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
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
Onhwy61 wrote: "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 assume that this was in response to my earlier post, and I have the impression that you are posting this as some sort of rebuttal? I mean no offense, but I sincerely fail to understand the point of this post - of course all of these scenarios will sound different when recorded, this goes without saying to a professional musician. I will also add that 10 different engineers will record those scenarios in 10 different ways, resulting in 10 different sounding recordings. And I said nothing about tuning rooms or systems sharply. Not sure what you are in disagreement with here, but Frogman's first post of 5-16 again (with its example of Carnegie Hall as a reference) addresses the point I was making very well, if that helps to clarify what I was saying - it seems to be something about that that you are disagreeing with?
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
***Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B minor Mass?*** -Michael Torke

Its funny you mention THAT piece Frogman in THAT context. Many years back my wife and I took a friend and his wife to a performance of the B minor Mass at the annual Bach Festival at Rollins College. He wanted to attend a "classical" concert with us and unfortunately, this is the one I choose. We had to leave before intermission because "the kids" got the "giggles" and wouldn't shut up which in turn got my wife going. I felt like I needed to have my head examined after that embarrassment, walking out with my head bowed with the "kids" in tow.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
More cowbell!
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,229 posts
 
My point is that there is no single Carnegie Hall or Ella Fitzgerald sound. Depending on how and the conditions of the recording sessions any number of Carnegie Halls could result. When you play a recording made there, how do you know which version of Carnegie is on the recording? I don't think you can say. That was my earlier point about having to be at the mastering session to be able to gauge what a recording is supposed to sound like.

I find the standard of live music as a reference to be useful, but as commonly applied by audiophiles it virtually ignores the recording process which is at least as important as anything on the reproduction side.
cdc
1,807 posts
 
Jax2, that Richard Estes and Cornell stuff is realy thought provoking! Do you have any other favorites? Anyone else that can compare to Evind Earl? Just like getting into audio, I thought art was okay until I saw Evind Earl. That was something that has put it in a whole new perspective.
More to discover