Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

100% accuracy means perfection. 95% accuracy does not.

Unsound and Shadorne,
Could you two give us examples of the accurate components you`re referring to,much appreciated.
Thanks,

I have to admit that my question 'Does Accuracy Exist?' was indeed somewhat rhetorical.
The moment that electronics and (esp) transducers enter the chain, then accuracy must be a casualty. As some have pointed out the word should have absolute status: if not perfectly accurate, then inaccuracy is the result.

I suppose the question is partly linguistic - I don't like the language to be manhandled; but also partly an acknowledgment that a Perfect System can only ever exist for one person. I find this to be fascinating. So much disagreement in our wonderful pastime is actually without any meaning.

I'll continue to read and enjoy the comments about and reviews of more and more 'accurate' equipment till I expire - after all, we really are only debating the precise number of Angels dancing on the head of a pin. No one is disputing their existence!

Who cares about accuracy if it sounds good? On the other hand , if it is too much off it won't sound good to those who can hear. And it is not only about equipment, it is also about the instruments. I heard some that sounded very colored and distorted, much worse than my modest system. I also heard Paco de Lucia play and his guitar sounded incredible, unamplified without microphones in a really big concert hall. The room too can be totally "inaccurate".

From Wikipedia:

"In the fields of science, engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to its actual (true) value. The precision of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results. Although the two words can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.

A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment contains a systematic error, then increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.

A measurement system is called valid if it is both accurate and precise. Related terms are bias (non-random or directed effects caused by a factor or factors unrelated by the independent variable) and error (random variability), respectively."

Accuracy cannot be seperated from precision, which is why I mentioned it in my first post. In any case, I would suggest that most of us start out in this hobby trying to reduce systematic errors in an effort to make our audio systems more "valid" starting from the electrical and material sources and ending at our ears. As I have become more experienced and traveled down some blind alleys in what might be considered a pure pursuit of better specifications, and therefore "accuracy", I began to realize there is more to it. Specifications are still important, but not the only thing or the holy grail. I now find myself basing decisions on listening to gear and reading more reviews by people whose taste I generally agree with, and reading less about and into techincal specifications and measures.

The first post and several subsequent have alluded to the fact that at best we can try to faithfully reproduce, at our ear, the sound intended by the original production team, regardless of whether this is actually an "accurate" reproduction of the original performance and recording space. Given that, our systems may reliably reproduce a very detailed version of this original recording that lacks some in presence, or a version rich in the original tone and timbre that may lack some speed and attack. Both of these may be equally "accurate" or "inaccurate" versions of the original, but may appeal to different people who prize those particular attributes in their listening experience.

While it is certainly not a guarantee, I generally feel you are more likely to find all of these desirable listening elements coexisting together (limited of course by what is present in the original recording) along with better measured specificiations in more expensive gear. At the more modest levels (where I tend to shop), how it sounds at home in my listening room is of more value to me than printed specifications that may speak to some greater measure of "accuracy". I do know what I like when I hear it, but it turns out I do not know it very precisely.