TONE

@chayro ,
"I spent many years in the recording business and I know that most recordings are eq’d and heavily processed to achieve the sound that the person paying the bills wants to hear."


That’s seems about right. Everyone else is just an employee with little say in the final product.

It seems as if most artists don’t bother to question sonic decisions made by those higher up.

I can’t think of very many who did.

Maybe the Velvet Underground (probably drove their engineers mad with deliberate overload), Dylan, Neil Young, Kate Bush, Steely Dan, Dire Straits and a few others.

@mahgister,
"The MAIN factor important to reproduce is timbre, especially voices timbre...We are programmed to recognize voices...If we had voices right all the rest come like balls on a thread...
And there is no resemblance at all between live event and recording....This is not bad, nor good.... This is an explanable evident audible fact...."



For me too.

And it's been that way since childhood. [Maybe audiophiles are born and not made, but that's digressing].

I would always prefer a $100 system with decent tone and timbre to any $10,000 one without, and I've heard plenty of those.

I remember when I used to help out at a radio station (1996-99) how all the presenters sounded different on air than they did in 'real life.' 

Their voices would have more authority and weight through the monitors than they would ever in person. You would never call the output accurate.

One day we got a ribbon microphone which was suspended on rubber bands. It's fair to say that it made voices simply sound great, and everyone preferred to use that when possible.

It was not life-like though, but maybe better than life-like.

Calming and relaxing.

Now an accurate broadcast might sound quite different...