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, you cracked me up, that was really, really good. Nothing like some good natured discussion and banter in my book. I suspect that when all is said and done, there is actually less disagreement than comes across in these posts. Disagreement there will be; obviously. But the sticking point for me continues to be that I consider my posturing to be positive and forward-looking. IOW, I think that the advocacy of using the live music standard is a way of deepening the appreciation and enjoyment of music. I have been tooting that horn (pun intended) on this forum for a long time. I have taken a lot of heat, and gotten a lot of rolled eyeballs for it. But the bottom line for me is that I really don't think a lot of audiophiles really know what musical instruments REALLY sound like. Does it matter? How can it NOT matter? The other posture says that focusing on those minutiae will detract from the enjoyment of the music. Sure it can. Only if you let it, and lose sight of the heart in the music.

If the gear let's me hear what it is that makes Carnegie sound like Carnegie, then it will probably do a better job of letting me hear the even more subtle phrasing, and tonal color changes that a great artist uses to convey the music's message. How can that be a bad thing? Problem is that so muuch of the beautiful, subtle information gets wiped out by the recording process. Many don't realize just how much there was to begin with.

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words, he would not bother trying to say it in music" -Gustav Mahler
All this talk about venue has me thinking about some recent concerts/live events I have attended recently. At the symphony mid-way back on the floor I found myself saying "huh, this sounds ok but I had trouble relating the instruments notes with their spatial arrangement on the stage. At a bar with a small acoustic group playing and singing through a PA system I thought "the music is great but the sound quality is just so, so". Listening at home to an LP I bought from the artists through my decidedly modest system I thought "wow, this is really 'musical,". At a performance artist presentation with a live string quartet plus an electric bass playing off to the right of the stage in an abandoned grocery store, the sound and the music accompanying the dance was "transformational" in composition, performance and sound quality.

Symphony Hall - OK, abandoned grocery store - fantastic? What is going on here? What role does "accuracy" play in this overall evaluation of live versus recorded listening experiences? Was I experiencing the original intent of the acoustic artist in the hotel bar or on her carefully self produced album in my living room?

I have to take away from this discussion and my personal experience that "accuracy" in music performance and reproduction is something to pursue, but dependent in practice on a lot of things that end up being circumstantial, and that it is still more important to know what you like to hear all along the chain from composition to your ear. In that context "accuracy" as a relevant concept in audio is at best a guide, and at worst a fools errand that can lead to faithful reproduction of crap, and who has time or extra aural nerves for that?
A little off topic but anyone care to guess what Celestial Sunrise goes for? This is not even an original but the black and white is printed on paper and Peter colors in the rest with colored pencils
Just wonder how many of us , upon sitting down to listen to "The most accurate speaker in the world " (if such a thing were to exist), backed up with all kinds of scientific measurements, would exclaim "Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I cant listen another second to this!!!" Art is involved here folks, not just audio science. What I value (your values are as valid as mine or anyone's) is a speaker and system that will make me want to listen to my LP's and CD's and enjoy it. Accuracy? Maybe somewhat important, but the sine qua non of the listening experience? Not in my household. In truth there is beauty? Perhaps, but its not the only way to hear beauty.