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
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
Of course accuracy exists and it is somewhat important. Without a standard of accuracy we would have subjective chaos. Without a standard of accuracy someone could assert that their 8-track, Crown amp and Bose 901s (Series IV) sounded better and was more pleasurable than anything they heard a the last CES and the statement would be unassailable.

At a practical gauging an individual component's accuracy is relatively difficult, but doing the same for a system/room is much easier. Contact a mastering studio and arrange to attend an actual mastering session. Listen to the final mix. Purchase a copy of the recording. Does the recording played back in your room on your system sound like the recording when played in the mastering room? If it sounds substantially the same, then your system/room is fairly accurate, at least to your ears.

Additionally, if accuracy wasn't at least somewhat important, then why have high costs, high end systems? If the only measure is enjoyment/involvement, then is sipping a quality bourbon while sitting next to a super sexy woman and listening to a table radio a more musically enjoyable event than listening alone in the dark to some $100k+ audiophile system? Which is more memorable?
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Contact a mastering studio and arrange to attend an actual mastering session. Listen to the final mix. Purchase a copy of the recording. Does the recording played back in your room on your system sound like the recording when played in the mastering room?

All that ridiculous jumping through hoops and you may still discover that you actually prefer to listen to that very recording on a system that makes it sound different than it did in the mastering room (ie "inaccurate"). It means nothing to the end user unless you make it mean something to you. It is neither here nor there.

Furthermore what makes one prefer their system over your hypothetical, deluxe Crown Amp/Bose/8track may have everything or nothing to do with accuracy. Ultimately it is quite simply a personal preference and nothing more, and the individual who actually thought the deluxe system may actually prefer it for whatever personal reasons.

There are no "practical" reasons for gauging components for the end user (perhaps for engineers). The best you can do is share your own experiences and preferences, and I think in some ways that can be generous, but ultimately a point of departure for others to form their own opinions - in the end it doesn't matter - its what your personal preference happens to be.

I've had a few moments from my youth with a cheap car stereo playing music, and a beautiful woman in the backseat (and front seat) of a car on a moonlit night parked alongside a country road a million miles from nowhere... I can tell you those moments are plenty memorable, and were profoundly enjoyable. I can think of many other moments of profound enjoyment of music that are plenty memorable where no expensive components were involved that I remember to this day. I also have memories that do involve expensive components. Ultimately it was the music and all kinds of other things about the moment that made the difference. It had nothing at all to do with any notion of "accuracy" or "perfection".

Anytime someone tells others you haven't lived until you've listened to music on a $x(insert lots of zeroes) system, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction. Buying into such BS is a recipe for unhappiness. There will always be something better, the grass will always be greener over yonder, that is until you drink the grape Kool Aid and empty your wallet and bank account, and agree, in spite of your own preferences, that there is some objective realization of a perfect anything.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 
If I were a psychiatrist, I could get in on this; but since I'm not, I had better stay out, or I will need a psychiatrist.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Accuracy is about facts, liking what you hear is about opinions.

The problems with the 8-track, Crown, Bose example I cited earlier isn't that I like it better, but that I say it is better and without a standard of accuracy you couldn't argue that my statement was false.

Another problem I have with the radical subjectivist, if it feels good - it is good school of audio is that it denies individual achievement. As with any task some people are better than others at putting together audio systems. It's probably a bell shaped curved with a small percentage of people who truly excel at the task. But if all that matters is how good you feel, then in effect you're denying the bell shape and cramming everyone into a homogeneous blob. Without some standard of accuracy high end audio could not exist. At one point the hobby was actually call high fidelity, as in fidelity to a sound source. Have we really completely lost our way?
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"If the only measure is enjoyment/involvement, then is sipping a quality bourbon while sitting next to a super sexy woman and listening to a table radio a more musically enjoyable event than listening alone in the dark to some $100k+ audiophile system? Which is more memorable?"

Which ever floats your boat the most, this is the point Onhwy61, nothing more, nothing less. Having said that I sure know what my choice would be! If a designed for "accuracy" 150K Cello reference system is more preferable over an individually carefully selected system with different but less "accurate" components, great. If it is the other way around, great. It is a choice for each individual to make. The best audio components seem designed through objective data and subjective listening. The end result and choice by the end user is totally subjective and again, is the only thing that matters. "Absolute Accuracy" (read perfection for the benefit of Mr Tennis and those of his sway) can not be quantified but can only be approached through measurements but again, the variables. What is more accurate or perfect, a Steinway or a Bosendorfer? Again preference. I am a firm believer that objective measurements are important but as Viridian notes above, unless there are major distortions going on, a musically enjoyable system is the goal not necessarily a totally objective accurate one. I also tend to believe, theoretically at least, that a "truly accurate" system if it could be quantified might be preferable to more listeners but I really don't see how such a thing could ever be quantified. This discussion is getting rather silly. It reminds me of many other threads with similar polar positions, nothing is ever resolved. It really is black and white, what do you want most, enjoyment or accuracy and if they both conjoin, good for you! Bottom line, let your logic guide you but your ears connect you to whatever your choice. I hear you Orpheus10:)
More to discover