Please don't cultivate a new «Bit-Perfection» religion on Head-Fi!
It's very obvious and logical that manipulations on the sonic characteristics of a recording will result in a different digital signal. It doesn't matter if it's happening before burning it on a CD or afterwards. And in the case of an improved sonic balance the altered recording is better – despite not being «bit-perfect».
Note that the various DSPs (including equalizers) used in the recording studios will inevitably produce tons of «bit imperfections».
I promise not to cultivate any religions or “bit perfect” cults Jazz.
I will thou continue to point out things that I think make a difference in SQ.
If bit-perfect is not one of those aspects you value or manipulations of the sonic characteristics of a recording is worth it compared to non-manipulations, please go head and use EQ. There are no free lunches thou and in my experience, with different software, only to switch on the EQ and before I have even changed anything it makes the sound less resolving, transparent and flat. With lesser gear it can be a necessity, especially with speakers in untreated rooms, but not with high end headphone gear if you really have taken the time to select so that they match each other sound vice IMO.
It does matter if the change in FR takes place before burning it on a CD or afterwards. It’s the transmission of the data that’s bit perfect, not the sound.
As I see it, you're a representant of magical thinking – with bit perfection as an incantation. Bit perfection, as you stated later, has its meaning during data transmission, because lost or crippled bits will never result in a sonic improvement. Equalizing a recording, on the other hand, is a purposeful signal manipulation with the goal of a sonic improvement. If you deny the benefit from that, you could just as well pretend that the frequency distortion caused by an equalizer be generally a bad thing. But you're certainly aware that the recordings you listen to (and enjoy) are full of this kind of sin. And first of all, the primary purpose of equalizing in a playback system is linearizing the over-all sonic balance, not a single component (at least from a puristic approach).
Just a reminder: «My equalizing attempts have always resulted in reduced resolution.» «In my understanding equalizing destroys bit-perfection.» Conclusion: «The lost bit perfection through equalizing inevitably reduces resolution.» ...is a poorly justified deduction.
Now my extensive EQ experiences have led me to the opposite conclusion: A (perceivedly) linearized over-all frequency response in most cases comes with clearly increased resolution. The reasoning is passably plausible: 1) The reduction or elimination of peaks and valleys reduces masking effects. 2) Since the linearization of the frequency response goes hand in hand with a linearized phase response, transient response will be improved.
If I take Tyll at his word, adequate equalizing could transform the LCD-4 to a headphone close to sonic perfection – or at least bring it to another level, annihilating the criticized weakness. Let's suppose the former be the case: It would be a shame not to take the opportunity – just for the sake of hardly understandable principles such as...
if i have to EQ a $4000 set of headphones, i will pass.
As one of those who always try to maximize the benefit from their audio purchases (be it by equalizing, modifying or recabling) I have a hard time understanding the limitations others impose on oneselves. Yes, it takes some dissatisfaction with the standard characteristics of your headphones to be motivated for the changes. But that's nothing uncommon on this forum and the reason for most to read and post here. My understanding is that the «normal» approach of giving the own dissatisfaction room is to purchase new, potentially better synergizing gear – so the minority approach is criticized for being misguided.
As others
(bfreedma, Trogdor) have already pointed out: Headphones (from the cheapest to the most expensive) are far from being perfectly linear. See the
Inner Fidelity graphs if you don't believe! There's massive equalizing potential. Although the curves are (unfortunately) not reliable as a 1:1 template, they perfectly show the deviations from a straight line. To those who close their forgiving eyes to the facts: It's your own fault.
My preferred dealer has an LCD-4 for audition since a while (and he likes it), so I will audition it on one of the next days. I don't have the intention to buy a pair, though – since I'm satisfied with my gear –, it's just pure curiosity.
...I am to a point in my life where it is no longer enjoyable fiddling with sliders every time a garbage recording comes my way. I do everything I can to ensure that my gear provides the type sound I enjoy and if I run across garbage recordings... they go in the bin and I move on.
That's a cheap excuse for not maximizing the sound of your headphones once and for all. Of course I understand your second point, which matches my own approach. It isn't related to the former, though.
That said, I'm in the fortunate position to need crossfeed for all my recordings. So while I'm at it, I can also improve those recordings that need it (and deserve it).
