Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

In the best case, The gear is only going to accurately capture what is on the final recording, whether it actually conveys an accurate rendition of what the artists sounded like before all of the wobbles is an entirely different story.

2nd request, would someone from the"accuracy" camp kindly give us an example of a suitably accurate component or system that satifies their requirements?

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.