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
tubegroover
2,279 posts
 
"Of course anyone is entitled to subjectively not like accurate gear...in fact that is often the case, as aesthetics are usually far more important to audiophile perception."

Shadorne you make some compelling points about measurements. But measurements to me are nothing more than a tool in evaluating a product prior to consideration, nothing more. I really don't necessarily agree with you that aesthetics are important to audiophile perception. I USED to be swayed by such things but it means absolutely nothing to me so far as making choices. This isn't to say that aesthetics aren't without value, they can certainly sway the other half all other things being equal at least from her end of the deal:)

The REAL problem I have with measurements which has grown over the years is that they don't necessarily equate to a desired result. I think they are absolutely important in designing products but I can't help but remember what David Berning wrote in a response to a review in choosing tubes over SS, "I have always placed the importance of subjective sound quality over measurements. It is not possible to build an amplifier with output transformers that has measurements that will compete with a direct coupled solid state amplifier"

The point is really obvious. As Jax notes above an SET amplifier is NOT going to measure as well as a SS yet some folks prefer the presentation that these amplifiers offer. Is this really an issue of measurements or is there something else that simply can't be quantified that our brains readily identify but the measurements can't. I don't want to start a tube vs ss debate because that isn't the point, it is a matter of preference. As Unsound wisely points out, we all have different priorities. Ideally we would want ALL characteristics that make music appealing to us met but in absence of any component delivering all aspects of performance whether it be tonality, dynamic contrast, soundstaging, imaging, low level detail etc., we make our choices based on our priorities and budget. This whole thing concerning accuracy is irrevelant if it doesn't meet our needs and raise our enjoyment. After all listening to music isn't a measurement experience it is related to our ability to enjoy, this is the only thing that matters. Your priorities in what you enjoy may be different than mine but I can't imagine that you make your choices by measurements alone, do you? My question is would you be prejudice against purchasing a component that measured poorly but that made you enjoy the music more?
orpheus10
5,988 posts
 

At last, someone has introduced some objective measurements. Although many audiophiles are unaware of the significance of these measurements, they matter "subjectively" as well as "objectively".
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
you guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.

for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .

it has nothing to do with listening. its the fact that all components are designed with flaws. you might be able to find components which produce a sound which provides sufficient resolution , a balanced frequency response, and other attributes that appeal to audiophiles. if a stereo system performs that way , where most recordings sound different and there is no noticeable consistent sonic signature, the condition may be "virtual accuracy", but a stereo system can never be accurate (perfect) since the components that make up the stereo sytem are not accurate.
viridian's avatar
viridian
4,184 posts
 
Accuracy is a fiction. We pick and choose which distortions we can live with. Who is to say which is more accurate, an amp that is flat to 20K with .1% fifth harmonic distortion or one that down 1db at 20K with .001% fifth harmonic distortion? The distortions of audio components are so complex and myriad that in the end, there is simply no way to call one component the more accurate unless some gross distortions are involved.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
you guys are forgetting about a basic fact. accuracy means perfection.

Perfection is a notion that is entirely a fabrication of the human mind. It implies a value judgment. Without that, the notion of "perfection" has no meaning. Most definitions of perfection read something to the nature of "...without flaws". Flaws are also entirely subjective, and what is a flaw to you may not be a flaw to me. Accuracy is a state of being correct or precise. There is no value judgment involved, it is either A or B...Correct or Incorrect...black or white...zero or one.

for example one inch is exactly one inch. in audio, all components have flaws. they are imperfect. therefore accuracy cannot exist .

One inch as a unit exists only because of some collective agreement as to what that means, and it is not a value judgment to say whether or not something complies to that. I don't get the connection between flaws (a subjective value judgment) and accuracy (a simple objective observation).

it has nothing to do with listening.

Then you may as well stop right there.

its the fact that all components are designed with flaws.


The concept of determining that something is flawed is, again, entirely subjective.

Perfection is an absurd notion to me.

Jax, There probably isn't a right answer here but let me take up the case for accuracy in hi fi equipment. If you are a musician playing a live event you most definately are interested in what the room ( a hi fi equipment surrogate) is doing to your sound. You play the music as you intend it to be heard and then the room modifies it to a greater or lesser extent. Playing loud rock in a small room is challenging and playing acoustic jazz in an overly damped room is also challenging as examples. Bad rooms exist. You the listener may like the way a particular room (hi fi equipment) colors the sound and thats fine. It's your set up. Here's where the problem lies IMHO. A colored hi fi set up will ( as examples) ALWAYS add 6db to the mid bass and/or ALWAYS shelve down high frequencies making it impossible to ever hear the music as it was intended to be heard by the musicians. This might be preferable in certain poor recordings but not in good or a great ones. You will NEVER hear the music as it was played in the studio. My preference is to really "get" what the musicians are playing and to put up with the bad recordings that come along instead of covering them up with a veneer of "warmth" or "slam" or what ever. - Jim

I'd have to go back to Tubegroover's post to respond to this:

The only thing that matters is enjoyment it is the only thing that is real and if it doesn't stay that way, time for a change.

My rig is for me to enjoy music the way that moves me and involves me and keeps me glued to my seat immersed in the music I love. If that is going on for me, if my system is achieving that most of the time (as it does), I really don't care whether or not the musicians intentions, or the engineers decisions are being carried forth faithfully. It does not matter one wit to me. What matters is my enjoyment of it. If it does actually comply to their intentions, that's fine to, but I still don't care.
More to discover