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
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,205 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
1,772 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.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Onhwy61 - agreed, it's difficult to put a finger on exactly what one is being "accurate" to. If some notion of "accuracy" is what you enjoy, then have at it. Ultimately it's the enjoyment of music that is much more to the point of why I do this.

Cdc - Estes is not really a personal favorite; I just mentioned him because of the reference to (photo) realism. Cornell most certainly is one of my favorites. Others I enjoy? Hmmm too many and far off topic, but I'll give you a few...Edward Kienholz, Jean Michel Basquiat, Edvard Munch, Man Ray, Magritte, most of the surrealists..kind of all over the board. Yes, you're so right, the visual arts, all of the arts, can inspire and move us in similar ways to the music we enjoy if we are open to it. Like you experience with Eyvind Earl (think you are misspelling his first name), it can take you places you might not have though existed. I can still remember my Dad bringing home a copy of Sgt. Pepper when I was 7, and two years later a music teacher bringing in a copy of Tommy by The Who to play for the class - it was not so much that material itself, but that there was a world of an art form out there that I had no idea about - it really opened me up to that and I was hooked from then on. I still can enjoy both of those recordings, but they are definitely not representative of current tastes in music. It's a wonderful thing to become aware of possibility, just like Rodman999 points out in his sharing what is possible with music with others.
frogman
7,423 posts
 
Tubegroover, been there; great story! Thanks for sharing.
frogman
7,423 posts
 
I keep thinking that some of you guys keep missing the point; with all due respect.

The easily identified, inherent, signature sound of Carnegie Hall (or any other hall) swamps any deviation caused by humidity, number of attendees, etc. It really is not important to focus on those as relates to accuracy in a recording; although even those minor can, in fact, be heard on good recordings. The bigger, and important question should be: is the recording faithfull to that inherent quality constant? Is the equipment able to pass that information on (accuracy; or some part thereof)? To dismiss the relevance of a standard on the basis of inevitable subtle variability is silly.
More to discover