[James Price[_5_]]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:39:42 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2019 8:16 AM, James Price wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:

It's a matter of efficiency, not laziness. Assuming we were both given the
same starting tone to work from, I have little doubt I could match a given
reference tone far faster and with greater accuracy using EQ matching software
than you could by ear using EQ alone.

I wouldn't want to use EQ if I could help it, I'd move the microphone or
change the amp position or change out the microphone. The better you track,
the more you get the sound in the room and at the mike, the less EQ you need
to get things to work. EQ is a crutch.

If you don't have to use EQ, don't use it. That said, a calculator is a
crutch, albeit a very useful one.



A poor comparison.

For anything more than basic calculations a calculator is a necessary
and convenient tool (unless an arithmetic genius, or pencil-and-paper
fundamentalist), which is used almost exclusively.

OK many people wouldn't be able to do it long-handedly.

In my opinion, it's a rather fitting comparison. There are many instances
where it's simply more convenient and faster for me to calculate numbers using
a calculator than it is to calculate them by hand or in my head. If I need to
add a series of numbers, a calculator can save time.