Yes of course, by all means. Not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, I just I think it's an important distinction to make in assesing methods.
I'll clarify a bit (and suspect Nak will agree with this part)-
Post manipulations made on a live recording (let't just take EQ for now) can do essentially two things- Make it sound more like it did there or make it sound less like it did there.
Both of those things are valuable!
~If we EQ a recording to restore the high frequencies cut by using thick windscreens, or by having the recorder stuffed in a shirt pocket or whatever, we are making it sound more like it did there.
~If we EQ a recording to tame PA boom or unlistenable room reverberance we are making it sound less like it did there.
Both are good things when done appropriately and both are bad things when not done appropriately. The first is what I'm referring to as being no different than any other thing we do when making the recording (if we are honest with ourselves). It's essentially no different than choosing different gear to start with, or a different technique. The second I think better fits nak700s' objections about not "enhancing" a recording in search of the "what it sounded like there live". It can be very much about making it sound "better than it did there live".
That's a bit more nuanced and hopefully accommodating. Both are valuable methods used to further the subjective magic trick.
No hard feelings I hope.
I'm not sure the arguer/s here would agree this is what the argument is but boiling it down for the rest of us statements like internals are "xx% of/as good/better than" anything from Beethoven's ear horn to Schoeps would seem most testable in those terms if there were any way to test it. The conflict between subjective and objective seems a little too big in this case to come to terms though.
Yeah, no apologies for the thread-jack though!
Carry on combatants..
No hard feelings at all.
I understand your comments, and I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with them. Both circumstances have their place. If a taper records something that is otherwise unlistenable, but with proper equalization and adjustments, it is now worth listening to, it is a good thing. On the flip side, more often than not, I hear someone "over producing" a recording to the point that it no longer sounds natural to me.
Either way, however, I think you may have taken a few of my comments out of context with regards to my original statement about not enhancing anything in post production as far as the "competition" between furburger and daspyknows. Theirs is an argument about specific microphones and gear, not post production. Therefore, it is prudent to eliminate all external factors and have all conditions remain the same, with the exception of the basic recording gear and their individual recording technique. All considered, the only thing that remains is a final conclusion to the argument they are having.
Personally, I'm a bit of stickler when it comes to my craft. Somehow, I doubt that surprises you. When it comes to recording, I have the attitude of, get it right, or go home. Although that's being overly tough on myself and far too critical, it pushes me to do the best I can in a given circumstance (I would sooner not go to the show if I can't be in the spot I feel I need to be in order to make a recording I would be happy with). I enjoy rising to the challenge, and therefore can not hold myself responsible if I do not like the results...knowing I did the best I can. In post production, I do not take shortcuts (never any compression or bulk edits), which is why so much of my stuff has never seen the light of day (doesn't get posted). I'm very slow! When I give something to a friend to post, already edited, I insist he does not fuck with it, and he put it up as it's given to him. I do not alter the tone, eq, or sound in any way. The only thing I do, is balance, if necessary, and bring up the levels, because I prefer to record low in the field. That is me, and I know 95% (this is a generalization in case furburger reads this, knowing how much he likes numbers) of the tapers out there are fond of "fixing" a variety of things in post. Sometimes, what they do is an improvement, I'm not judging, only stating that isn't what
I do. I am the same way with my photography, which drives other photographers nuts (Personally, I don't know why. If they can't do it right the first time, maybe they should be doing something else.). I don't take a photo and photoshop it (I do not even own a single photo-editing program), and I tend to crop on the fly. Again, that's just me pushing myself. I like to challenge myself. It isn't right for everyone, but I'm happy this way.