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........
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.
Jax2, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you seem to be assuming that those who strive for their notion of musical accuracy necessarily do so at the expense of the enjoyment of the art. That assumption could not be further from the truth. Moreover, I would suggest that the approach of not using some sort of standard as a positive tool, limits one's ultimate understanding/enjoyment of the art. But, as always, different strokes for different folks. BTW, it was you who first made an issue of the distortion of the artist's intent. I am confused. Not!
***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.***
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.
Hi Jax, I always enjoy your insightful posts. I thought the OP was referring to "accuracy" in terms of the chain of events - including the stereo itself- in the reproduction of the music, not the actual event itself. I can see you point about a musician getting you to "see" things from their perspective, just like a good artist does.
I was comparing the ultimate reality of the real world (which the artist then interprets) to the ultimate reality of what the musician plays (and the recording engineer, stereo system etc then interprets).
Tubegoover (love the moniker, BTW), I agree with everything you wrote. I don't for a minute think that everyone agrees with my take on the issue of accuracy. Moreover, my goals are actually the same as yours; it really is about balance. My comments about the importance of optimizing a system's accuracy were made in the context of answering the original question: does accuracy matter? As I said, I believe that it does, particularly if the alternative is to abandon the quest for such simply because it can never be achieved completely. In my experience there is a fairly wide window of system tuning possibilities that allows us to enjoy the majority of recordings and still appreciate the great ones for what they are. Your point about listeners who prefer pop music is well taken, and I agree (I listen to a fair amount of pop). But my point is not about judgment of a person's taste in music (I listen to just about everything. Well, not hip-hop; unless my son insists. And in fainess, I must say, there have been a couple of occasions when I have gotten it; sort of)
Rodman99999, and Learsfool, thanks for the kind words. Rodman, you wrote: ***To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT*** How true! But that still does not invalidate the standard nor the use of it by those who care. Part of the problem when this subject comes up in discussion among audiophiles is that we tend to get defensive about our goals in this hobby. We want to be right. I prefer to think that a big part of the reason that this is so is the very personal nature of music. It is a wonderful testimony to the power of it, and it's importance in people's lives. We tend to want to validate our choices in music and it's playback. But anyone who says that the standard does not exist, or has no value, because their choice in music makes the standard irrelevant, or because they just don't care to put their energies in that department has his head in the sand.
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?
The idea that the way each of us hears is different, is irrelevant; unless we fall into the typical audiophile trap of needing to be right in the eyes (ears) of others. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it's true that Carnegie Hall may sound different to me than it does to you. But, when you listen to a recording made in Carnegie Hall, you are using the same ears that you had when you sat in the hall. Whatever aberrations were caused by our particular set of ears while in the hall, will be the same aberrations that will be caused when we listen to our stereos. So, it is most definitely valid to use a familiar sound (Carnegie Hall) to judge the accuracy of our audio system. I realize, of course, that it depends on wether the recording process did a good enough job of capturing the sound of the hall. But here is where I think we tend to exaggerate the point about the futility of that kind of exercise. To suggest, for instance, that system tuning could cause a recording of Ella Fitzgerald to no longer sound like Ella, is quite a stretch. I doubt any audiophile on this forum has assembled a sytem that sounds so bad that it would not be possible to tell it is Ella singing; or that makes a tenor sax sound like an alto sax. I suggest that if that is the case the main culprit is lack of familiarity with the sound of her voice, and of the saxophone. Who here thinks that the sound produced by the tiny speaker in our cell phone is capable of producing high-end sound? Now, ask yourself: when was the last time your wife, or parent, or child called you, and you did not immediately know who was calling? It is all about familiarity.
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.
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. Lately I have been leaning towards Bill Low's (of Audioquest) concept of "damage control":
Audio components don't do things right. They only do things wrong. Designing good components means "causing less harm". So the best components is "no" component, and not hype about "fixing damages" caused elsewhere.
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.
Is that Ella's voice in 1952 singing into an RCA ribbon mic or Ella in 1964 using a Neumann condenser? Is that the sound of Carnegie Hall from the the first level under the balcony or from the second mezzanine? Are all the seats filled? Is it winter or summer? All of these scenarios will sound different when recorded. If you tune you system/room so sharply that only one situation sounds like Ella or Carnegie, then you have strayed and lost your way.
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 ?
Charles1dad, While our ears are the final arbiter of what we determine to be good sound, they are arbitrary, inconsistent and fickle, not only to others, but even to themsleves. While specs have yet to be able to reliably ensure good sound, they are quite capable of determining what is not good sound. 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.
When I was a child, I liked to mix butter and syrup until it became an indistinguishable mess. I called it "butter syrup". (I was a very clever child) I think I'll title this conglomeration of post's, "An exercise in Subobjective observation".
How can one "accurately" measure music. How long is a song? How much does it weigh? How much does Zimbabwe? can New York stay "new" forever? These are similar questions that have never been answered.
Learsfool, Well said indeed, my only point with the accuracy via measurements position is that over reliance on measurements rather than one`s ears is folly. Measurements certainly have a contribution, but pale in comparision to what one can hear(the obvious end result). There are no measurements I`m aware of that when met will reliably ensure good sound. At this point in time our ears are superior to a lab or test bench.
Charles1dad, it's not just that he has nice equipment, but his room is carefully arranged not to significantly color the speaker output. He even has measurements to back that up. A very high quality studio monitor in a well designed/setup room will give you an relatively accurate sound. And by accurate I simple mean reasonably low distortion, a smooth wide range frequency response curve, wide range dynamics and low resonances. It's a relative description, not an absolute term. Systems that meet these goals tend to be accurate to their source material (to the extent that that even can be judged). I would suspect that your system qualifies as accurate too.
Frogman- VERY WELL stated! Not long ago, I purchased a firearm that was touted as being, "accurate" to within one Minute of Angle, at 500 yards. Tuning the ammo(hand-loading higher ballistic coefficient bullets/very precise powder measurements/precise cartridge length/primer choice/etc), floating the barrel, and feeding one round into the chamber, rather than five into the magazine at a time, resulted in consistant, "accuracy" within 1/4 Minute of Angle, at the same range. I'm not one to tell someone else how to enjoy their firearms, cars or audio gear, but will squeeze every ounce of performance out of whatever I own, through research, experimentation(modding/tweaking) and dedication. Music(it's creation and recreation in the home) has been a major passion of mine for over five decades. I refuse to personally accept the mediocrity for which the masses settle, but- who am I to tell them what level of, "accuracy"(faithfulness to the source) is acceptable in their listening environment? BTW: To apply the, "standard" of live music, to one's listening, one MUST be familiar with the same. MULTITUDES are NOT. Enjoy your music!
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.
"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.
Frogman, you have once again contributed a fantastic post. 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 really don't give a hoot how accurately a system measures if it doesn't make Ella's voice or Marylin Horne's voice or Perlman's violin or Marsalis' trumpet or my horn sound as accurate as possible (not to mention the sound of Carnegie Hall or the Met or the Musikverein or wherever).
"Does accuracy matter?" Of course it does! "Does accuracy (in audio equipment) exist?" Of course not! Jax2's objections aside, I agree with Mrtennis that accuracy means perfection. What this hobby is about is the reproduction of musical performances. "Reproduction" clearly suggests an attempt to recreate something resembling, as much as possible, the original. An accurate reproduction would be a perfect reproduction. Unfortunately, truly accurate audio reproduction does not, nor ever will, exist.
But that does not mean that to strive for accuracy in one's music REPRODUCTION system is not important; it is most important. Clearly, everyone is free to tune a system any way they want, and to enjoy their music with any flavoring that they wish. But I find that notion (as well as a few others expressed so far) to be a little bizarre. It is bizarre to me that some would advocate ignoring the musicians' original intent. To ignore the production team's original intent is bad enough, but the musicians' ?!?! The reason why it is vital that the musicians' intent be preserved as much as possible (accuracy) is quite simple: while the manipulation of the musicians' intent may yield pleasant sounds to some ears, the end result will never be as musically meaningful as when that intent is preserved. That is the nature of music, and music making. It is artistic expression by a human being; manipulate it, and it is no longer that musician's expression. I pondered why this is not obvious to some, and I think I may have found the answer in a curious comment by Jax2:
***The enjoyment of music an subjective art form***
Huh? I thought that it was the music making that was the art form; not the enjoyment of it. It is often pointed out that how music should sound is subjective, and that we will never know how the original performance sounded, and how a particular recording space sounded, and blah, blah, blah. I say that is nonsense, and a cop-out. 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 know, I know, live pop/rock concerts often sound like shit. But if the thrill of the sound of an uncompressed drum set is not enough to make someone "put up" with the other problems, then you really have no choice but to seek out better sounding venues to experience, and really familiarize yourself with sound that can truly be used as a reference. Only then can we claim to understand the notion of accuracy. It takes deep familiarization with that sound to understand it. It has to go way beyond issues of a little brightness here, or a little bass bloat there. But it can be done, and the rewards are many. True accuracy does not exist, but some components do a heck of better job of getting closer to that ideal than others. The less garbage that a component adds to the electronic "soup" that is a music playback system, the closer to accurate that it is. Sure, we may not like how some recordings sound as a result, but the truly great ones will never sound as great as they can on a system that does not strive for accuracy. It is the accuracy of the musicians' intent captured in those recordings that makes them great. So it follows that the closer a system gets to accuracy, the better it will reveal the recording's greatness.
2nd request, would someone from the"accuracy" camp kindly give us an example of a suitably accurate component or system that satifies their requirements?
"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:)
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Accuracy is about facts, liking what you hear is about opinions.
The problems with the 8-track, Crown, Bose example I cited earlier isn't that I like it better, but that I say it is better and without a standard of accuracy you couldn't argue that my statement was false.
Another problem I have with the radical subjectivist, if it feels good - it is good school of audio is that it denies individual achievement. As with any task some people are better than others at putting together audio systems. It's probably a bell shaped curved with a small percentage of people who truly excel at the task. But if all that matters is how good you feel, then in effect you're denying the bell shape and cramming everyone into a homogeneous blob. Without some standard of accuracy high end audio could not exist. At one point the hobby was actually call high fidelity, as in fidelity to a sound source. Have we really completely lost our way?
In the best case, The gear is only going to accurately capture what is on the final recording, whether it actually conveys an accurate rendition of what the artists sounded like before all of the wobbles is an entirely different story.
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.
Of course accuracy exists and it is somewhat important. Without a standard of accuracy we would have subjective chaos. Without a standard of accuracy someone could assert that their 8-track, Crown amp and Bose 901s (Series IV) sounded better and was more pleasurable than anything they heard a the last CES and the statement would be unassailable.
At a practical gauging an individual component's accuracy is relatively difficult, but doing the same for a system/room is much easier. 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? If it sounds substantially the same, then your system/room is fairly accurate, at least to your ears.
Additionally, if accuracy wasn't at least somewhat important, then why have high costs, high end systems? 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?
"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.
I want the instruments to sound the way I think they're supposed to sound, e.g., strings, woodwinds, brass, keyboards, percussion, vocals, etc. This meets my definition of accuracy.
"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. The precision of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results. Although the two words can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.
A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment contains a systematic error, then increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.
A measurement system is called valid if it is both accurate and precise. Related terms are bias (non-random or directed effects caused by a factor or factors unrelated by the independent variable) and error (random variability), respectively."
Accuracy cannot be seperated from precision, which is why I mentioned it in my first post. In any case, I would suggest that most of us start out in this hobby trying to reduce systematic errors in an effort to make our audio systems more "valid" starting from the electrical and material sources and ending at our ears. As I have become more experienced and traveled down some blind alleys in what might be considered a pure pursuit of better specifications, and therefore "accuracy", I began to realize there is more to it. Specifications are still important, but not the only thing or the holy grail. I now find myself basing decisions on listening to gear and reading more reviews by people whose taste I generally agree with, and reading less about and into techincal specifications and measures.
The first post and several subsequent have alluded to the fact that at best we can try to faithfully reproduce, at our ear, the sound intended by the original production team, regardless of whether this is actually an "accurate" reproduction of the original performance and recording space. Given that, our systems may reliably reproduce a very detailed version of this original recording that lacks some in presence, or a version rich in the original tone and timbre that may lack some speed and attack. Both of these may be equally "accurate" or "inaccurate" versions of the original, but may appeal to different people who prize those particular attributes in their listening experience.
While it is certainly not a guarantee, I generally feel you are more likely to find all of these desirable listening elements coexisting together (limited of course by what is present in the original recording) along with better measured specificiations in more expensive gear. At the more modest levels (where I tend to shop), how it sounds at home in my listening room is of more value to me than printed specifications that may speak to some greater measure of "accuracy". I do know what I like when I hear it, but it turns out I do not know it very precisely.
Who cares about accuracy if it sounds good? On the other hand , if it is too much off it won't sound good to those who can hear. And it is not only about equipment, it is also about the instruments. I heard some that sounded very colored and distorted, much worse than my modest system. I also heard Paco de Lucia play and his guitar sounded incredible, unamplified without microphones in a really big concert hall. The room too can be totally "inaccurate".
I have to admit that my question 'Does Accuracy Exist?' was indeed somewhat rhetorical. The moment that electronics and (esp) transducers enter the chain, then accuracy must be a casualty. As some have pointed out the word should have absolute status: if not perfectly accurate, then inaccuracy is the result.
I suppose the question is partly linguistic - I don't like the language to be manhandled; but also partly an acknowledgment that a Perfect System can only ever exist for one person. I find this to be fascinating. So much disagreement in our wonderful pastime is actually without any meaning.
I'll continue to read and enjoy the comments about and reviews of more and more 'accurate' equipment till I expire - after all, we really are only debating the precise number of Angels dancing on the head of a pin. No one is disputing their existence!
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.
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.
"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?
Charles1dad, I'm not sure why you would think that some sets of deviations from neutral would be judged differently than others. Though, I might understand those that feel, that all other things equal, and please pardon the cliche'; "sins of omission are less offensive than sins of commision.". I would argue that accuracy would more likely produce natural and realistic.
At last, someone has introduced some objective measurements. Although many audiophiles are unaware of the significance of these measurements, they matter "subjectively" as well as "objectively".
My question is always accurate to what The live sound in the studio The playback in the control room The master mixdown The sound in the mastering room The sound is different in each of the above examples so no one knows exactly what the recording should sound like. Forget accuracy and put together a system you enjoy listening to
What measurements are you aware of that provide indisputable standards for accuracy?
Frequency Response Harmonic Distortion Signal/Noise Waterfall Plot Group Delay Phase Impulse Response On and Off Axis Frequency Response Jitter Tests Intermodulation Distortion Cross-talk Thermal Compression input impedance/output impedance
...just to name a few objective qualities. No piece of gear is indisputably accurate (perfect) according to these criteria but some gear is simply so much better than others.
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.
Unsound, No one here is disregarding accuracy, but merely pointing out the obvious truth that no standard has been(can be?) establish. People often site warm/musical,rich etc. as looking thru "rose colored lens" while ignoring the other spectrum of coloration/aberation i.e. thin,lean,bleached,flat,whitish etc. As if these somehow represent accuracy, no way jose. For me ,the quest has been toward what sounds natural and realistic(personal preferences no question).
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
