Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?


In the realms of audiophilia the word 'accuracy' is much-used. The word is problematical for me.

In optics there was once coined a descriptor known as the ' wobbly stack', signifying a number of inter-dependent variables, and I believe the term has meaning to us audiophiles.

The first wobble is the recording, obviously. How to record (there are many microphones to choose from...), what kind of room to record in (an anechoic recording studio, live environment etc), where to place the chosen microphones, how to equalize the sound,
and, without doubt, the mindsets of all involved. This is a shaky beginning. And the ears and preferences of the engineers/artists involved, and of course the equipment used to monitor the sound: these too exert a powerful front-end influence. Next comes the
mixing (possibly using a different set of speakers to monitor), again (and of course) using personal preferences to make the final adjustments. My thesis would be that many of these 'adjustments' (EQ, reverb etc) again exert a powerful influence.

Maybe not the best start for 'accuracy', but certainly all under the heading of The Creative Process....

And then the playback equipment we all have and love.....turntables, arms, cartridges, digital devices, cables, and last but never least, speakers. Most, if not all, of these pieces of equipment have a specific sonic signature, regardless of the manufacturers' claims for the Absolute Sound. Each and every choice we make is dictated by what? Four things (excluding price): our own audio preferences, our already-existing equipment, most-importantly, our favorite recordings (wobble, wobble), and perhaps aesthetics.

Things are getting pretty arbitrary by this point. The stack of variables is teetering.

And let us not forget about the room we listen in, and the signature this imposes on everything (for as long as we keep the room...)

Is there any doubt why there's so much choice in playback equipment? To read reports and opinions on equipment can leave one in a state of stupefaction; so much that is available promises 'accuracy' - and yet sounds unique?

Out there is a veritable minefield of differing recordings. I have long since come to the conclusion
that some recordings favor specific playback equipment - at least it seems so to me. The best we can do is soldier on, dealing
with this wobby stack of variables, occasionally changing a bit here and there as our tastes change (and, as our Significant Others know, how we suffer.....).

Regardless, I wouldn't change a thing - apart from avoiding the 'accuracy' word. I'm not sure if it means very much to me any more.
I've enjoyed every one of the (many, many) systems I've ever had: for each one there have been some recordings that have stood out as being
simply Very Special, and these have lodged deep in the old memory banks.

But I wonder how many of them have been Accurate........
57s4me
I think we can all agree that complete accuracy has yet to be achieved in audio playback (heck, one could argue it hasn't been achieved in real live time). If we accept that, then we can consider that there is total accuracy and there is specific accuracy. In lieu of complete and total accuracy, some of us prioritize what aspects of accuracy we deem necessary for audio playback to be enjoyable. It's obvious that, for example here on Audiogon, some posters feel that dynamic range a priority and some other feel that tonality is a priority, and others have other varying priorities. Of course, this is a simplistic model just for the discussion at hand. Most of us have a rather complex list of priorities, and even those priorities can change with time or in relationship to those elements that comprise priorities with each other. Others, abandon accuracy in pursuit of what they just like the sound of. IMHO, that's like wearing rose colored glasses to view the contents of The Louvre. The point being that, though most of the systems that emphasize different priorities may not sound identical, they may break from total accuracy in different but equal ways, or not. If we start to disregard accuracy altogether, we are not likely to ever achieve it.
What measurements are you aware of that provide indisputable standards for accuracy?

Frequency Response
Harmonic Distortion
Signal/Noise
Waterfall Plot
Group Delay
Phase
Impulse Response
On and Off Axis Frequency Response
Jitter Tests
Intermodulation Distortion
Cross-talk
Thermal Compression
input impedance/output impedance

...just to name a few objective qualities. No piece of gear is indisputably accurate (perfect) according to these criteria but some gear is simply so much better than others.

Of course anyone is entitled to subjectively not like accurate gear...in fact that is often the case, as aesthetics are usually far more important to audiophile perception.
We seem to have two entirely different conversations going on simultaneously. A non technical "audiophile" conversation and a technical question. While the non technical answer has been given, no one has engaged in the technical question.
Unsound,
No one here is disregarding accuracy, but merely pointing out the obvious truth that no standard has been(can be?) establish. People often site warm/musical,rich etc. as looking thru "rose colored lens" while ignoring the other spectrum of coloration/aberation i.e. thin,lean,bleached,flat,whitish etc. As if these somehow represent accuracy, no way jose. For me ,the quest has been toward what sounds natural and realistic(personal preferences no question).