But I always wonder why we as audiophiles can accept that visual tricks are common phenomena, but to query about audible "tricks" is to blaspheme.
No debate here, unless this is (usually) applied universally to every single observational comment.
What is *perceived* as a droop in response in one area of the bandwidth was really a rise is response in a neighbouring area (or vise versa).
No debate here, either.
Professionals acknowlege this and EQ using feedback tools like RTA hardware.
While I don't go to that expense, I have fine tuned the bass response of three of my systems by measuring them. Since I use the inexpensive Radio Shack digital meter, I apply the appropriate correction curves. With the main system, I experimented at length with speaker and listener position, bass trap placement, and speaker contour controls. I think the result sounds pretty flat. :)
Both agree that you just can't always trust your ears when adjusting frequency response. Audiophiles? Some figure flat response is what SOUNDS flat to them!
Using stereotypical comments like that, I guess that means I'm NOT an audiophile and guys like SM are. :)
The only useful way I have found to use an equalizer is to become as familiar as possible with the sound of live unamplified music and then to patiently make adjustments recognizing that the process may take months and that variables in the recordings themselves from one recording engineer, one studio to another makes acccurate equalization of all of them simultaneously impossible. It generally takes me about two years to get one right.
rw
