No, we don’t say the same thing. Accuracy is a state of something relating how close it is to being precise. Measurement and auditioning is a process, not a state."accuracy by the numbers" is related to a process .... This is common sense and go without saying it...
"accuracy by the ears" is related to the process of human hearing....This is common sense and go without saying it...
My use of the word "accuracy" were in the context of a war between "subjectivist" and objectivist" the word was refering to a confusion between what is accurate in the measuring tool process and what is selected to be accurate like in pitch timbre perception and evaluation by and for the ears....
There is no electronic process known to man that measures the accuracy of music.Twisting my post because you are more "snippy" than me wont erase reality...
And reality is this: Any engineer must CORRELATE the measure by numbers with what is another "measure" the way his ears judge pitch accuracy for example in his design test....
Then i will write more clearly what you just errenously wrote, twisting in your way true engineering endeavour:
If " there is no electronic process that measure the accuracy of music" there is an enginering process that CORRELATED measures by tool and measures or EVALUATION of music( pitch, timbre, colors,dynamics etc) for the human ears...
This engineering historical process of CORRELATION improvement give us hi-fi.....And some new tools ....
Then "opposing" measure by the numbers and measure by the ears is stupidity, distinguishing them without reducing any of them to the other and "correlating" them is wiser....
Reality is not black or white, subjectivist against objectivist or the opposite...
I apologize for being "snippy" anyway.... Perhaps i was in my tone....
My best to you ....
I wish only the best for you for all eternity....
I hope this is clearer...
😊
Sarcasm is the lowest form of witThis is right....
My deepest regards....
