Traps vs Equalizer


Am I missing something?
Why use traps when an equalizer can be used to fine tune the room
simone
I would also add that, unlike some audiophiles, I am willing to accept a recording as it is, good or bad. Maybe it's because I am an aspiring recording engineer myself, but the recording is what it is, and I for one do not care to correct the engineers', artists', and producers' hard work, whether or not it "sounds right" to me or not.

Would you buy an artists' painting only to get it home and touch up the parts you don't like with your own strokes, and if so, why did you buy it?
Would you buy an artists' painting only to get it home and touch up the parts you don't like with your own strokes, and if so, why did you buy it?

It takes a whole lot more skill and talent to "touch up the strokes' on an accomplished work of art, than it would to adjust the equalization on a recording. I know you were just trying to make a simple point, but I just don't agree.

The music/sound has already been 'distorted' the moment it leaves the instrument...more so when it bounces around a room, and even more so when some recording engineer makes decisions based upon his own subjective interpretation and manipulates the music for recording. There is no such thing as a pure isolated and undistorted sound. If you could hear it, you may even not like it as much as one that's been distorted by an environment, and or manipulated by an engineer. It's all subjective. It is also relatively easy for an average audiophile type who knows what they are doing, and what kind of sound they prefer to, with the proper equipment, make adjustments to tailor the sound to their liking. If that's what they like, I say, have at it and good on'ya! Whatever brings you closer to the music you enjoy. And yes, if you happen to have the skill and talent to manipulate a great work of art in a similar way so that you enjoy it more than you did in its original state, why the hell not, you paid for it! It's your life after all.

Marco
Dirtyragamuffin...The problem is that unless you use earphones, or listen with the same speakers and room as the engineer did you don't hear what he did.
Dirtyragamuffin...The problem is that unless you use
earphones, or listen with the same speakers and room as the engineer did
you don't hear what he did.

....and even if you did, you STILL may not like it the same way the engineer
chose to interpret it. Regardless of the gear, it is still subjective. Stick ten
different recording engineers in the booth for the same performance, give
them the same gear, same speakers, same headphones, and you'll likely
come back with ten different interpretations of that performance. Give those
ten to a hundred different people and I doubt very much there'd be any
unanimous decision about which one is "best".

Marco
right eldatford, so why change the music rather than the room?

Jax, it's true there is distortion on hitting the mics and more from there on. So your rationale is, there is already plenty of distortion so let's cake as much more on as possible?

I think we're all making valid points and it's true that it's pretty futile across the board. Yes it is subjective. But as an aspiring engineer I would like to say that NO, it is not easier to touch up music than a painting. I just plain disagree with that. Most audiophiles aren't engineers any more than they are painters.

Also by eford's rationale, shouldn't you be looking at the painting in the painter's studio, wtih their exact lighting, in their exact mindframe. I'm not sure where it ends; I don't think anyone does. I'm not even sure why any of us posted in the first place.