Traps vs Equalizer

Would you buy an artists' painting only to get it home and touch up the parts you don't like with your own strokes, and if so, why did you buy it?

It takes a whole lot more skill and talent to "touch up the strokes' on an accomplished work of art, than it would to adjust the equalization on a recording. I know you were just trying to make a simple point, but I just don't agree.

The music/sound has already been 'distorted' the moment it leaves the instrument...more so when it bounces around a room, and even more so when some recording engineer makes decisions based upon his own subjective interpretation and manipulates the music for recording. There is no such thing as a pure isolated and undistorted sound. If you could hear it, you may even not like it as much as one that's been distorted by an environment, and or manipulated by an engineer. It's all subjective. It is also relatively easy for an average audiophile type who knows what they are doing, and what kind of sound they prefer to, with the proper equipment, make adjustments to tailor the sound to their liking. If that's what they like, I say, have at it and good on'ya! Whatever brings you closer to the music you enjoy. And yes, if you happen to have the skill and talent to manipulate a great work of art in a similar way so that you enjoy it more than you did in its original state, why the hell not, you paid for it! It's your life after all.

Marco

Dirtyragamuffin...The problem is that unless you use earphones, or listen with the same speakers and room as the engineer did you don't hear what he did.

Dirtyragamuffin...The problem is that unless you use
earphones, or listen with the same speakers and room as the engineer did
you don't hear what he did.

....and even if you did, you STILL may not like it the same way the engineer
chose to interpret it. Regardless of the gear, it is still subjective. Stick ten
different recording engineers in the booth for the same performance, give
them the same gear, same speakers, same headphones, and you'll likely
come back with ten different interpretations of that performance. Give those
ten to a hundred different people and I doubt very much there'd be any
unanimous decision about which one is "best".

Marco

right eldatford, so why change the music rather than the room?

Jax, it's true there is distortion on hitting the mics and more from there on. So your rationale is, there is already plenty of distortion so let's cake as much more on as possible?

I think we're all making valid points and it's true that it's pretty futile across the board. Yes it is subjective. But as an aspiring engineer I would like to say that NO, it is not easier to touch up music than a painting. I just plain disagree with that. Most audiophiles aren't engineers any more than they are painters.

Also by eford's rationale, shouldn't you be looking at the painting in the painter's studio, wtih their exact lighting, in their exact mindframe. I'm not sure where it ends; I don't think anyone does. I'm not even sure why any of us posted in the first place.

Jax, it's true there is distortion on hitting the mics and
more from there on. So your rationale is, there is already plenty of distortion
so let's cake as much more on as possible?

If that's what floats your boat, sure. I don't think I'd call it "
distortion" because of the negative connotation I think you are taking
advantage of to argue against it. Sure it is that by definition, but then so is
the actual recording.
You are heaping it on whether you like it or not just by playing it on your
system in your room. It will ALWAYS be distorted in some way, there is no
way around it. And ultimately, and perhaps most to the point, it doesn't
matter one wit!

The "Painter" metaphor just doesn't work for me because there is
a difference between "art" and "craft". The sound
engineer is a craftsman (IMO of course), the performers/songwriters are the
"artists". Yes, you could argue the contrary since the engineer
does indeed interpret the music, but for me I'd make the distinction that way.
The metaphor also doesn't work for me partly because music is temporal, it is
not an object. It takes up time as opposed to space. The painting is an
object that takes up space. In the case of a painting it is appreciated by a
different sense (vision) altogether than music is (aural). It is apples to
oranges.

Marco