater 7 foot corner horn, and his 30 W mono tube amp. I loved his sound. He convinced me that horns are the best dynamic speakers because horns are a natural form of amplification which enable lower distortion. Jay would have loved them. They didn't shout, unlike other horns I heard later. But after I got my electrostatics and SS amps, my father admitted they have lower distortion and better HF than his horns. He also bought a SS home theater amp and used mixed 2 channels for his mono Altec. He also said the SS amp had better overall sound and clarity than his tube amp, his baby. That's open mindedness, learning from experience.
Thanks for revealing your musical background and professional accomplishments which enables a more fruitful discussion. BTW, in 1976 I did medical internship in Pittsburgh and took care of a retired Pgh Symphony violist and principal 2nd violinist. They gave me great violin lessons.
My experience is that most pro classical musicians have mediocre low fi audio systems at home. They spend so much time practicing, rehearsing and performing music that they don't want any more recreational listening at home. They know that even fancy audio systems don't come close to what they hear at close range on stage. But they know that midhall sound is so dull compared to stage sound. Here is the opportunity for the audiophile who doesn't have the opportunity to hear the exciting stage sound. A decent system often has more exciting detailed sound than the live midhall sound. This is because a good recording is usually made with close mikes near the 1st row, with very close spot mikes on individual players, with variations due to engineer taste for ambience mikes mixed in.
I learned these things from my experience over many decades, starting when my HF sensitivity was better--my preferences haven't changed. As for my use of EQ to boost HF, the defining moment came in 1995 when I started to do recordings of my orchestra at a medical school lecture hall. I used good equipment--Neumann KM 184 cardioid mikes in stereo ORTF configuration close above and behind the conductor's head, Bryston preamp, Prism A/D converter into digital input of the Panasonic DAT pro recorder. The young conductor and I heard the immediate playback on my headphones, and we were both disappointed by the dull thud of the overblown bass and dull HF. All that great recording equipment and mike placement didn't matter. I then went to Sam Ash, a store for rock/pop bands, disc jockeys and such, and bought the Rane EQ. I cut the bass and boosted HF. For my next recording shortly later, we were both pleased with the newfound brilliance and overall balance/musicality. This conductor had his mediocre home speakers on the floor, but he knew good sound. Of course, this lecture hall was not designed for music and really was acoustically dead and dull, but I managed to salvage it with the EQ. I used similar EQ settings in better halls with other orchestras, and had excellent results which were far more detailed than commercial recordings of the same pieces.
My audiophile days began in 1977, and I was brought up on the prejudices of typical audio retailers who shunned EQ. So in 1995 with that conductor's blunt criticism I had to do something. I shed this audiophile prejudice, and am grateful to him for his constructive criticism, which opened up worlds for me. I continued to use the EQ for my home system with commercial recordings, and did well, adjusting the boosts for different recordings. Even in the flat position without EQ, the Rane ME 60 was more open than my Spectral DMC 10 gamma preamp, and with the EQ settings everything rose to a transformative level. It does great things for the cello, your instrument. Without EQ, on dynamic speakers and even my clearer electrostatics, there is too much boom without enough artificulation. Then with EQ HF boost, it is remarkable how the buzz of the string is revealed. You can hear the naturally gritty effect of the rosin on the bow. I start boosting above 8 kHz, but the EQ bands extend down to about 1 kHz to reveal the upper midrange harmonics. Yes, it can be artificial, so you have to adjust this effect according to your preference. Even the great cellist, Pablo Casals used crude match sticks between the strings and the ebony fingerboard to correct imperfect fifths, etc. As a musician, you do what you have to do to get results. Many audiophiles are trying all kinds of tricks to get better sound, and I admire all of this. It's just a pity that many are not open minded to try this with EQ, based on audiophile prejudice.
None of the above is preaching or commandments--it's just mentioning the possibilities learned from my experience, so there is no need for people to think I need to be counselled.
Like you, I got my inspiration from my father, an EE who built his mono Altec Voice of the Theater 7 foot corner horn, and his 30 W mono tube amp. I loved his sound. He convinced me that horns are the best dynamic speakers because horns are a natural form of amplification which enable lower distortion. Jay would have loved them. They didn't shout, unlike other horns I heard later. But after I got my electrostatics and SS amps, my father admitted they have lower distortion and better HF than his horns. He also bought a SS home theater amp and used mixed 2 channels for his mono Altec. He also said the SS amp had better overall sound and clarity than his tube amp, his baby. That's open mindedness, learning from experience.