Traps vs Equalizer

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

I keep editing my post because the subject is thought provoking to me. But I
should probably just post again, so here goes:

The music is distorted as soon as it hits the atmosphere. Particles in the air
change it, other sounds and forms of energy may change it. It bounces
around the environment it is being played in which "distorts" it further. Then
of course it goes into a microphone and is fed electronically into some
electrical maze in a box. Someone listens, through their speakers/
headphones and makes decisions as to how further to distort (since you
choose to use that word) the sound. It is edited and finalized and goes
through some other machines which may distort it further to produce
whatever medium it may be offered to the public on. We, Jane and John
Public, order up the plastic discs in whatever form, or horde the original
audio tapes, and we put it on yet another distortion machine with yet more
wires and variables, and we have this machine attempt to reproduce the
sounds through wooden boxes with magnets and cones and wires and
sophisticated technology up the wazoo. And this sound comes out that
somehow resembles the sounds produced in the studio. And it gets "
distorted" as soon as it hits the atmosphere and bounces off the walls
and ceilings in your room, and hey, whady'a know, if you put together a
system that you enjoy, those sounds actually sound pretty darn musical!
Then you take the same plastic disc over to your buddies house and listen on
his system...whady'a know...sounds like music there too...but it sounds
somehow different...hey, I liked the bass better at my place, but the midrange
is marvelous here at my friends house. Who the f*&k cares as long as you
enjoy the music?! They're all 'distortion' machines if you choose to view them
that way. Get the thing working so it 'distorts' the music the way you like it
most of the time and your cooking with gas!

Marco

Marco, You can make the painting analogy work with a bit of effort. The only thing you have to do is substitute the effect of light on a painting for the choice of playback equipment. First determine if the painting was made in a studio under natural light, incandescent light, flood ligh, spot light, flourscent light, flash light, candlelight, and the intensity of any of these, or if the painting was made outdoors in direct sunlight, partial shade, cloudy skys, flat light, and any other form of light you can think of. The painting is going to look different under each of these lighting conditions. All are color distortions - you must know what the artist used, or what light he expected you to use to view the painting to really get the picture. Absolutely critical to know these things! Thats why I hate going to museums, they never give you this information.

I wonder if our hairshirt audio friend is as dogmatic about his art appreciation as he is audio. :-)

Personally, I hang my hair shirt up when I got to bed. Its just too dammed itchy.

Marco, You can make the painting analogy work with a bit of effort.

Not unless the only objective of the painter is "photographic realism", which I find pretty boring in most (but not all) cases. Otherwise such knowledge as you suggest (about the conditions under which the painting was 'observed') has absolutely nothing to do with the appreciation of that painting. Nor would it really have much to do with your appreciation of photographic realisim except at the level of how well it succeeds at technique. Whether it moves you has nothing whatsoever to do with technique, or, at best precious little (IMHO).

Marco