Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

I no more think of "accuracy" when I'm attending a live musical event, as when I listen to music at home. Nor would I think of "accuracy" in terms of optical performance when viewing a photograph (in the latter it's so far from the point as to being utterly ridiculous - There are magnificent photographs that do not rely on great optical performance, and I know it's besides the point of how the reference is being used). Ultimately, it either moves me, or it does not. I might use "accuracy" as a very relative term to qualify why something sounds right to me. In the case of music, indeed it could have something to do with how "real" it occurs to me at home (the closer to "real" the more it seems to consume me), but what sounds "real" to me may not occur that way to someone else, so what's the point. "Accuracy" implies an objective standard to me. The enjoyment of music an subjective art form.

It may be an elusive quest, but without it, we're lost.

Without it, we'd probably enjoy the music with one less distraction circulating around in our wee brains taking us away from becoming lost in (enjoying) the music. Of course some of us, in the absence of that particular carrot on a stick, would surely find some other to keep themselves on an everlasting quest for something that exists only in their own mind.

When it comes to electronics, accuracy matters, that's why there is not a lot of difference between the top amplifiers when you compare tube to tube and solid state to solid state. However, once you get back to cartridges, speakers and everything else; you have the "wobbly stack".

SET amplifiers don't measure up very well at all. Yet there are many who prefer them over amplifiers that may objectively measure more "accurate"

Charles1dad - excellent post.

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.

Amen. End of story.

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.

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.

If this were a pro-audio forum where there was some aspect of engineering and science to what the participants were being relied upon to accomplish, this might be something to consider. But this is a forum of end-users - those who assemble equipment in order to enjoy the music. Let me say that again, as it has been said so many times in this thread: The goal here is TO ENJOY THE MUSIC. You can use whatever criteria fits your own personal take on it, and if your own interpretation of what "accuracy" means to you fits into that personal interpretation, then so be it. It does not matter and you will never find any remotely universal agreement on any of it.

05-13-11: Abucktwoeighty
100% accuracy means perfection. 95% accuracy does not.

Accuracy has nothing whatsoever to do with perfection. Accuracy is a notion that is objective, Perfection is judgment which is entirely subjective and will not be universal ("perfect" beauty for a westerner may be a polar opposite for someone from a tribe in Africa or from an Asian or Persian culture). What is a perfect movie or perfect book? Perfect music? Perfect clothing? Perfect food? Any answers to those are simply an opinion and nothing more. If we were to believe MrTennis and Abucktwoeighty, then a perfect movie is the one that is 100% accurate....perfect beauty is 100% accurate...a perfect musical performance is one that is 100% accurate. Accuracy is essentially true or false and nothing more. It has little to do with how human beings perceive and interpret the world around them and does require a universal agreement as to what defines what is true and what is false in any application of the word. In absence of that universal agreement you will never have "accuracy". You will NEVER find such a universal agreement on any notion of "perfection" or personal tastes. It is not remotely the same.

Contact a mastering studio and arrange to attend an actual mastering session. Listen to the final mix. Purchase a copy of the recording. Does the recording played back in your room on your system sound like the recording when played in the mastering room?

All that ridiculous jumping through hoops and you may still discover that you actually prefer to listen to that very recording on a system that makes it sound different than it did in the mastering room (ie "inaccurate"). It means nothing to the end user unless you make it mean something to you. It is neither here nor there.

Furthermore what makes one prefer their system over your hypothetical, deluxe Crown Amp/Bose/8track may have everything or nothing to do with accuracy. Ultimately it is quite simply a personal preference and nothing more, and the individual who actually thought the deluxe system may actually prefer it for whatever personal reasons.

There are no "practical" reasons for gauging components for the end user (perhaps for engineers). The best you can do is share your own experiences and preferences, and I think in some ways that can be generous, but ultimately a point of departure for others to form their own opinions - in the end it doesn't matter - its what your personal preference happens to be.

I've had a few moments from my youth with a cheap car stereo playing music, and a beautiful woman in the backseat (and front seat) of a car on a moonlit night parked alongside a country road a million miles from nowhere... I can tell you those moments are plenty memorable, and were profoundly enjoyable. I can think of many other moments of profound enjoyment of music that are plenty memorable where no expensive components were involved that I remember to this day. I also have memories that do involve expensive components. Ultimately it was the music and all kinds of other things about the moment that made the difference. It had nothing at all to do with any notion of "accuracy" or "perfection".

Anytime someone tells others you haven't lived until you've listened to music on a $x(insert lots of zeroes) system, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction. Buying into such BS is a recipe for unhappiness. There will always be something better, the grass will always be greener over yonder, that is until you drink the grape Kool Aid and empty your wallet and bank account, and agree, in spite of your own preferences, that there is some objective realization of a perfect anything.

Frogman - I look at a work by an artist that really moves me...Joseph Cornell for instance...Seeing his work moves and inspires me. It stirs thoughts and emotions and takes my mind to places I hadn't known existed before seeing it. Yet I am not at all privy to the artists original intent in creating the piece. I have no idea whether the way I am interpreting it, or the way it moves me, was what Cornell had in mind when he created the piece. My own interpretation could be far from what his intent was and the meanings I may take from it may have never crossed his mind. Does it matter in any way whatsoever that I have "accurately" interpreted the artists original intent? Or is it more important that the work moved me and stirred up emotions and thought that are lasting and quite real and important to me, and in my case very enjoyable as I do enjoy the visual arts as well. This is more to the point of what I was trying to say when I stated that whether the artists original intent is "accurately" served is less important to me, the observer/listener, as is the level of my own enjoyment of the work. If I actually happen to be completely tuned in to what the artists intent was, that's great too. But if the works moves me and inspires me yet is not faithful to that intent, or I am moved in some other interpretation of it that was not necessarily part of the artists intent, that is every bit as wonderful.

Without getting into the semantics of accuracy vs. precision, for those that think measurements and accuracy are unimportant, they better hope someone else is, or they won't be able to replace their systems. Accuracy and specs give us a baseline for making progress.

The semantic issue was accuracy vs "perfection" not "precision"

Accuracy should certainly matter to the artist themselves, to the engineer and producer. I'd agree it has a place there.

To the end user it is entirely relative. What does Carnegie Hall sound like to you? Might not be what I happen to enjoy about the sound of it, and or we may perceive it entirely differently. Then again, I might like to enjoy a bit more warmth on top of what it actually sounds like. You might not. What's the point - we're both enjoying our respective versions of reproduction by assembling gear that accomplishes what we are after.

The thing I find ironic here is that quite often those audiophiles that claim to be searching for "accuracy" are often the very same ones that get completely caught up in specs and measurements and end up with systems that may measure well but sound nothing like live, unamplified, acoustic music, which as you say is the real yet unachievable standard for accuracy. Someone asked the question "have we really completely lost our way?" Well, yes you have, if you consider how a component measures more important than what it actually sounds like.

I also found it interesting that the system Onhwy61 points out as an example of "accurate" has strong bloodlines in the most critical components (front end and speakers) in pro-audio, including ATC monitors, Benchmark DAC as well as a Behringer Equalizer. It's a beautiful, well-designed installation for sure. I don't know that it might suit everyone's preferences, which is just my point. Pro-audio purposes are a specific use where I believe accuracy is very important, where professionals working in that world actually depend upon it. I just don't think that extends to the end user necessarily. Certainly if it floats your boat that's the way you should go. My own limited experiences with pro-audio gear suggest to me that it does not float my boat at all. This is not meant as a criticism of Shardone's system - heck I might find it sounds magnificent. Just some general thoughts and observations.

Jax2, I refer you to Knownothing's post.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. My bad - I missed that.

Looking at visual arts may be a useful comparison as music can be considered an auditory art. I don't believe there are competitions for who can paint the most accurate painting. Super accurate paintings aren't necessarily worth more than design realism nor do many people prefer it.
Other than a mic'd recording of a live event, the studio engineer can be considered the artist who assembles a pleasing sonic rendition of the musician. Okay, okay even the former can be considered an artistically created event for you superfussy nitpickers out there.

cdc - your reference to my metaphor is way off base. It is not at all the connection I was trying to make anyway. The artists are the performers, and their counterparts would be the actual artists creating the visual works of art. Super accurate realism, the likes of the works of Richard Estes for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The music and the art is the means of expression, whether classical symphonic music, acid jazz, hip hop, etc. Whether surrealism, abstract expressionism, photographic realism, etc. The art was created by the artists with the intention of expressing something to others, to move others and share something that may open their minds...make them think and feel. You are confusing the metaphor placing recording engineers in the place of artists where they do not belong. Their job is use their skills to reproduce the work of the artists onto a semi-permanent media to share with the masses. If you wanted to create a verbatim metaphor you could compare recording engineers to a skilled photographer + printer/separator who takes images of the artwork and applies their skills to create reproductions of the artwork to share with the masses in the form of a book or print, for instance. These are not the artists, they are technicians, craftsmen, or artisans if you will. To carry the metaphor through to the discussion; Certainly "accuracy" is a very significant concern to the photographer/printer/separator, as it is to the recording engineer. Likewise "accuracy" is likely important to the artists themselves who would most likely prefer that their work is reproduced in a way that accurately conveys their intentions. That is where the importance of "accuracy" remains in my mind. As far as the end-user, any one of the masses who might appreciate the reproduced work, the capacity of them to enjoy and be deeply moved by any of this work is most certainly NOT dependent upon the ultimate accuracy of the reproduction of that work. Let me back up a bit; Neither the reproduction of visual arts in the highest form of photographic reproduction and printing (say stochastic printing at 600 dpi on the finest stock), nor the best recording of any performance by the most skilled engineer....neither of those efforts at reproduction are ultimately going to equal the experience of actually being directly present to the work itself or the performance. If you have that goal in mind then you might as well take up self-flagellation while you're at it. Also, in the high-end of either of those examples, and at the levels of colorations we are likely discussing here (we are not talking about extreme distortions where the actual music/art is not recognizable after all, or shifts coloration/tonality so grossly it is not even representative of the original), there is every bit the potential of the original art/music that's being reproduced to deeply move others. Whether or not it is "accurate" is entirely irrelevant to the observer unless it becomes an obstacle in their own mind to actually being moved by the work (in other words, unless they make it so in their own priorities - it's an issue if you choose to make it an issue). I like your quote on "damage control". Obviously in the metaphor, the reproduction of the visual arts is far more limited going from 3-d to 2-d, and likely also reducing/changing scale. The illusion in the reproduction of music is far more satisfying IMO.

Jax2, while reference to a painter/sculptor is valid from the standpoint that it may be equally difficult to determine artist intent, I don't think that how you use that reference deals with what the core issue is re accuracy. The visual equivalent of what we are talking about would be (I think) to suggest that it is equally valid to look at a Cornell painting wearing sunglasses, because it pleases our eyes more that way, instead of the stark reality of whatever he painted; and then try to determine artist intent. I don't think it can be done. I suppose one could try. But then, what would be the point? It would no longer be a what he intended. Is that not obvious?

Your eyes adapt wearing sunglasses - our senses are amazingly adaptable and sensitive. I think I get what you are trying to get at though, but I don't agree. We are not at all talking about distortions of the level I think you are suggesting. The idea of gross distortion, such as wearing rose colored glasses (which we also adapt to), is just simply not what is being discussed at this level of performance of musical reproduction, as you pointed out in the end of your post (I doubt the capacity to be moved by a visual work of art would be grossly handicapped by wearing sunglasses - the issue of the artists intent is entirely apart from that, as I have posited before, it doesn't matter nearly as much what they specifically were trying to express, except perhaps to them...as artwork the point is more that the viewer/listener is moved to think and feel. Even if we view a writer as the artist, and the words they use are verbatim to their expression of intent - the end result will be filtered through the reader and may transport their minds and hearts to all kinds of places that didn't even exist in the writer's mind or heart. Back to music - Not only do most folks here have systems that are most certainly not going to obscure the voice of Ella so it is not recognizable, I'd venture to take that further and say that most who are taking the time to read and discuss in these forums, probably have systems that do a damn fine job at reproducing Ella's voice and performance. Ella on their system would without any doubt be enough that, were Ella to sing in the next room anyone could make the connection. The level of "accuracy" we are talking about simply does not obscure or loose the artists intent (or their identity), IMO, and doesn't remotely begin to resemble some sort of deeply obscured view of artwork through dark colored glasses, or playing the music through iPhone speakers. Instead I'd suggest that the level of "accuracy" being suggested here is nitpicking and not even on the radar of most folks who enjoy music (most of whom are not part of these forums as most off the population of the world would fit that description). It is probably one of the aspects of this hobby I least enjoy and when I find myself in discussions with others who focus on this sort of hogwash that is so far from the point of enjoying music, it makes me wish I could be transported elsewhere. Fortunately it doesn't happen much, and when it does I manage to find a polite exit strategy. Not that it's not an interesting subject, but it certainly doesn't interest me if that's the only thing you focus on. I do find the discussion here stimulating as it makes me reflect on my own preferences and attitudes, and reasons I like what I like, and it takes various points of view into the picture. I don't think I'd last long in this discussion if it became entirely polarized towards the idea of "perfection" as that's a sad and sorry standard to try to uphold.

FYI Cornell was not a painter.

Cdc - thanks for your kind words.

I was thinking more about the writer as artist metaphor. There is a case where we have 100% accuracy in reproducing the artist's expression. Word for word the original text in the original language is verbatim and without error (assuming as much in the reproduction of the text). To the writer, the artist in this case, and to the publisher, this level of "accuracy" is of paramount importance. To the reader, however, those words, which are 100% accurate, may take on different meanings, and transport them to different places, and inspire them in different ways than was in the heart and mind of the artist/writer who penned them. Is then 100% accuracy critical to the reader? I don't think so. Even if we are talking about a translation into another language, where then 100% accuracy could easily be argued - say translations into three different languages, or perhaps by three different translators into the same different language...is 100% accuracy important, or even possible given the ambiguities of semantics and translation? Is the "accurate" meaning of Gibran's, The Prophet, lost in being translated into so many languages? Again, I don't think so. Certainly the core intents will remain in tact, and certainly the capacity to move and inspire others will not be lost because the translation cannot be held to the microscope of "100% accuracy". This is the level of nitpicking that I feel is being discussed here - we are not talking about the kind of gross distortions in someone else entirely retelling the story of The Prophet, or being grossly visually impaired, or perhaps color blind. That's just not the differences being discussed here. If it is, then I'd probably have more in common in saying that far more is available to anyone of experiencing Ella, then is available through a pair of iPhone speakers. Not to say one can't enjoy Ella that way, but there's certainly more to be enjoyed than what you are hearing. But really, this is not the kinds of differences being discussed here. In the case of communication through art forms I do not think "accuracy", at least at the levels it is realistically being discussed here in the differences in various high-end systems that folks here may have assembled, has any major influence at all in enjoying and being moved by the music. That is unless the individual has chosen to make it so, where certainly any self-imposed head-trip like that has tremendous potential for removing one from enjoying anything.

Frogman - I'm not sure I follow your recent response. Yes, I made the original metaphor and have built on it...so what? My "standard" would be how the music moves me, how much I enjoy and am immersed in the experience of listening, not how close it comes to some abstract or even some objective standard of "accuracy" much less "perfection. I actually know a few people who do concern themselves greatly over such issues, yet also profoundly enjoy music and can share on either level. I do not assume that having such concerns necessarily means that you cannot enjoy music. I have met others who seem to only obsess about such issues. I find I have nothing much in common with those people as far as the enjoyment of music at home is concerned as they usually are more interested in talking about their obsessions, which I find to be a trivial pursuit. I was suggesting that if that is what you focus on, it would be nearly impossible, at least in my experience, to actually enjoy the music at the same time. This is what bugs me about some notion of perfection - I'd prefer to simply focus on what I enjoy and drop any such notions that there is some objective goal to be achieved, some quest for nirvana. I think what most people who are on such a quest might be missing is that what they are looking for is right there under their noses if they were only open to enjoying it.

PS I am under no illusions that what I'm sharing is anything at all but my personal point of view and opinions, not some recipe that I think anyone and everyone should live by. I hope I'm not coming off that way. I just find this particular discussion stirs up some things in me I feel inclined to share, and happen to have time on my hands right now to write.

Rodman - you evidently did not read all of my posts, or not very carefully. I stated repeatedly that the only ones that it would occur to me that "accuracy" necessarily mattered to were the recording engineers and the sound professionals responsible for delivering the artists performance (as well as the artists themselves). The "trivial pursuit" comment was not referring to those efforts and you've taken it entirely out of context. FWIW, I do have exposure to the music biz as I work with musicians, and am quite aware of their own concerns, as well as the concerns of recording engineers that they work with. I also have musicians in my family - my mother in-law and sister in-law play first viola and cello in a symphony orchestra, and my wife's degree is in performance violin. So no disrespect was intended to you or your profession (if that's what you do). Actually, no disrespect is intended to anyone - I'm just voicing my opinion and my own point of view. Ultimately whatever floats your boat and to each their own.

Onhwy61 - agreed, it's difficult to put a finger on exactly what one is being "accurate" to. If some notion of "accuracy" is what you enjoy, then have at it. Ultimately it's the enjoyment of music that is much more to the point of why I do this.

Cdc - Estes is not really a personal favorite; I just mentioned him because of the reference to (photo) realism. Cornell most certainly is one of my favorites. Others I enjoy? Hmmm too many and far off topic, but I'll give you a few...Edward Kienholz, Jean Michel Basquiat, Edvard Munch, Man Ray, Magritte, most of the surrealists..kind of all over the board. Yes, you're so right, the visual arts, all of the arts, can inspire and move us in similar ways to the music we enjoy if we are open to it. Like you experience with Eyvind Earl (think you are misspelling his first name), it can take you places you might not have though existed. I can still remember my Dad bringing home a copy of Sgt. Pepper when I was 7, and two years later a music teacher bringing in a copy of Tommy by The Who to play for the class - it was not so much that material itself, but that there was a world of an art form out there that I had no idea about - it really opened me up to that and I was hooked from then on. I still can enjoy both of those recordings, but they are definitely not representative of current tastes in music. It's a wonderful thing to become aware of possibility, just like Rodman999 points out in his sharing what is possible with music with others.

Listening to music this afternoon this song, a recent favorite came up in random shuffle. Listening to the lyrics I said to myself, this is at the core of what moves me about music. It is why when I consider the question, "Does accuracy matter?" (regarding the reproduction and enjoyment of music), I have to say that it's just not the point...it matters if you make it matter, and if it happens to be important to you, but it is not a requirement to profoundly enjoy music, and focusing on such minutia in listening takes one further and further away from enjoyment, in my experience. This is especially so at the level of most indulging in this hobby where some seem to need to find any number of rulers to measure and compare their pride and joy with everyone else's (I really restrained myself there in that metaphor).

This is from Martha Tilston's 2006 release, "Of Milkmaids and Architects", in case anyone's into the contemporary Brit-folk scene. Those with 3 copies of Dire Straits BIA and 4 versions of Pink Floyd DSOM on their frequent rotation might find this a bit boring. It kind of goes back to what I was talking about those early introductions in ones life where it really sinks in and moves you, that you never forget:

_______________

we were the wild wild child of the street
we rollarskated everywhere
Jason and the Argonauts, with festival hair
we were taught to catch our dreams if you can
and put the babies wellies on and help them in the back of the van

oh and I remember
Sophie dancing round the room
singing 'here it comes,
here it comes,
this is the best bit of the tune'
she waves her fingers in the air
says 'doesn't it make you fizz?'
and I understand that Sophie knows
what magic is
I understand that Sophie knows
what magic is

sometimes I go back in my dreams to Bristol
you can hear Jamaican music and taste the Asian sweets
then to the adventure playground
running through the streets
we were both slow readers
we could make a bow and arrow
from the wood and flint with twine
and we cut the lawn with scissors
made sense at the time

oh and I remember
Sophie dancing round the room
singing 'here it comes,
here it comes,
this is the best bit of the tune'
she waves her fingers in the air
says 'doesn't it make you fizz?;
and I understand that Sophie knows what magic is
I understand that Sophie knows what magic is

so now she pours me a glass of pink wine
she takes the babies wellies off
and whispers to him 'bed time'
when he's sleeping she hunts through the CD pile
she says 'you've gotta hear this one, gotta hear this one'
she starts to smile
so now I'm watching Sophie dancing round the room
singing here it comes here it comes this is the best bit of the tune
she waves her fingers in the air
'doesn't it make you fizz?'
understand that Sophie knows what magic is

now I am reminded
what music is

so I get up with her,
dancing round the room
here it comes
here it comes
this is the best bit of the tune
we wave our fingers in the air
'doesn't it make you fizz'

I understand that Sophie know what magic is
you must understand that Sophie knows what magic is
though I am taller in many ways I'm smaller
then my big sis