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!
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........
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........
- ...
- 124 posts total
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 Santas 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 Santas 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 components 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 |
hi Byroncunningham: since components are inaccurate , a stereo system is inaccurate. knowledge is analytic a priori. it exists in the realm of mathematics and logic, where it is absolute. for example, given axioms, postulates, and other "rules" base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. knowledge is not fallible or reversible in math or logic. in the empirical world, induction rules and there is no knowledge. knowledge cannot result from sense perception. without proof there is no knowledge. without truth, there is no knowledge. |
12-25-11: Mrtennis Hi MrT. Ive seen you make similar statements several times on various threads, and Ive never taken the time to carefully respond to them. Nor have I seen anyone else carefully respond to them. So I will do that now. I gather from your comments that you believe that all knowledge is 1. tautological 2. a priori 3. analytic 4. conceptual 5. certain which is identical with saying that all knowledge is 1. true in virtue of its logical form 2. justified independent of experience 3. true in virtue of the meanings of its terms 4. independent of sense experience 5. justified beyond any doubt and hence you believe that there is no such thing as 1. empirical knowledge 2. a posteriori knowledge 3. synthetic knowledge 4. perceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge 5. unproven knowledge and hence you believe that there is no knowledge to be found in 1. science 2. human experience 3. statements other than definitions 4. perception or practiced skill 5. any human endeavor other than logic and mathematics I have to say that this is the most narrow use of the term knowledge I have encountered in my entire life, and that is saying something, given the fact that I spent 9 years studying, writing, teaching, and publishing philosophy, which entailed a lengthy exposure to theories of epistemology, both historical and contemporary. You are entitled to use the term knowledge any way you like. But you should be aware that no one, and I mean NO ONE, will understand what you mean by that term, if you limit your use to such a parsimonious and idiosyncratic definition. You would literally have to be transported to the 17th century and happen upon Rene Descartes to make yourself understood. And this is to say nothing of the fact that such radical skepticism about the scope of human knowledge is based on a profoundly impoverished view of both philosophy and the natural sciences. bc |
Bryon, IMO both of your posts are characteristically outstanding, and I am in complete agreement with both of them. Mr. T, you are equating knowledge with absolute certainty. There is very little that is absolutely certain in this world, not even the characteristics of the isosceles triangle you mentioned. Consider the implications of Relativity Theory with respect to the lengths of its sides ("objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer," quoting from the reference). To be reliable, meaning to have a high DEGREE of reliability, knowledge requires a high DEGREE of certainty, not absolute certainty. That can be, and very commonly is, established by empirical means. The contention that "knowledge is analytic a priori" is simply wrong. Regards, -- Al |
- 124 posts total