I would not personally use an equalizer......I consider it analogous to altering the colors of an original painting.I think this analogy is misleading. An 'original painting' is a work of art. A musical performance is a work of art, but a recording of it is a reproduction, which may be excellent or poor, but never the same, or as real. The more apt analogy would be "altering the colors [and dynamics et al] of an art reproduction."
I had a parametric eq, a pretty good one, didn't seem to alter the sound except as I intended (through Quad 63s, fairly revealing of such things). Parametrics are more 'audiophile approved' than graphic eq's, largely because of all the cheap ones that came with rack-systems, usually tuned in a 'smiley face' with absurd boost to bass and treble. Even the good ones were 'octave' equalizers (10-band) which could only alter large swaths of the music.
I had a DBX 20/20 graphic which also 'reads' the output (your speakers + room-effects) compares it to the input signal, and adjusts so what you hear is identical to the original signal. It was good, but gave me little control: I couldn't adjust to what I wanted to hear.
I found my parametric to be similarly limiting: only three frequency 'bands' I could affect.
The best I had were pro 1/3 octave graphic eq's (31-band): two of them, one for each channel. Adjustments had more selectivity, subtlety and finesse.
I haven't tried the newer DSPs. The early ones were awful.
I see no point in being "faithful to the recording"; I prefer "faithful to the music" and yes, I'll be the 'decider'. But that's just my opinion.