Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself". I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.
This is good to hear, because I have had an internal battle going on regarding EQ. Though most show details don't include the term "EQ" in their processing comments, I always figure they do some sort of EQ before posting. So, I wondered, do they leave out the "EQ" intentionally? If so, is it because its not considered appropriate to mess with the captured recording by introducing your own personal tweeks to the sound. Maybe that is a carryover from the arrogant few with higher quality (expensive) gear, allowing them to maintain their taping dominance over the recording peasants. Just kidding, obviously no one does that...
I have spent lots of time on trial periods of various software working the EQ and other processing features. Without any formal training or experience, I have slowely learned a few things. The first was to NOT post my show after the initial processing attempt. I found that I grossly overprocessed my recordings. Returning later to revise the recordings has allowed me pull back some of the processing input. But, as we all know, the learning curve takes a shit ton of time! Its probably this part of the taping addition that puts more strain on our outside relationships (women, work, sleep) than the actual concerts themselves. So, to end this I will say the I am glad to get some support in the notion of investing time and energy into the post processing. It would be MOST EXCELLENT to see a group of you start to put together a series of short video tutorials of various processing essentials and how they affect the recordings specific to what we do. Maybe some standards with Audacity, Audition, Izotope, etc. Just a thougt from someone who seems to be alone on an island in this big ocean of taping. Except for this forum of course. LOL
Every professional recording is EQ'd, compressed, and a number of other things by a trained professional. A large part of why they sound vastly better is that. (Even using the same source material -- I've had my stuff mastered and released... there's a difference when a real mastering engineer works it over).
Recording a PA system from the audience sounds, quite frankly, awful most of the time. It sounds "good" to us because that's what we're used to, but it really isn't good. Without EQ, compression, etc it's even worse. I continue to fall solidly in the camp that the notion of the "pure sound" of a concert compressed through a PA system is a totally hilarious concept. There is no such thing, until a microphone exists that perfectly replicates the human ear and the brain's ability to emphasize, de-emphasize certain sounds. And even if there were such a microphone, I don't know why anybody would want the 'pure sound' of a PA system, particularly one used indoors. Even those who record optimal-quality sounds in a live environment (classical at Carnegie Hall, onstage jazz trio, etc.) use EQ and other tools, I am fairly certain.
That said, it is true that over-EQing stuff, particularly over-cutting bass and over-boosting treble, becomes fatiguing over time and is something you end up being sorry you did if you did it wrong. Once you've done it dozens of times, you get to know what you like and what you'll like 2-3 years from now.
The videos you seek are already out there, on YouTube. I've used several to get better at Audition and Ozone. I still know about 5% of what a trained professional knows, but that 5% has helped a lot.