Originally Posted by madwolfa
Originally Posted by cjl
How is EQ to correct for a transducer's inherent imperfections somehow "less pure" than living with the imperfections in the first place?
I'm not bothered by my transducers imperfections, my speakers and headphones are perceptually flat enough for my taste. And if the recording is bad by itself, well, I either live with it or skip to another one.
how can we all be so obsessed over inaudible stuff, and pretend as if several DB variations in frequency response was no big deal?
not changing the errors we hear by fear for the errors we actually don't hear, that's the strangest concept of fidelity.
on headfi I often see people being against EQ(the vast majority in fact), but later on I will see them write about how that amp/dac/cable/vinyl/headphone/mod/firmware/etc changed the sound for the better, making it warmer, or getting rid of the rolled off trebles or whatever. but always some part about sound signature.
isn't it strange that people would look for any available way to EQ as long as it's not called EQ? why not use the one tool that was made and optimized to EQ, instead of some random stuff we have no control upon and might bring unknown counter effects?
I really don't get it. it's not like any headphone was neutral, or any speakers were pre-calibrated to our room.
hey that's it, let's use an EQ but call it "recalibrator" and instead of sliders I could put knobs. I'm sure that it would be all good then. "we're not changing the sound, we're setting it back in track!!!"
problem solved. why try to make people understand an idea when we can mislead them into it!
/me is becoming a great audiophile, I might go pro on that one.