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
cdc
1,785 posts
 
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
mrmitch
359 posts
 
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.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Yes, and accuracy is the degree to which truth is realized. To the artist in the live venue, or the studio, being recorded, truth is fleeting and undefined. Plus, none of us will ever experience that nor where the artist stood or sat and heard the performance from that perspective, so truth of performance is and has always been unreachable. And no two performances are ever alike. We can never create the time and space of the event, these distortions will always exist. The only accuracy that can be conveyed is the emotive response that the music provides (or doesn't). That is the element of truth we should seek when discussing accuracy.
phillyb's avatar
phillyb
401 posts
 
Simple your system should be built on a sound that you enjoy coming home to and listening. When you reach the goal you should sit back and enjoy!
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
I am very late to the party, so at the risk of being irrelevant, I will add some thoughts to what has already been said. Beginning with the OP, the discussions on this thread have included the following questions…

1. Does accuracy exist?
2. Is accuracy important?
3. What IS accuracy?

RE: (1) Does accuracy exist? This is an objective question. It is a matter of fact. Accuracy either exists or it does not. There is a “right” answer.

RE: (2) Is accuracy important? This is a subjective question. It is a matter of preference. Accuracy is important to some and not to others, but there is no “right” answer.

RE: (3) What IS accuracy? This both and objective and a subjective question, as I will try to show…

Asking the question “What is accuracy?” could mean…

3a. What is the CONCEPT of ‘accuracy’?
3b. What is the CHARACTERISTIC that the concept of ‘accuracy’ represents?

RE: (3a) What is the CONCEPT of ‘accuracy’? This is both an objective and a subjective question. It is objective because there are FACTS about how people think about accuracy. But the concept of 'accuracy' differs from person to person. Hence, asking the question, "What is the concept of 'accuracy'?" results in answers that are largely subjective.

RE: (3b) What is the CHARACTERISTIC that the concept of ‘accuracy’ represents? This too is both an objective and a subjective question. It is objective because, for at least some concepts of ‘accuracy,’ there is a REAL THING in the world that the concept represents. It is subjective because, again, people have different concepts of ‘accuracy,’ concepts that refer to different THINGS, or in some cases, to nothing at all.

Whether or not accuracy exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. But there are, of course, different opinions about whether it exists. That may strike you as a contradiction, but it is not. Santa Claus either exists or he does not. If you talk to a group of 8 year olds, there will be varying opinions about whether Santa exists, but it has no impact whatsoever on Santa’s existence/non-existence. When audiophiles debate the existence of accuracy, our opinions have no more impact on its existence than the opinions of 8 years olds have on Santa’s existence.

Having said all that, I do have an opinion about whether accuracy exists, and my opinion is that is does. That leads to two more questions:

4. What is the evidence for the existence of accuracy?
5. If accuracy exists, what is it?

Answering either of these questions entails answering the other, so I will answer them together in the following statements, some of which are facts, some opinions. First the facts…

Every component in a playback system introduces distortion, noise, or loss to the signal. There are a variety of measurements, familiar to all audiophiles, that quantify distortion, noise, and loss, including: frequency response, impulse response, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, S/N, crosstalk, jitter… and so on.

Now the opinions…

The kinds of measurements mentioned above provide conclusive evidence for the existence of inaccuracy. And collectively, the characteristics those measurements quantify CONSTITUTE inaccuracy. The existence of inaccuracy entails the existence of accuracy, understood as the degree of absence of inaccuracy. Q.E.D.

That is my answer to questions (4) and (5) above. None of it is particularly original and much of it has been said before, but it bears repeating.

Several posters have tried to cast doubt on the existence of accuracy on the grounds that there is no “absolute standard” for judging accuracy. They are quite right that there is no “absolute” standard for judging accuracy, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether accuracy exists. There is no “absolute standard” for ANY TRUTH WHATSOEVER, including scientific truths. ALL knowledge is provisional, fallible, and revisable.

The absence of “absolute” standards for judging accuracy does not warrant skepticism about the existence of accuracy. Nor does it warrant skepticism about the possibility of judging accuracy, since there are a number of “non-absolute” standards for judging accuracy, many of which have been mentioned on this thread. Those non-absolute standards provide knowledge of a component’s accuracy, even if that knowledge is provisional, fallible, and revisable. Acknowledging the absence of “absolute” standards for knowledge means we must give up the idea of CERTAINTY. It does NOT mean we must give up the idea of TRUTH.

None of this suggests an answer to the question, “Is accuracy important?” Again, that is a subjective question. There is no right or wrong answer. My personal answer is Yes, accuracy is important, but ONLY UP TO A POINT. Accuracy is one consideration among many. Highly inaccurate systems, IMO, typically make for a frustrating listening experience. But systems that prioritize accuracy above all else typically make for a dull listening experience. Hence accuracy should be balanced with other considerations. Much more to say about that topic, but I have to pause to take a breath.

Bryon
More to discover