2. misc-audio
  3. 1305257437

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
ahendler
416 posts
 
My question is always accurate to what
The live sound in the studio
The playback in the control room
The master mixdown
The sound in the mastering room
The sound is different in each of the above examples so no one knows exactly what the recording should sound like. Forget accuracy and put together a system you enjoy listening to
unsound
7,329 posts
 
Charles1dad, I'm not sure why you would think that some sets of deviations from neutral would be judged differently than others. Though, I might understand those that feel, that all other things equal, and please pardon the cliche'; "sins of omission are less offensive than sins of commision.". I would argue that accuracy would more likely produce natural and realistic.
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"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."

Shadorne you make some compelling points about measurements. But measurements to me are nothing more than a tool in evaluating a product prior to consideration, nothing more. I really don't necessarily agree with you that aesthetics are important to audiophile perception. I USED to be swayed by such things but it means absolutely nothing to me so far as making choices. This isn't to say that aesthetics aren't without value, they can certainly sway the other half all other things being equal at least from her end of the deal:)

The REAL problem I have with measurements which has grown over the years is that they don't necessarily equate to a desired result. I think they are absolutely important in designing products but I can't help but remember what David Berning wrote in a response to a review in choosing tubes over SS, "I have always placed the importance of subjective sound quality over measurements. It is not possible to build an amplifier with output transformers that has measurements that will compete with a direct coupled solid state amplifier"

The point is really obvious. As Jax notes above an SET amplifier is NOT going to measure as well as a SS yet some folks prefer the presentation that these amplifiers offer. Is this really an issue of measurements or is there something else that simply can't be quantified that our brains readily identify but the measurements can't. I don't want to start a tube vs ss debate because that isn't the point, it is a matter of preference. As Unsound wisely points out, we all have different priorities. Ideally we would want ALL characteristics that make music appealing to us met but in absence of any component delivering all aspects of performance whether it be tonality, dynamic contrast, soundstaging, imaging, low level detail etc., we make our choices based on our priorities and budget. This whole thing concerning accuracy is irrevelant if it doesn't meet our needs and raise our enjoyment. After all listening to music isn't a measurement experience it is related to our ability to enjoy, this is the only thing that matters. Your priorities in what you enjoy may be different than mine but I can't imagine that you make your choices by measurements alone, do you? My question is would you be prejudice against purchasing a component that measured poorly but that made you enjoy the music more?
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

At last, someone has introduced some objective measurements. Although many audiophiles are unaware of the significance of these measurements, they matter "subjectively" as well as "objectively".
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
you guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.

for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .

it has nothing to do with listening. its the fact that all components are designed with flaws. you might be able to find components which produce a sound which provides sufficient resolution , a balanced frequency response, and other attributes that appeal to audiophiles. if a stereo system performs that way , where most recordings sound different and there is no noticeable consistent sonic signature, the condition may be "virtual accuracy", but a stereo system can never be accurate (perfect) since the components that make up the stereo sytem are not accurate.
More to discover