Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
In a recent TAS review of the Audio Physic Padua, the reviewer noted that the speaker had a hot top end, a boomy bass, and a mid-bass suckout. Naturally, he was more eloquent than I and coined the normal audiophilogy that only lunatics like AR members understand . Still, it sounded to me like the speaker had issues.

That is, until you applied EQ.

After using a Z Systems EQ and analyzer, the speaker suddenly became world class. WTH?

Now, I'm not about to debate the effectiveness or neccessity of EQ'ing to tame room acoustics and interaction. Let's just all agree that if you've got the wherewithall to get a Z Systems, TacT, Linn, or name-your-brand EQ, more power to ya! The point is, as a reviewer, by applying an EQ to a speaker aren't you effectively modifying the design in some form? Indeed, in my mind this is cheating! If a speaker's design proves problematic, then say so. For Pete's sake, don't put a band-aid on it and declare that all is well. Sheesh!

What say you?
Some designers choose NOT to produce a speaker with an impeccably flat frequency responce. I give you the Totem Rainmaker as an example; Easily detected "hump" in the midbass, and a smooth rise in the treble to 10k or so. To my ears the speaker sounds GREAT for it'a size, but it'a not flat by any stretch. It's not that Totem doesn't know how to make a flat responding speaker, They also make the Mani-2 Sig with it's stupid flat +/- .75 db over the fat range of it's responce.

A designer should have an idea of what he wants his speaker to sound like. If it doesn't sound good to start with people should not have to Eq it to make it sound better. That's just a cop out.