seanwee
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2015
- Posts
- 4,853
- Likes
- 3,436
Ah, yes I have read about the sins of poor mixing and mastering of tracks many times before and you do raise a very interesting point.Seems you have a “puritan” methodology. By that I mean you probably don’t believe in EQ modification,
but would prefer that a devices “native” sound be true to your taste – right out of the box. That’s probably OK for classical pieces. And commendable.
But when you have to list demos as 1,2,3 that means you’re still looking for a 10.
I used to be that way too, until I did a little research on the extensive mixing, overdubbing and other tricks they play when manufacturing “popular” commercially produced tracks.
For example the extremely popular (at the time) "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay"
by Otis Redding in 1968, was overdubbed with the guitar track - after Otis’ death in a plane crash.
Did you know that?
In other words if most of my music tracks are audio manipulated, I feel that my manipulating them a little further by EQ isn’t going to spoil the “purity” any more than it’s already been spoiled.
If a device seems to produce all the ambience of musical tracks – and isn’t extremely harsh or muddy – I can play around with that…. within limits, of course.
However, most of my music are soundtracks anyways so most are well mastered.
About EQ, yes, while EQ can manipulate a device's signature it does little in the way of improving say, the detail or instrument separation of a device.