Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

Looking at visual arts may be a useful comparison as music can be considered an auditory art. I don't believe there are competitions for who can paint the most accurate painting. Super accurate paintings aren't necessarily worth more than design realism nor do many people prefer it.
Other than a mic'd recording of a live event, the studio engineer can be considered the artist who assembles a pleasing sonic rendition of the musician. Okay, okay even the former can be considered an artistically created event for you superfussy nitpickers out there.
Lately I have been leaning towards Bill Low's (of Audioquest) concept of "damage control":

Audio components don't do things right. They only do things wrong. Designing good components means "causing less harm". So the best components is "no" component, and not hype about "fixing damages" caused elsewhere.

But that's just me. YMMV!!!!!

Looking at visual arts may be a useful comparison as music can be considered an auditory art. I don't believe there are competitions for who can paint the most accurate painting. Super accurate paintings aren't necessarily worth more than design realism nor do many people prefer it.
Other than a mic'd recording of a live event, the studio engineer can be considered the artist who assembles a pleasing sonic rendition of the musician. Okay, okay even the former can be considered an artistically created event for you superfussy nitpickers out there.

cdc - your reference to my metaphor is way off base. It is not at all the connection I was trying to make anyway. The artists are the performers, and their counterparts would be the actual artists creating the visual works of art. Super accurate realism, the likes of the works of Richard Estes for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The music and the art is the means of expression, whether classical symphonic music, acid jazz, hip hop, etc. Whether surrealism, abstract expressionism, photographic realism, etc. The art was created by the artists with the intention of expressing something to others, to move others and share something that may open their minds...make them think and feel. You are confusing the metaphor placing recording engineers in the place of artists where they do not belong. Their job is use their skills to reproduce the work of the artists onto a semi-permanent media to share with the masses. If you wanted to create a verbatim metaphor you could compare recording engineers to a skilled photographer + printer/separator who takes images of the artwork and applies their skills to create reproductions of the artwork to share with the masses in the form of a book or print, for instance. These are not the artists, they are technicians, craftsmen, or artisans if you will. To carry the metaphor through to the discussion; Certainly "accuracy" is a very significant concern to the photographer/printer/separator, as it is to the recording engineer. Likewise "accuracy" is likely important to the artists themselves who would most likely prefer that their work is reproduced in a way that accurately conveys their intentions. That is where the importance of "accuracy" remains in my mind. As far as the end-user, any one of the masses who might appreciate the reproduced work, the capacity of them to enjoy and be deeply moved by any of this work is most certainly NOT dependent upon the ultimate accuracy of the reproduction of that work. Let me back up a bit; Neither the reproduction of visual arts in the highest form of photographic reproduction and printing (say stochastic printing at 600 dpi on the finest stock), nor the best recording of any performance by the most skilled engineer....neither of those efforts at reproduction are ultimately going to equal the experience of actually being directly present to the work itself or the performance. If you have that goal in mind then you might as well take up self-flagellation while you're at it. Also, in the high-end of either of those examples, and at the levels of colorations we are likely discussing here (we are not talking about extreme distortions where the actual music/art is not recognizable after all, or shifts coloration/tonality so grossly it is not even representative of the original), there is every bit the potential of the original art/music that's being reproduced to deeply move others. Whether or not it is "accurate" is entirely irrelevant to the observer unless it becomes an obstacle in their own mind to actually being moved by the work (in other words, unless they make it so in their own priorities - it's an issue if you choose to make it an issue). I like your quote on "damage control". Obviously in the metaphor, the reproduction of the visual arts is far more limited going from 3-d to 2-d, and likely also reducing/changing scale. The illusion in the reproduction of music is far more satisfying IMO.

Tubegoover (love the moniker, BTW), I agree with everything you wrote. I don't for a minute think that everyone agrees with my take on the issue of accuracy. Moreover, my goals are actually the same as yours; it really is about balance. My comments about the importance of optimizing a system's accuracy were made in the context of answering the original question: does accuracy matter? As I said, I believe that it does, particularly if the alternative is to abandon the quest for such simply because it can never be achieved completely. In my experience there is a fairly wide window of system tuning possibilities that allows us to enjoy the majority of recordings and still appreciate the great ones for what they are. Your point about listeners who prefer pop music is well taken, and I agree (I listen to a fair amount of pop). But my point is not about judgment of a person's taste in music (I listen to just about everything. Well, not hip-hop; unless my son insists. And in fainess, I must say, there have been a couple of occasions when I have gotten it; sort of)

Rodman99999, and Learsfool, thanks for the kind words. Rodman, you wrote: ***To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT*** How true! But that still does not invalidate the standard nor the use of it by those who care. Part of the problem when this subject comes up in discussion among audiophiles is that we tend to get defensive about our goals in this hobby. We want to be right. I prefer to think that a big part of the reason that this is so is the very personal nature of music. It is a wonderful testimony to the power of it, and it's importance in people's lives. We tend to want to validate our choices in music and it's playback. But anyone who says that the standard does not exist, or has no value, because their choice in music makes the standard irrelevant, or because they just don't care to put their energies in that department has his head in the sand.

Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?

The idea that the way each of us hears is different, is irrelevant; unless we fall into the typical audiophile trap of needing to be right in the eyes (ears) of others. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it's true that Carnegie Hall may sound different to me than it does to you. But, when you listen to a recording made in Carnegie Hall, you are using the same ears that you had when you sat in the hall. Whatever aberrations were caused by our particular set of ears while in the hall, will be the same aberrations that will be caused when we listen to our stereos. So, it is most definitely valid to use a familiar sound (Carnegie Hall) to judge the accuracy of our audio system. I realize, of course, that it depends on wether the recording process did a good enough job of capturing the sound of the hall. But here is where I think we tend to exaggerate the point about the futility of that kind of exercise. To suggest, for instance, that system tuning could cause a recording of Ella Fitzgerald to no longer sound like Ella, is quite a stretch. I doubt any audiophile on this forum has assembled a sytem that sounds so bad that it would not be possible to tell it is Ella singing; or that makes a tenor sax sound like an alto sax. I suggest that if that is the case the main culprit is lack of familiarity with the sound of her voice, and of the saxophone. Who here thinks that the sound produced by the tiny speaker in our cell phone is capable of producing high-end sound? Now, ask yourself: when was the last time your wife, or parent, or child called you, and you did not immediately know who was calling? It is all about familiarity.

Hi Jax, I always enjoy your insightful posts. I thought the OP was referring to "accuracy" in terms of the chain of events - including the stereo itself- in the reproduction of the music, not the actual event itself. I can see you point about a musician getting you to "see" things from their perspective, just like a good artist does.

I was comparing the ultimate reality of the real world (which the artist then interprets) to the ultimate reality of what the musician plays (and the recording engineer, stereo system etc then interprets).

Go 3D art!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?

Your eyes adapt wearing sunglasses - our senses are amazingly adaptable and sensitive. I think I get what you are trying to get at though, but I don't agree. We are not at all talking about distortions of the level I think you are suggesting. The idea of gross distortion, such as wearing rose colored glasses (which we also adapt to), is just simply not what is being discussed at this level of performance of musical reproduction, as you pointed out in the end of your post (I doubt the capacity to be moved by a visual work of art would be grossly handicapped by wearing sunglasses - the issue of the artists intent is entirely apart from that, as I have posited before, it doesn't matter nearly as much what they specifically were trying to express, except perhaps to them...as artwork the point is more that the viewer/listener is moved to think and feel. Even if we view a writer as the artist, and the words they use are verbatim to their expression of intent - the end result will be filtered through the reader and may transport their minds and hearts to all kinds of places that didn't even exist in the writer's mind or heart. Back to music - Not only do most folks here have systems that are most certainly not going to obscure the voice of Ella so it is not recognizable, I'd venture to take that further and say that most who are taking the time to read and discuss in these forums, probably have systems that do a damn fine job at reproducing Ella's voice and performance. Ella on their system would without any doubt be enough that, were Ella to sing in the next room anyone could make the connection. The level of "accuracy" we are talking about simply does not obscure or loose the artists intent (or their identity), IMO, and doesn't remotely begin to resemble some sort of deeply obscured view of artwork through dark colored glasses, or playing the music through iPhone speakers. Instead I'd suggest that the level of "accuracy" being suggested here is nitpicking and not even on the radar of most folks who enjoy music (most of whom are not part of these forums as most off the population of the world would fit that description). It is probably one of the aspects of this hobby I least enjoy and when I find myself in discussions with others who focus on this sort of hogwash that is so far from the point of enjoying music, it makes me wish I could be transported elsewhere. Fortunately it doesn't happen much, and when it does I manage to find a polite exit strategy. Not that it's not an interesting subject, but it certainly doesn't interest me if that's the only thing you focus on. I do find the discussion here stimulating as it makes me reflect on my own preferences and attitudes, and reasons I like what I like, and it takes various points of view into the picture. I don't think I'd last long in this discussion if it became entirely polarized towards the idea of "perfection" as that's a sad and sorry standard to try to uphold.

FYI Cornell was not a painter.