Bob Burwen imparts his knowledge

@cleeds Well, its actually Dick, but I can't bring myself to calling another man that name, unless he deserves it.

I would venture to say he's done just fine proving it outside of court...in the actual industry. But yes, to each their own.

@giantsalami Inded!

I'm not sure to congratulate you or express my condolences. This hobby is quite the adventure!! :-)

IMO you have to be open to perspective from those who've proven themselves technically or can back up their opinions with provable fact, not more opinion. Audiogon is often time lacking that perspective. I'd recommend taking in as much info as you can and applying it to your situation...see what works for you. But at the same time, don't be dismissive, particularly when it comes to the technical aspects of this hobby. Many hear have developed the philosophy that "If I don't agree with it, I'll never admit if I don't understand it, so its false."

Applied perspective is what makes this hobby so fun. What works for you, may or may not work for me, but I'm willing to try it and see. Then, pass on what you've learned to someone else.

All the best to you @giantsalami 

High level, its one in the same. Coloration is a deviation from a desired response. Equalization "corrects" it, or brings the frequency back to the desired response. Yes, it has its complexities and intentionally oversimplifying it,  but it ultimately is a just that. A deviation from a desired response.

The less ambiguous the explanation, the less subjectivity you have....which will quickly over-complicate the conversation.

@williewonka your response seems fitting...

At its simplest, the frequency response is MEASURED output. Unless you’re willing to MEASURE and quantify your findings as fact, everything use is mute.

Sine-waves are essentially frequency shapes.

Different materials have different conductive properties and can color the signal.

Equalization is used to tailor signal coloration.

I’ll repeat my initial point...unless your willing to MEASURE and quantify those findings as fact...good luck finding the truth. Then again, perception is perceived reality.

@clearthink Having not spoken to Burwen directly, I would...assume...his thought process was beyond the point of system building. We know to select equipment with ultra-low harmonic distortion (in theory). I agree with your point regarding speed error. However, you'll probably encounter these situations in 1 out of 40-50 system configurations...very rough estimate. The vast majority of systems - correlating to his claim - could yield improved performance with equalization. I would argue equalization won't be the end all be all for every system...equalization isn't wrong because it's not a one size fits all solution for every system configuration....but it IS far too often overlooked - most times intentionally for a number of "audiophile purist" reasons - that will make a big difference in overall performance.

@williewonka In this example, you wouldn’t use a music track to testing purposes. You’d use 20-20KHz white noise. Essentially, you’d have to. Every recording is going to carry some sort of "signature" or coloration, if you will. That is you’re going to measure your system with the intent of the flattest response you can get. That’s kind of the fork in the road: You build your system to reproduce the flattest response it can and the tweak to your liking, or build your system to give you what you want with no regard to measured accuracy. Its like salt on your food. Some like it a lot, other are very sensitive to it and don’t want any.

I agree with you. The more components in the signal, the higher the chance of coloration. Component matching can be critical once you reach a certain performance level.