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 5 responses by tubegroover

tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
It doesn't exist and no, it doesn't matter.

"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."

Indeed I agree with Jax and Charles1dad. Accuracy is relative, it is not exact because it is ever changing. Even if a particular component could be quantitatively and subjectively by concensus identified as "accurate", when placed in a mix of other components with so many variables and then adding in the room it is going to have a specific sonic identity as you state 57s4me. But you really know the answer to this question, it is really rhetorical. 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.

tubegroover
2,320 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?
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"If the only measure is enjoyment/involvement, then is sipping a quality bourbon while sitting next to a super sexy woman and listening to a table radio a more musically enjoyable event than listening alone in the dark to some $100k+ audiophile system? Which is more memorable?"

Which ever floats your boat the most, this is the point Onhwy61, nothing more, nothing less. Having said that I sure know what my choice would be! If a designed for "accuracy" 150K Cello reference system is more preferable over an individually carefully selected system with different but less "accurate" components, great. If it is the other way around, great. It is a choice for each individual to make. The best audio components seem designed through objective data and subjective listening. The end result and choice by the end user is totally subjective and again, is the only thing that matters. "Absolute Accuracy" (read perfection for the benefit of Mr Tennis and those of his sway) can not be quantified but can only be approached through measurements but again, the variables. What is more accurate or perfect, a Steinway or a Bosendorfer? Again preference. I am a firm believer that objective measurements are important but as Viridian notes above, unless there are major distortions going on, a musically enjoyable system is the goal not necessarily a totally objective accurate one. I also tend to believe, theoretically at least, that a "truly accurate" system if it could be quantified might be preferable to more listeners but I really don't see how such a thing could ever be quantified. This discussion is getting rather silly. It reminds me of many other threads with similar polar positions, nothing is ever resolved. It really is black and white, what do you want most, enjoyment or accuracy and if they both conjoin, good for you! Bottom line, let your logic guide you but your ears connect you to whatever your choice. I hear you Orpheus10:)
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
"There really is a standard by which accuracy can be judged. And that standard is (as much as many would like to think that it doesn't apply) the sound of live, unamplified instruments or voice."

I personally agree with you Frogman. It is what first got me into this end of the hobby being a music enthusiast prior to. It is certainly my goal, orchestral and large choral to be exact. It seems the rest sounds better if this sounds right. One thing for certain with my room limitations nothing I do will ever make it sound real. I suppose this is true for many of us.

I'm not too sure everyone would agree with you though. People have different experiences and taste in music and may have different criteria when judging. What if the preferences are pop/grunge/heavy metal/eurotechno, in other words electronic with absolutely no interest in how live unamplified instruments or voice sound? They don't know because they primarily listen to amplified music. I'm quite certain that by using your criteria they could realize better sound of their music. Your comment also seems to take the "accuracy" via listening approach. It seems there was a debate about this several decades ago between John Atkinson and JG Holt. Atkinson not agreeing with Holt that live unamplified instruments should be the sole factor in evaluating a system or component. I always tended to trust Holt's judgements more when I was in that period of discovery.

Personally I want to enjoy the crappy recordings as well as the great ones and would compromise in favor of balance over maximizing the potential of the great ones. Your goals seem different and good for you but don't for a minute think that everyone should or does think like you. That being said I really enjoyed reading your perspective on this issue, nice post.
tubegroover
2,320 posts
 
***Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B minor Mass?*** -Michael Torke

Its funny you mention THAT piece Frogman in THAT context. Many years back my wife and I took a friend and his wife to a performance of the B minor Mass at the annual Bach Festival at Rollins College. He wanted to attend a "classical" concert with us and unfortunately, this is the one I choose. We had to leave before intermission because "the kids" got the "giggles" and wouldn't shut up which in turn got my wife going. I felt like I needed to have my head examined after that embarrassment, walking out with my head bowed with the "kids" in tow.
More to discover