I had an interesting conversation last night on the topic of "accuracy" with a gentleman who is both and audiophile and a professional musician.
When discussing the concept of "accuracy" his concern is tonal exclusively. Does the instrument sound like the instrument in question? Can it reproduce the difference between say a Steinway and Yamaha piano.
Beyond that, "accuracy" has no meaning. Most studio recording are not recorded live. More often than not, each artist is recorded individually and the tracks are merged. If it is recorded live, it is in a weird space (studio) and not reflective of anyone's listening experience.
If it is a live performance and it is electric, then reproduction of sound is not where the musician is but where the amps are and microphones capturing crowd noise. If it is an acoustic, live recording in a venue rather than a studio, then you could discuss accuracy, but to whom? Microphones are on-stage, often near the musicians. Not in the crowd.
You get the point. Imaging and the experiential nature of a recording is all fictional and driven by the engineer and record company, This can even be at odds with the preference of the artists. Unless you have the engineer available to tell you exactly what they were trying to accomplish, we are all guessing at what image they were trying for.
I spend a lot of time talking about imaging and I definitely have preferences in this space. Others may disagree which is why I have tried (not always successfully) to simply state what the experience is and not whether it is good or bad. My preferences are mine alone and are not more or less valid than anyone else's in defining good.
