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

Showing 8 responses by mrtennis

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.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
i think accuracy , or perfection or exactness, is a goal many audiophiles try to achieve.

it is not achievable. no audio system is perfect.

so the question, "does accuracy exist", yes the term exists, but there are no accurate audio systems.

such a state does not prevent one from reducing inaccuracy.

in audio accuracy is a multi dimensional variable, there is phase, frequency response, etc. .
in addition how does one know what a recording sounds like ?
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
the issue is:

can knowledge come from sense perception ??

if not, knowledge is derived from premises and assumptions, and d efinitions.

euclidian geometry, trigonometry, and boolean algebra are examples where knowledge occurs.

as i said it is fruitless to argue without speaking directly.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi almarg:

what you "experience" is only probably true and you have confidence that it is.

yet because of the possibility that in the future you may have a different experience, there is only a high probability that what you have experienced is true.

your "knowledge" that fire is hot is based upon induction. all it takes is one experience to disprove that fire is hot.

of course in your life time you may always experience fire is hot , but there is a tiny probability that it may not happen. therefore it is not true that fire is hot it is only highly probable that it is . hence you don't have knowledge. without certainty, there is no knowledge.

our experiences in life are uncertain. still, we base our behavior upon them, because of our confidence and high probability.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
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.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
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.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hy byron:

i can provide a definition of knowledge:

here it is:

justified true belief. justification requires proof and knowledge implies certainty.

if you consider the above dogmatic, so be it.

the above definition is not otiginal.

i would also appreciate an instance of a statement i have made that connotes dogmatism.

if i have an opinion which is not shared by others, i hardly would consider it a case of dogmatism.

i may be an iconoclast, but i reject your accusation, without evidence on your part.

if you consider my statements indicative of dogmatism, i consider your position, at best, probably true and probably false, but not definitive.

this is my last philosophical statement on this thread.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
for the record, any statements i have made regarding audio matters are opinions. i do not claim to have any knowledge in areas where knowledge is obtained via sense perception.
More to discover