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
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.
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).
Learsfool,
Well said indeed, my only point with the accuracy via measurements position is that over reliance on measurements rather than one`s ears is folly. Measurements certainly have a contribution, but pale in comparision to what one can hear(the obvious end result). There are no measurements I`m aware of that when met will reliably ensure good sound. At this point in time our ears are superior to a lab or test bench.

When I was a child, I liked to mix butter and syrup until it became an indistinguishable mess. I called it "butter syrup". (I was a very clever child) I think I'll title this conglomeration of post's, "An exercise in Subobjective observation".

How can one "accurately" measure music. How long is a song? How much does it weigh? How much does Zimbabwe? can New York stay "new" forever? These are similar questions that have never been answered.
Charles1dad, While our ears are the final arbiter of what we determine to be good sound, they are arbitrary, inconsistent and fickle, not only to others, but even to themsleves. While specs have yet to be able to reliably ensure good sound, they are quite capable of determining what is not good sound. Without getting into the semantics of accuracy vs. precision, for those that think measurements and accuracy are unimportant, they better hope someone else is, or they won't be able to replace their systems. Accuracy and specs give us a baseline for making progress.