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
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
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.

Hi MrT. I’ve seen you make similar statements several times on various threads, and I’ve 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
hi byron and almarg:

to effectively discuss epistemological matters would require a face to face encounter, which is infeasible.

byron is correct, i am a radical skeptic, as i do not accept knowledge that is derived from the senses, as it is based upon induction.

my final statement regarding the subject of accuracy is that no stereo system can be accurate.

that should end the discussion.

if i am wrong regardingn knowledge, a mathematical or logical proof would be helpful.
if i am wrong regarding knowledge, a mathematical or logical proof would be helpful.

Here is my understanding of this conversation...

_____________________________________________

"The only knowledge is knowledge based on logic or mathematics."

"What about knowledge in physics? In chemistry? In biology? In geology? In engineering? In medicine? In astronomy? In architecture? In history? In music? Isn't that also knowledge?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because it cannot be derived from logic or mathematics."

_______________________________________________

That sounds like something out of Lewis Carroll. It is both circular reasoning and willfully dogmatic.

that should end the discussion.

It does.