speedbump6,
I actually agree with nearly all you just said. It is true that the EQ drastically changes the tone, which is determined largely by the freq balance. However, I know what the live, natural tone is, through my 65 years of listening since I was a baby. The problem is that all speakers are veiled compared to live music, and recordings are either dull or doctored up with the choices of mastering engineers that I might not like. As a serious audiophile, I enjoyed my systems from 1978 to 1995 without EQ. In 1995, I began recording my orchestra in a small medical school lecture hall that wasn't designed for concerts. The 40 year old conductor (leader of the orchestra) who was not an audiophile, complained that my recordings were dead with excessive bass. And that was with the most detailed Neumann KM 184 mike, Bryston mike preamp which I personally auditioned from my own violin playing. I compared the Neumann mike to other professional top mikes from B&K, Schoeps, AKG, Shure. The Bryston mike preamp was more detailed than industry top rated Millennia and John Hardy preamps. But the conductor was correct. EQ to the rescue. I now made the best recordings in that hall, which in many ways were superior to big name recording companies' recordings of the same music. I continued use of the EQ in other halls with other ensembles. In my audio system, I introduced the EQ with what I learned from recording, and then asked myself where I had been all those years without EQ.
Mrdecibel is right that I tailor my sound with EQ, which is exactly what we all do with electronics, cables, speakers, which all alter the tonal quality according to the designers. EQ effects can be even greater than speaker variations, and 1000 times greater than variations in cables. Still, EQ can't do everything, which is why I choose other components carefully.
Jay and others continue to misinterpret my recommendations, claiming that it's my way or the highway. Every listener would use the EQ differently, according to his sonic preferences and hearing. Even those with perfect hearing would find uses of EQ that would enhance their own unique enjoyment of their music. Their adjustments would be milder than mine. Even small adjustments have much greater effects than cables.
Professional mastering engineers use EQ of much higher quality than my Rane ME 60. And the Rane is analog, which is inferior to digital EQ. I found happiness with it, and stuck with it.
Skepticism is fine initially, but continued bashing and sarcasm over my recommendations is inappropriate. Some people will remain close minded and enjoy bashing rather than opening their minds and listening for themselves.
I actually agree with nearly all you just said. It is true that the EQ drastically changes the tone, which is determined largely by the freq balance. However, I know what the live, natural tone is, through my 65 years of listening since I was a baby. The problem is that all speakers are veiled compared to live music, and recordings are either dull or doctored up with the choices of mastering engineers that I might not like. As a serious audiophile, I enjoyed my systems from 1978 to 1995 without EQ. In 1995, I began recording my orchestra in a small medical school lecture hall that wasn't designed for concerts. The 40 year old conductor (leader of the orchestra) who was not an audiophile, complained that my recordings were dead with excessive bass. And that was with the most detailed Neumann KM 184 mike, Bryston mike preamp which I personally auditioned from my own violin playing. I compared the Neumann mike to other professional top mikes from B&K, Schoeps, AKG, Shure. The Bryston mike preamp was more detailed than industry top rated Millennia and John Hardy preamps. But the conductor was correct. EQ to the rescue. I now made the best recordings in that hall, which in many ways were superior to big name recording companies' recordings of the same music. I continued use of the EQ in other halls with other ensembles. In my audio system, I introduced the EQ with what I learned from recording, and then asked myself where I had been all those years without EQ.
Mrdecibel is right that I tailor my sound with EQ, which is exactly what we all do with electronics, cables, speakers, which all alter the tonal quality according to the designers. EQ effects can be even greater than speaker variations, and 1000 times greater than variations in cables. Still, EQ can't do everything, which is why I choose other components carefully.
Jay and others continue to misinterpret my recommendations, claiming that it's my way or the highway. Every listener would use the EQ differently, according to his sonic preferences and hearing. Even those with perfect hearing would find uses of EQ that would enhance their own unique enjoyment of their music. Their adjustments would be milder than mine. Even small adjustments have much greater effects than cables.
Professional mastering engineers use EQ of much higher quality than my Rane ME 60. And the Rane is analog, which is inferior to digital EQ. I found happiness with it, and stuck with it.
Skepticism is fine initially, but continued bashing and sarcasm over my recommendations is inappropriate. Some people will remain close minded and enjoy bashing rather than opening their minds and listening for themselves.