EQ's... why doesnt everybody have one?

Cinematic_systems: Your comments are fascinting and may have some validity to other systems, but they do not apply to my previous statements.

You came to some conclusions that I hope to clarify. The preamp here is Aesthetix Callisto and Io.....these are not at all in the bright zone. The DAC is the Manley Ref DAC....this is even more of a warm presentation and a softer top. Speakers are SoundLab A1...bright? I don't think so! Been there done that with Thiels. Amps are Wolcotts and CATs. The Wolcotts are also a warm sounding amp. The CATs have resolution and dynamic contrasts few other amps can even begin to approach. But they are not forward in any sense of the word unless you pair them with any number of components that themselves are bright and non-linear. And Purist Dominus cables bright? Not! Again, that's Nordost and Straightwire.

As a huge fan of rock music from the late 60s to early 80s, there were a handful of bands whose LP recording qualities stood way out from the crowd: Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, Supertramp, Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan .... even the Robert Plant solo LPs. In the grand scheme of things, I would have rated all these a 9-10 out of 10 in recording quality. The vast majority of the rest of the music I liked so much from this time, I would have set the recording quality in the 6-7 range.

As my system has improved, the recordings that got the 9-10 ratings have retained their ratings. But many that I may have given 6's, 7's or 8's before, I would rate a level or two below. Why? Well it has nothing to do with my system becoming more forward and bright.

The higher rated recordings are even more impressive today than I imagined before. In other words, for those great recordings, I can hear even more information, portrayal of space, ambience, etc., then I ever could have imagined before. And on the lesser recordings, they have not improved to the same degree. If a recording was piss-poor from the start, any improvements in the playback system can not do much to resuscitate it from the dead. And that's the point, against the great recordings now, these poor recordings sound dull and lifeless. Again, they have not gotten worse - the others have simply gotten far better.

My reference point has shifted to clearly confirm what I felt before, but now the differences are even greater. LPs from Jethro Tull, Aerosmith, ELP, etc., have more resolution than before but they continue to fail miserably in the dimensionality and soundstage areas. And thus they fall even farther back from the pack than the phenomenol recordings I mentioned. Once we hear the clarity of the percussion, the separation of the musicians, the sound go way behind and to the sides of the speakers, sax and piano notes decay much longer than ever before, etc., on the great recordings, we realize more than ever what is missing on those other recordings.

Throwing an equalizer into the mix can indeed help tonality issues, peaks and valleys, and ultimately allow other things to become more clear that were previously obscured by obsessive peaks elsewhere. But such devices can not bring decays, ambience, harmonic textures, etc., back to the listening experience if they were not there already.

John

Jafox, you should carefully re-read your next to last paragraph. There's talk of dimensionality, resolution and soundstaging, but absolutely nothing said about musicianship, arrangements or songwriting. It's not your music system, but the value system you bring to listening that is making certain recordings unlistenable. You're doing it to yourself.

Jafox..I have read that certain specific frequency bands, boosted and/or cut, have the effect of enhancing "decays,ambience, harmonic textures" and (one you forgot) a sense of height. I wonder if the recording engineers who made the LPs that you like manipulated their equalizers (which they surely had on line) so as to satisfy your ear?

Well thanks Eld. and Onhwy, for catching on to what concerned me. "Unlistenable" is a strong word if ITS your favorite music, that's like having an ulcer and your favorite food is Mexican.

I don't want to go too far into this if it was just a misunderstanding on the semantic level, but I if your truly reducing a significant amount of your recordings to truly "unlistenable" then I'll expand, because my experiences disagree with what you're experiencing if we are on the same semantic level. Your reply seems to actually fit Onhwy's post that your high standards could be at fault in my misunderstanding.

Eldartford also points out a whole other can of worms.

Onhwy brings up a point which I understand well here. The term "unlistenable" was indeed overly harsh on my point. Yes, it is a matter of semantics and taking things literally. A better way for me to have said this would have been, "less desirable". I listen too all of my music otherwise I pass it on to local used shops to buy other music. Let's face it: what we may have liked so much before is not necessarily what we are "into" today. But clearly, some of my music gets more attention because it does draw me more into the performance.

I remember so vividly one night when I put on a Rush LP I had not listened to for a year or two. There was simply so much more going on in the background with the percussion that I had not heard before in my home with this song which I do not recall the title. I had seen Rush twice in concert and knew Neil Pert's talent. But it was that night that brought this talent to the forefront in my home. It's all about the emotional involvement here and it was right there for me that instant. Up to that time, the sound was just that, sound. Now I had a master percussionist in my room.

As for Eldartford's comment, hopefully the recording engineers did not manipulate the result to compensate for the mass-market of listening devices that severely clip off the top octaves. Obviously many musicians out there take great pride in the sonic quality of their product as their recording quality are excellent time after time and often it's a very different recording engineer and/or studio that made each product. They simply go the extra mile to more accurately simulate the real performance rather than push the guitar to one channel only, the keyboards to entirely the other channel and calling it a day; and all we end up hearing is a severely poor facsimile of the real thing. If this is the case, a Bose Wave radio is all I need to hear my favorite music and there's no need for me to call on the services of professionals like Cinematic_systems to help me place my speakers, deal with room nodes, reflections, etc.

There are many threads on A'gon that discuss the improvements of re-released material simply for the sake of the recording quality. I have to believe this is because the sonic quality indeed plays a part to one's enjoyment of the music.

As for mexican food and ulcers, well this hits home for me. I lived in Tucson for many years and absolutely loved the food. But 15 years later, I love it as much but the heartburn kicks in an hour or so later. Oh the perils of getting old.

John