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
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hy byron:

i can provide a definition of knowledge:

here it is:

justified true belief. justification requires proof and knowledge implies certainty.

if you consider the above dogmatic, so be it.

the above definition is not otiginal.

i would also appreciate an instance of a statement i have made that connotes dogmatism.

if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism.

i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part.

if you consider my statements indicative of dogmatism, i consider your position, at best, probably true and probably false, but not definitive.

this is my last philosophical statement on this thread.
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
Bryon, there is another possibility - that Mrtennis is merely yanking our chain for fun/humor.

Another question for you - is my copy of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy that my uncle gave me years ago and that I have yet to read going to cover such things you mentioned as "theories of epistemology, Hume’s problem of induction, Verificationism, the Logical Positivists’ attempt to derive knowledge from sensory experience, the differences between knowledge of logic/mathematics and empirical knowledge characteristic of science?" I plan on reading this book fairly soon, as my intro to philosophy.
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
12-27-11: Mrtennis
if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism.

i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part.

My suggestion that you are dogmatic isn’t based on the fact that you have opinions “not shared by others.” It’s based on the fact that you present those opinions “as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others” (Oxford dictionary), which captures my intent using the word ‘dogmatic.’ Here are some phrases that typically accompany the comments of someone who is NOT dogmatic…

I believe…
IMO…
IME…
As I see it…
My view is…
I respectfully disagree…

I have read a large number of your posts here on A’gon, and I can say with confidence that there is a conspicuous shortage of these kinds of phrases in your comments. Instead, you routinely present your ideas “as undeniably true, without consideration of THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.” It is as though you were correcting someone about a universally acknowledged fact, rather than contributing to a discussion on topics where opinions vary and facts are often difficult to determine. IMO, the failure to acknowledge that the conflicting views of others may nevertheless contain some validity is a characteristic element of dogmatism.

Another characteristic element of dogmatism, IMO, is the unwillingness to change your mind when presented with evidence that contradicts your own point of view. After reading a large number of your posts over the last two years, I can honestly say that I cannot recall a single case of you changing your mind, even when presented evidence from people who are highly informed. You may consider that a sign that your views are faultless, but I consider it sign of dogmatism.

Having an opinion that is “iconoclastic,” to use your word, has nothing to do with my perception of dogmatism. It is the unwillingness to acknowledge the possible validity of contrary opinions and the resistance to changing your mind when presented with evidence that creates the perception of dogmatism.

I am married to a clinical psychologist. She is an expert at identifying seemingly trivial behavior that is emblematic of larger personality characteristics. Having lived with her for years, I've learned something about that kind of interpretation. I mention this for the following reason...

You almost always call me by the incorrect name, even though I sign off nearly every post with my name. This has happened already three times on this thread, and it's happened on a number of other threads over the last two years. Admittedly, my name has an unusual spelling, and the mistake of calling me 'Byron' rather than 'Bryon' happens all the time because of it. What is different in this case is that you and I have participated in many of the same discussions on A'gon for more than two years, and we have addressed each other on more than a few occasions, and still you have not learned my name. You may find that trivial, but to me it is emblematic of a tendency to not acknowledge others, which is the essence of dogmatism.

Bryon
isochronism
2,893 posts
 
Bryon, Marrying a Clinical Psychologist would seemingly take guts and nerves of steel.
You obviously past that test, and nice posting!
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
Learsfool - I've read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and it's a pretty good book. But, IMO, it is a little too dry and excessively detailed to be a good introduction to philosophy. Two books I can recommend are Simon Blackburn's Think and Thomas Nagel's What Does it all Mean?.

Either of those will give you an idea of the broad landscape of philosophy, and then you can follow up with a more in-depth book on whatever specific topic interests you.

Bryon
More to discover