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
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"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.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
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.
rodman99999
6,131 posts
 
Frogman- VERY WELL stated! Not long ago, I purchased a firearm that was touted as being, "accurate" to within one Minute of Angle, at 500 yards. Tuning the ammo(hand-loading higher ballistic coefficient bullets/very precise powder measurements/precise cartridge length/primer choice/etc), floating the barrel, and feeding one round into the chamber, rather than five into the magazine at a time, resulted in consistant, "accuracy" within 1/4 Minute of Angle, at the same range. I'm not one to tell someone else how to enjoy their firearms, cars or audio gear, but will squeeze every ounce of performance out of whatever I own, through research, experimentation(modding/tweaking) and dedication. Music(it's creation and recreation in the home) has been a major passion of mine for over five decades. I refuse to personally accept the mediocrity for which the masses settle, but- who am I to tell them what level of, "accuracy"(faithfulness to the source) is acceptable in their listening environment? BTW: To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT. Enjoy your music!
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,218 posts
 
Charles1dad, it's not just that he has nice equipment, but his room is carefully arranged not to significantly color the speaker output. He even has measurements to back that up. A very high quality studio monitor in a well designed/setup room will give you an relatively accurate sound. And by accurate I simple mean reasonably low distortion, a smooth wide range frequency response curve, wide range dynamics and low resonances. It's a relative description, not an absolute term. Systems that meet these goals tend to be accurate to their source material (to the extent that that even can be judged). I would suspect that your system qualifies as accurate too.
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
Frogman, you have once again contributed a fantastic post. The thing I find ironic here is that quite often those audiophiles that claim to be searching for "accuracy" are often the very same ones that get completely caught up in specs and measurements and end up with systems that may measure well but sound nothing like live, unamplified, acoustic music, which as you say is the real yet unachievable standard for accuracy. Someone asked the question "have we really completely lost our way?" Well, yes you have, if you consider how a component measures more important than what it actually sounds like. I really don't give a hoot how accurately a system measures if it doesn't make Ella's voice or Marylin Horne's voice or Perlman's violin or Marsalis' trumpet or my horn sound as accurate as possible (not to mention the sound of Carnegie Hall or the Met or the Musikverein or wherever).
More to discover