Jafox,
All depends on your perspective.
Jafox states
Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution. Used very moderately, I have not found that an EQ destroys sound stage or resolution...although, from a purist perspective, it is preferable if you can do with out it altogether...as I do currently.
The albums/CD/SACD's we purchase are all manufactured sounds anyway; transduced by a microphone, played back on a another type transducer, and adjusted to the sound engineer's tastes on that playback system. The sound has therefore been modified through all kinds of filtering, starting with the venue to the microphone to evenutally the mastering studio... so an EQ or filter, from a non purist perspective, can be simply one more personal tweak or a necessary room adjustment rather than a total corruption to the sound.
All depends on your perspective.
Jafox states
An equalizer? That's a drastic solution. I would only consider this if you're willing to kiss off resolution and collapse the soundstage.
Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution. Used very moderately, I have not found that an EQ destroys sound stage or resolution...although, from a purist perspective, it is preferable if you can do with out it altogether...as I do currently.
The albums/CD/SACD's we purchase are all manufactured sounds anyway; transduced by a microphone, played back on a another type transducer, and adjusted to the sound engineer's tastes on that playback system. The sound has therefore been modified through all kinds of filtering, starting with the venue to the microphone to evenutally the mastering studio... so an EQ or filter, from a non purist perspective, can be simply one more personal tweak or a necessary room adjustment rather than a total corruption to the sound.