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
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.
Is that Ella's voice in 1952 singing into an RCA ribbon mic or Ella in 1964 using a Neumann condenser? Is that the sound of Carnegie Hall from the the first level under the balcony or from the second mezzanine? Are all the seats filled? Is it winter or summer? All of these scenarios will sound different when recorded. If you tune you system/room so sharply that only one situation sounds like Ella or Carnegie, then you have strayed and lost your way.
i think accuracy , or perfection or exactness, is a goal many audiophiles try to achieve.

it is not achievable. no audio system is perfect.

so the question, "does accuracy exist", yes the term exists, but there are no accurate audio systems.

such a state does not prevent one from reducing inaccuracy.

in audio accuracy is a multi dimensional variable, there is phase, frequency response, etc. .
in addition how does one know what a recording sounds like ?