Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

Take a gander at Shadorne's system.

Onhwy61,
He has A very nice system, as do many of the other posters on this fun thread. But what makes his system anymore "accurate" than the others?

"Does accuracy matter?" Of course it does! "Does accuracy (in audio equipment) exist?" Of course not! Jax2's objections aside, I agree with Mrtennis that accuracy means perfection. What this hobby is about is the reproduction of musical performances. "Reproduction" clearly suggests an attempt to recreate something resembling, as much as possible, the original. An accurate reproduction would be a perfect reproduction. Unfortunately, truly accurate audio reproduction does not, nor ever will, exist.

But that does not mean that to strive for accuracy in one's music REPRODUCTION system is not important; it is most important. Clearly, everyone is free to tune a system any way they want, and to enjoy their music with any flavoring that they wish. But I find that notion (as well as a few others expressed so far) to be a little bizarre. It is bizarre to me that some would advocate ignoring the musicians' original intent. To ignore the production team's original intent is bad enough, but the musicians' ?!?! The reason why it is vital that the musicians' intent be preserved as much as possible (accuracy) is quite simple: while the manipulation of the musicians' intent may yield pleasant sounds to some ears, the end result will never be as musically meaningful as when that intent is preserved. That is the nature of music, and music making. It is artistic expression by a human being; manipulate it, and it is no longer that musician's expression. I pondered why this is not obvious to some, and I think I may have found the answer in a curious comment by Jax2:

***The enjoyment of music an subjective art form***

Huh? I thought that it was the music making that was the art form; not the enjoyment of it. It is often pointed out that how music should sound is subjective, and that we will never know how the original performance sounded, and how a particular recording space sounded, and blah, blah, blah. I say that is nonsense, and a cop-out. There really is a standard by which accuracy can be judged. And that standard is (as much as many would like to think that it doesn't apply) the sound of live, unamplified instruments or voice. I know, I know, live pop/rock concerts often sound like shit. But if the thrill of the sound of an uncompressed drum set is not enough to make someone "put up" with the other problems, then you really have no choice but to seek out better sounding venues to experience, and really familiarize yourself with sound that can truly be used as a reference. Only then can we claim to understand the notion of accuracy. It takes deep familiarization with that sound to understand it. It has to go way beyond issues of a little brightness here, or a little bass bloat there. But it can be done, and the rewards are many. True accuracy does not exist, but some components do a heck of better job of getting closer to that ideal than others. The less garbage that a component adds to the electronic "soup" that is a music playback system, the closer to accurate that it is. Sure, we may not like how some recordings sound as a result, but the truly great ones will never sound as great as they can on a system that does not strive for accuracy. It is the accuracy of the musicians' intent captured in those recordings that makes them great. So it follows that the closer a system gets to accuracy, the better it will reveal the recording's greatness.

"There really is a standard by which accuracy can be judged. And that standard is (as much as many would like to think that it doesn't apply) the sound of live, unamplified instruments or voice."

I personally agree with you Frogman. It is what first got me into this end of the hobby being a music enthusiast prior to. It is certainly my goal, orchestral and large choral to be exact. It seems the rest sounds better if this sounds right. One thing for certain with my room limitations nothing I do will ever make it sound real. I suppose this is true for many of us.

I'm not too sure everyone would agree with you though. People have different experiences and taste in music and may have different criteria when judging. What if the preferences are pop/grunge/heavy metal/eurotechno, in other words electronic with absolutely no interest in how live unamplified instruments or voice sound? They don't know because they primarily listen to amplified music. I'm quite certain that by using your criteria they could realize better sound of their music. Your comment also seems to take the "accuracy" via listening approach. It seems there was a debate about this several decades ago between John Atkinson and JG Holt. Atkinson not agreeing with Holt that live unamplified instruments should be the sole factor in evaluating a system or component. I always tended to trust Holt's judgements more when I was in that period of discovery.

Personally I want to enjoy the crappy recordings as well as the great ones and would compromise in favor of balance over maximizing the potential of the great ones. Your goals seem different and good for you but don't for a minute think that everyone should or does think like you. That being said I really enjoyed reading your perspective on this issue, nice post.

Frogman - I look at a work by an artist that really moves me...Joseph Cornell for instance...Seeing his work moves and inspires me. It stirs thoughts and emotions and takes my mind to places I hadn't known existed before seeing it. Yet I am not at all privy to the artists original intent in creating the piece. I have no idea whether the way I am interpreting it, or the way it moves me, was what Cornell had in mind when he created the piece. My own interpretation could be far from what his intent was and the meanings I may take from it may have never crossed his mind. Does it matter in any way whatsoever that I have "accurately" interpreted the artists original intent? Or is it more important that the work moved me and stirred up emotions and thought that are lasting and quite real and important to me, and in my case very enjoyable as I do enjoy the visual arts as well. This is more to the point of what I was trying to say when I stated that whether the artists original intent is "accurately" served is less important to me, the observer/listener, as is the level of my own enjoyment of the work. If I actually happen to be completely tuned in to what the artists intent was, that's great too. But if the works moves me and inspires me yet is not faithful to that intent, or I am moved in some other interpretation of it that was not necessarily part of the artists intent, that is every bit as wonderful.