Just wonder how many of us , upon sitting down to listen to "The most accurate speaker in the world " (if such a thing were to exist), backed up with all kinds of scientific measurements, would exclaim "Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I cant listen another second to this!!!" Art is involved here folks, not just audio science. What I value (your values are as valid as mine or anyone's) is a speaker and system that will make me want to listen to my LP's and CD's and enjoy it. Accuracy? Maybe somewhat important, but the sine qua non of the listening experience? Not in my household. In truth there is beauty? Perhaps, but its not the only way to hear beauty.
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........
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........
124 responses Add your response
Yes, and accuracy is the degree to which truth is realized. To the artist in the live venue, or the studio, being recorded, truth is fleeting and undefined. Plus, none of us will ever experience that nor where the artist stood or sat and heard the performance from that perspective, so truth of performance is and has always been unreachable. And no two performances are ever alike. We can never create the time and space of the event, these distortions will always exist. The only accuracy that can be conveyed is the emotive response that the music provides (or doesn't). That is the element of truth we should seek when discussing accuracy. |
I am very late to the party, so at the risk of being irrelevant, I will add some thoughts to what has already been said. Beginning with the OP, the discussions on this thread have included the following questions
1. Does accuracy exist? 2. Is accuracy important? 3. What IS accuracy? RE: (1) Does accuracy exist? This is an objective question. It is a matter of fact. Accuracy either exists or it does not. There is a right answer. RE: (2) Is accuracy important? This is a subjective question. It is a matter of preference. Accuracy is important to some and not to others, but there is no right answer. RE: (3) What IS accuracy? This both and objective and a subjective question, as I will try to show Asking the question What is accuracy? could mean 3a. What is the CONCEPT of accuracy? 3b. What is the CHARACTERISTIC that the concept of accuracy represents? RE: (3a) What is the CONCEPT of accuracy? This is both an objective and a subjective question. It is objective because there are FACTS about how people think about accuracy. But the concept of 'accuracy' differs from person to person. Hence, asking the question, "What is the concept of 'accuracy'?" results in answers that are largely subjective. RE: (3b) What is the CHARACTERISTIC that the concept of accuracy represents? This too is both an objective and a subjective question. It is objective because, for at least some concepts of accuracy, there is a REAL THING in the world that the concept represents. It is subjective because, again, people have different concepts of accuracy, concepts that refer to different THINGS, or in some cases, to nothing at all. Whether or not accuracy exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. But there are, of course, different opinions about whether it exists. That may strike you as a contradiction, but it is not. Santa Claus either exists or he does not. If you talk to a group of 8 year olds, there will be varying opinions about whether Santa exists, but it has no impact whatsoever on Santas existence/non-existence. When audiophiles debate the existence of accuracy, our opinions have no more impact on its existence than the opinions of 8 years olds have on Santas existence. Having said all that, I do have an opinion about whether accuracy exists, and my opinion is that is does. That leads to two more questions: 4. What is the evidence for the existence of accuracy? 5. If accuracy exists, what is it? Answering either of these questions entails answering the other, so I will answer them together in the following statements, some of which are facts, some opinions. First the facts Every component in a playback system introduces distortion, noise, or loss to the signal. There are a variety of measurements, familiar to all audiophiles, that quantify distortion, noise, and loss, including: frequency response, impulse response, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, S/N, crosstalk, jitter and so on. Now the opinions The kinds of measurements mentioned above provide conclusive evidence for the existence of inaccuracy. And collectively, the characteristics those measurements quantify CONSTITUTE inaccuracy. The existence of inaccuracy entails the existence of accuracy, understood as the degree of absence of inaccuracy. Q.E.D. That is my answer to questions (4) and (5) above. None of it is particularly original and much of it has been said before, but it bears repeating. Several posters have tried to cast doubt on the existence of accuracy on the grounds that there is no absolute standard for judging accuracy. They are quite right that there is no absolute standard for judging accuracy, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether accuracy exists. There is no absolute standard for ANY TRUTH WHATSOEVER, including scientific truths. ALL knowledge is provisional, fallible, and revisable. The absence of absolute standards for judging accuracy does not warrant skepticism about the existence of accuracy. Nor does it warrant skepticism about the possibility of judging accuracy, since there are a number of non-absolute standards for judging accuracy, many of which have been mentioned on this thread. Those non-absolute standards provide knowledge of a components accuracy, even if that knowledge is provisional, fallible, and revisable. Acknowledging the absence of absolute standards for knowledge means we must give up the idea of CERTAINTY. It does NOT mean we must give up the idea of TRUTH. None of this suggests an answer to the question, Is accuracy important? Again, that is a subjective question. There is no right or wrong answer. My personal answer is Yes, accuracy is important, but ONLY UP TO A POINT. Accuracy is one consideration among many. Highly inaccurate systems, IMO, typically make for a frustrating listening experience. But systems that prioritize accuracy above all else typically make for a dull listening experience. Hence accuracy should be balanced with other considerations. Much more to say about that topic, but I have to pause to take a breath. Bryon |
hi Byroncunningham: since components are inaccurate , a stereo system is inaccurate. knowledge is analytic a priori. it exists in the realm of mathematics and logic, where it is absolute. for example, given axioms, postulates, and other "rules" base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. knowledge is not fallible or reversible in math or logic. in the empirical world, induction rules and there is no knowledge. knowledge cannot result from sense perception. without proof there is no knowledge. without truth, there is no knowledge. |
12-25-11: Mrtennis Hi MrT. Ive seen you make similar statements several times on various threads, and Ive never taken the time to carefully respond to them. Nor have I seen anyone else carefully respond to them. So I will do that now. I gather from your comments that you believe that all knowledge is 1. tautological 2. a priori 3. analytic 4. conceptual 5. certain which is identical with saying that all knowledge is 1. true in virtue of its logical form 2. justified independent of experience 3. true in virtue of the meanings of its terms 4. independent of sense experience 5. justified beyond any doubt and hence you believe that there is no such thing as 1. empirical knowledge 2. a posteriori knowledge 3. synthetic knowledge 4. perceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge 5. unproven knowledge and hence you believe that there is no knowledge to be found in 1. science 2. human experience 3. statements other than definitions 4. perception or practiced skill 5. any human endeavor other than logic and mathematics I have to say that this is the most narrow use of the term knowledge I have encountered in my entire life, and that is saying something, given the fact that I spent 9 years studying, writing, teaching, and publishing philosophy, which entailed a lengthy exposure to theories of epistemology, both historical and contemporary. You are entitled to use the term knowledge any way you like. But you should be aware that no one, and I mean NO ONE, will understand what you mean by that term, if you limit your use to such a parsimonious and idiosyncratic definition. You would literally have to be transported to the 17th century and happen upon Rene Descartes to make yourself understood. And this is to say nothing of the fact that such radical skepticism about the scope of human knowledge is based on a profoundly impoverished view of both philosophy and the natural sciences. bc |
Bryon, IMO both of your posts are characteristically outstanding, and I am in complete agreement with both of them. Mr. T, you are equating knowledge with absolute certainty. There is very little that is absolutely certain in this world, not even the characteristics of the isosceles triangle you mentioned. Consider the implications of Relativity Theory with respect to the lengths of its sides ("objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer," quoting from the reference). To be reliable, meaning to have a high DEGREE of reliability, knowledge requires a high DEGREE of certainty, not absolute certainty. That can be, and very commonly is, established by empirical means. The contention that "knowledge is analytic a priori" is simply wrong. Regards, -- Al |
hi byron and almarg: to effectively discuss epistemological matters would require a face to face encounter, which is infeasible. byron is correct, i am a radical skeptic, as i do not accept knowledge that is derived from the senses, as it is based upon induction. my final statement regarding the subject of accuracy is that no stereo system can be accurate. that should end the discussion. if i am wrong regardingn knowledge, a mathematical or logical proof would be helpful. |
if i am wrong regarding knowledge, a mathematical or logical proof would be helpful. Here is my understanding of this conversation... _____________________________________________ "The only knowledge is knowledge based on logic or mathematics." "What about knowledge in physics? In chemistry? In biology? In geology? In engineering? In medicine? In astronomy? In architecture? In history? In music? Isn't that also knowledge?" "No." "Why not?" "Because it cannot be derived from logic or mathematics." _______________________________________________ That sounds like something out of Lewis Carroll. It is both circular reasoning and willfully dogmatic. that should end the discussion. It does. |
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. |
12-26-11: Learsfool Of course I know you are joking, Learsfool, but this is actually an interesting question, and it leads to a number of observations that are relevant to the current disagreement. I think the answer is Yes, someone can be un-willfully dogmatic, if their dogmatism isnt intentional or deliberate. Here is Oxfords definition dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Willful dogmatism, in the sense I intend it, is deliberately obstructionist. But in my experience, not all dogmatism is like that. Some dogmatism is born of simple ignorance, some is born of a questionable education, and some is born of a closed mind. I mention all this because I think its relevant to a significant number of posts on Agon, in which ideas are presented as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Some of those folks seem to be deliberate obstructionists - in other words, willfully dogmatic. Others seem to be uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed. The definition of dogmatism above seems to perfectly describe MrTs posts in this thread, which regularly occur on other threads. But I honestly dont know the source of MrTs dogmatism. I accused him of being deliberately obstructionist, but maybe Im being uncharitable. Maybe MrT is uninformed, misinformed, or anti-informed. Regardless of the source of dogmatism, it is probably the single most common obstacle to constructive conversation both on Audiogon and in the real world. MrTs dogmatism about what counts as knowledge is particularly unfortunate, because I happen to have a long standing interest in the subjects MrT frequently alludes to. Under different conversational conditions, I would be delighted to talk about theories of epistemology, Humes problem of induction, Verificationism, the Logical Positivists attempt to derive knowledge from sensory experience, the differences between knowledge of logic/mathematics and empirical knowledge characteristic of science. MrT is quite right in his belief that those issues are ALL relevant to issues that audiophiles care about. Just under the surface of many audiophile disagreements are important questions about sensory experience, concepts, theories, and knowledge. I think audiophiles would be surprised to learn how much their questions and debates mirror those of philosophers and scientists over the last four hundred years. There is an enormous wealth of dare I say KNOWLEDGE about these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, none of that can be fruitfully discussed under conversational conditions created by dogmatism. It is a bane to audiophiles and to anyone else interested in the exploration of ideas. Bryon |
No, and no. What is "accuracy?" And to what? Accepting that accuracy is a deliriously liberating thing to an audiophile. Just go for the coloration that you like and be done with it. One of my "reference systems" is the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Another is any of the amazing misic rooms we have in Chicago. So accuracy and fidelity to thise soundsbis impossible. So now what? The sound you like. And be happy. |
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. |
Bryon, there is another possibility - that Mrtennis is merely yanking our chain for fun/humor. Another question for you - is my copy of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy that my uncle gave me years ago and that I have yet to read going to cover such things you mentioned as "theories of epistemology, Humes problem of induction, Verificationism, the Logical Positivists attempt to derive knowledge from sensory experience, the differences between knowledge of logic/mathematics and empirical knowledge characteristic of science?" I plan on reading this book fairly soon, as my intro to philosophy. |
12-27-11: Mrtennis My suggestion that you are dogmatic isnt based on the fact that you have opinions not shared by others. Its based on the fact that you present those opinions as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others (Oxford dictionary), which captures my intent using the word dogmatic. Here are some phrases that typically accompany the comments of someone who is NOT dogmatic I believe IMO IME As I see it My view is I respectfully disagree I have read a large number of your posts here on Agon, and I can say with confidence that there is a conspicuous shortage of these kinds of phrases in your comments. Instead, you routinely present your ideas as undeniably true, without consideration of THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS. It is as though you were correcting someone about a universally acknowledged fact, rather than contributing to a discussion on topics where opinions vary and facts are often difficult to determine. IMO, the failure to acknowledge that the conflicting views of others may nevertheless contain some validity is a characteristic element of dogmatism. Another characteristic element of dogmatism, IMO, is the unwillingness to change your mind when presented with evidence that contradicts your own point of view. After reading a large number of your posts over the last two years, I can honestly say that I cannot recall a single case of you changing your mind, even when presented evidence from people who are highly informed. You may consider that a sign that your views are faultless, but I consider it sign of dogmatism. Having an opinion that is iconoclastic, to use your word, has nothing to do with my perception of dogmatism. It is the unwillingness to acknowledge the possible validity of contrary opinions and the resistance to changing your mind when presented with evidence that creates the perception of dogmatism. I am married to a clinical psychologist. She is an expert at identifying seemingly trivial behavior that is emblematic of larger personality characteristics. Having lived with her for years, I've learned something about that kind of interpretation. I mention this for the following reason... You almost always call me by the incorrect name, even though I sign off nearly every post with my name. This has happened already three times on this thread, and it's happened on a number of other threads over the last two years. Admittedly, my name has an unusual spelling, and the mistake of calling me 'Byron' rather than 'Bryon' happens all the time because of it. What is different in this case is that you and I have participated in many of the same discussions on A'gon for more than two years, and we have addressed each other on more than a few occasions, and still you have not learned my name. You may find that trivial, but to me it is emblematic of a tendency to not acknowledge others, which is the essence of dogmatism. Bryon |
Learsfool - I've read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and it's a pretty good book. But, IMO, it is a little too dry and excessively detailed to be a good introduction to philosophy. Two books I can recommend are Simon Blackburn's Think and Thomas Nagel's What Does it all Mean?. Either of those will give you an idea of the broad landscape of philosophy, and then you can follow up with a more in-depth book on whatever specific topic interests you. Bryon |
