Quote:
Well it appears that the original poster doesn't know what they're talking about: frequencies cannot mask other frequencies
I believe the OP was merely exaggerating, or else trying to come up with words to describe a difficult concept. If I shine a light in my eyes it doesn't mask the general room illumination, but it does distract me from it, perhaps to an extent that I don't register some of the details I'm seeing in the room. Shutting off the light (or getting rid of the frequency spike) eliminates the distraction.
Quote:
and working the EQ buy using spurious logic rather than by ear seems counter-intuitive.
Um, where do you get that from? What spurious logic is this? This tutorial functions
entirely by using the ear. I don't need to ask if you've actually tried it since you've made it clear you don't believe in it. If you're not willing to test any of this yourself, or in the very least offer "improved" logic (since you have found fault with that expressed in the tutorial), you have no basis to call anything spurious.
Quote:
I don't really need a thousand words of questionable advice to know when to push bass boost and matrix, or when to push direct.
Neither do I, nor does the OP, and nor do any of the people who posted here because none of this has anything to do with this thread.
Quote:
EQs do not fix things...EQs are fine, but not magic
You're right in the sense that they don't get blood from a turnip, but from the tone of your latest post and that of your initial one it sounds like you have a rather closed mind on the subject. You also contradict yourself four sentences later by saying that "EQs are fine, but not magic." I've quoted both. Which is it?
Incidentally, I agree with the second one 100%. EQ isn't magic. Its uses are limited and targeted, just like the tutorial states. If there are people who are misusing it or expecting more, that doesn't change the fact.
Buy some people's logic you can get the sound of Stax from dollar store dynamic drivers. No.
The OP at no time made such a claim. In fact, despite how long it's been since I read the post, I distinctly remember him stating specifically that headphones with a reasonably flat response would be the best candidates. He may also have said that this technique, if properly applied, can improve any headphone.
Improve. Not turn into Stax.
That said, there have been numerous people in the many following posts who either expected too much or misapplied the principles. There were also quite a few claims, I seem to remember, that people were making their cheapos sound like high-dollar cans. People get excited when they find a new thing to play with and are prone to exaggeration. The enthusiasm and "poor logic" of "some people" do not lessen the value of the tutorial. If it is your opinion that this methodology has no value, then that's another thing entirely. But setting up strawmen isn't going to help you make your point.
Generally speaking, don't buy crap, and your headphones will look after you. If you want a different sound, get another pair.
Generally good advice. However, all headphones have flaws, even the Staxes you mention. The hallmark of a good headphone is that its flaws are minor. My DT880 is not crap. Apart from the electrostatic realm, when it was released it was one of the three best headphones in production. And yet its habit of exaggerating sibilance is an annoying flaw in its tuning. I could "get another pair" as you say and simply trade one set of flaws for another.
Or I could apply the technique in this thread and get to keep the set that I happen to love apart from the treble spikes. It's not exactly a difficult choice. I don't want a
different sound. I want the same sound, from the same headphone, with very specific flaws targeted and eliminated. I have achieved this.
Sorry if this seems high handed...
Your judgement is impeccable. Inexplicably, you still decided to pursue the line of reasoning that followed it.
It's clear that you disagree at a fundamental level with the subject and methodology expressed in this thread. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by coming here not once but twice to pass judgement on what we're doing. If you hoped to convince us of your viewpoint, you could possibly have done better than to declare ours to be "******* wrong." If you hoped to impress us with your confidence in how "******* wrong" we are, I'm not sure you've succeeded. If you were merely answering streetdragon and have no idea why your post inspired this long breakdown, well, now you've done that, and it might be time to move on.
In any event, you made the first move two posts up, so you clearly intended to say the things in your latest post regardless of whether you were asked to clarify or not. That first post was unsolicited and derisive. Your subsequent post lacks the former as an excuse.
FWIW, I've been about as patient and reasonable as I feel is warranted. You have essentially walked into a lion's den and declared that all tawny, four-legged, long-maned animals are a fundamental abomination. You should have expected far worse than what I've put into this post. That said, I have no ill will toward you whatsoever. If my post makes it seem that way, I apologize.
