Does 'Accuracy' Matter or exist ?

Bryon, I can only imagine her analysis of the CES attendees.....!

Thanks, Bryon! If I do find the Russell too dry, I will try one of these others, but since I already have a copy of the Russell, I'll try it first.

Apologies to everyone else on this thread for "hijacking."

Iso - Actually, my wife has a private practice, so she spends her whole day interpreting people. When she gets home, she's sick of it. So I get a pass! :-)

She also happens to be tolerant of my audiophilia. She even attended CES with me (twice, in fact). So she's a keeper.

bc

for the record, any statements i have made regarding audio matters are opinions. i do not claim to have any knowledge in areas where knowledge is obtained via sense perception.

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

Bryon, Marrying a Clinical Psychologist would seemingly take guts and nerves of steel.
You obviously past that test, and nice posting!

12-27-11: Mrtennis
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.

My suggestion that you are dogmatic isn’t based on the fact that you have opinions “not shared by others.” It’s 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 A’gon, 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

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, Hume’s 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.

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.

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.

12-26-11: Learsfool
Bryon, your last post brings up a question for me - can one be UNwillfully dogmatic?

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 isn’t intentional or deliberate. Here is Oxford’s 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 it’s relevant to a significant number of posts on A’gon, 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 MrT’s posts in this thread, which regularly occur on other threads. But I honestly don’t know the source of MrT’s dogmatism. I accused him of being deliberately obstructionist, but maybe I’m 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.

MrT’s 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, Hume’s 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

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.

can knowledge come from sense perception ??

Among thousands of other examples that could be cited, my senses have given me the knowledge that fire is hot and ice is cold. I consider that knowledge to be both reliable and useful.

Regards,
-- Al

the issue is:

can knowledge come from sense perception ??

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

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

as i said it is fruitless to argue without speaking directly.

Bryon, your last post brings up a question for me - can one be UNwillfully dogmatic? :) Seriously, very nice posts.

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 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.

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

12-25-11: Mrtennis
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.

Hi MrT. I’ve seen you make similar statements several times on various threads, and I’ve 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

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.

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 Santa’s 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 Santa’s 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 component’s 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

Simple your system should be built on a sound that you enjoy coming home to and listening. When you reach the goal you should sit back and enjoy!

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.

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.

A little off topic but anyone care to guess what Celestial Sunrise goes for? This is not even an original but the black and white is printed on paper and Peter colors in the rest with colored pencils

All this talk about venue has me thinking about some recent concerts/live events I have attended recently. At the symphony mid-way back on the floor I found myself saying "huh, this sounds ok but I had trouble relating the instruments notes with their spatial arrangement on the stage. At a bar with a small acoustic group playing and singing through a PA system I thought "the music is great but the sound quality is just so, so". Listening at home to an LP I bought from the artists through my decidedly modest system I thought "wow, this is really 'musical,". At a performance artist presentation with a live string quartet plus an electric bass playing off to the right of the stage in an abandoned grocery store, the sound and the music accompanying the dance was "transformational" in composition, performance and sound quality.

Symphony Hall - OK, abandoned grocery store - fantastic? What is going on here? What role does "accuracy" play in this overall evaluation of live versus recorded listening experiences? Was I experiencing the original intent of the acoustic artist in the hotel bar or on her carefully self produced album in my living room?

I have to take away from this discussion and my personal experience that "accuracy" in music performance and reproduction is something to pursue, but dependent in practice on a lot of things that end up being circumstantial, and that it is still more important to know what you like to hear all along the chain from composition to your ear. In that context "accuracy" as a relevant concept in audio is at best a guide, and at worst a fools errand that can lead to faithful reproduction of crap, and who has time or extra aural nerves for that?

Frogman, I couldn't agree more. One of my favorite Mahler quotes, too!

Onhwy61, you cracked me up, that was really, really good. Nothing like some good natured discussion and banter in my book. I suspect that when all is said and done, there is actually less disagreement than comes across in these posts. Disagreement there will be; obviously. But the sticking point for me continues to be that I consider my posturing to be positive and forward-looking. IOW, I think that the advocacy of using the live music standard is a way of deepening the appreciation and enjoyment of music. I have been tooting that horn (pun intended) on this forum for a long time. I have taken a lot of heat, and gotten a lot of rolled eyeballs for it. But the bottom line for me is that I really don't think a lot of audiophiles really know what musical instruments REALLY sound like. Does it matter? How can it NOT matter? The other posture says that focusing on those minutiae will detract from the enjoyment of the music. Sure it can. Only if you let it, and lose sight of the heart in the music.

If the gear let's me hear what it is that makes Carnegie sound like Carnegie, then it will probably do a better job of letting me hear the even more subtle phrasing, and tonal color changes that a great artist uses to convey the music's message. How can that be a bad thing? Problem is that so muuch of the beautiful, subtle information gets wiped out by the recording process. Many don't realize just how much there was to begin with.

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words, he would not bother trying to say it in music" -Gustav Mahler

"I personally think that too many audiophiles blame the equipment when in fact they are listening to a bad recording job."

I actually think this is precisely on-topic; a point well made!

My original question revolved around the inability to judge equipment effectively when so much of the recording process is an unknown.
Many listening sessions, using the largest selection of recordings, might well begin to clarify the problem of judging for 'accuracy', but the unknowns still prevail.

The ref has stopped the fight, the Hwyman is barely on his feet clinging to the ropes and clearly can no longer defend himself. The Amphibianman's team has run into the ring and hoisted him upon their shoulders in a victory stance. #61 is being helped out of the ring his face a bloody pulp and his legs wobbly, but it appears he's trying to shout something at the winner. "You never knocked me down, Frog. Never knocked me down!"

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

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

_______________

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

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

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

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

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

now I am reminded
what music is

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

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

Ohnwy61, please read my comment again: ***The easily identified, inherent, signature sound of Carnegie Hall (or any other hall) swamps any deviation caused by humidity, number of attendees, etc.***

I know how much some dislike the idea of absolutes, but this is an absolute fact. I never said that the sound is not changed by wether the hall is full or not; of course it does. What I am saying is that the change does not in any way cause the listener to not be able to identify the hall as being Carnegie; and easily. The hall's inherent sound is much more powerful than any change caused by the number of people in the the seats. From that standpoint, yes it's subtle. I have performed on that stage upwards of one hundred times in all my years as a musician. Almost everyone of those occasions involved a dress rehearsal or soundcheck prior to the performance, so I was able to hear the hall empty, and then full, during the span of a few hours at most. I can say unequivocally that not once have I felt that the difference in sound was anywhere near the difference in sound between two different halls. Moreover, if one could quantify this sort of thing, I assure you that the differences we are talking about are less than the differences we, as audiophiles, agonize over when choosing interconnects; in which case we could be talking about significant changes in tonal balance, and amount of detail heard. The difference is there to be sure, and important, but not to the point that the Carnegie sound could not be used as a reference. That was my point. Think of it this way: If your spouse has a slight cold, and she leaves you a message on your voice mail, are you all of sudden unable to tell it was he/she calling? You are intimately familiar with the sound of her voice; it remains a valid reference.

Hi Onwhy61 - thanks for explaining! While the variables you speak of are not insignificant, I must agree with Frogman - all halls have an "easily identified, inherent, signature sound" which will still be there despite these variables - and the same goes for the specific timbral qualities of every human voice and every acoustic instrument. Far too many recording engineers do not make recordings that are very accurate in Frogman's sense nowadays, and this is to me and most of my fellow musicians a much bigger issue than whether or not the playback equipment can then pass that info on. It certainly can't if it isn't there on the recording in the first place. I personally think that too many audiophiles blame the equipment when in fact they are listening to a bad recording job. But that's getting off topic.

This is very interesting; is the ideal of 'accuracy' at one and the same time quite attainable, but actually impossible (to all intents) to verify?
If so, we are left in a position of 'having the faith'.

Absolute proof of accuracy seems dependent on a multitude of variables (too many to consider simultaneously), even, as Onhwy61 points out, the number of seats filled in the venue. The case seems made.

I for one find this to be perfectly acceptable: to not have faith in what we hear would seem to be no more nor less than destructive: if the choice is to fret or not, I for one will choose not.
On the other hand I am exceedingly grateful to those who do......

The main hall at Carnegie seats 2,800 people. Am I to believe that you think whether the hall is empty or full of concert goers has only a subtle impact on the sound within the hall? If you do believe such, then I respectfully disagree. The presence of concert-goers will effect hall volume levels and the tonality of reflected sound. It's not a subtle effect.

I am not dismissing the relevance of a standard, instead I'm pointing out a severe limitation of that standard as commonly used.

I keep thinking that some of you guys keep missing the point; with all due respect.

The easily identified, inherent, signature sound of Carnegie Hall (or any other hall) swamps any deviation caused by humidity, number of attendees, etc. It really is not important to focus on those as relates to accuracy in a recording; although even those minor can, in fact, be heard on good recordings. The bigger, and important question should be: is the recording faithfull to that inherent quality constant? Is the equipment able to pass that information on (accuracy; or some part thereof)? To dismiss the relevance of a standard on the basis of inevitable subtle variability is silly.

Tubegroover, been there; great story! Thanks for sharing.

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

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

Jax2, that Richard Estes and Cornell stuff is realy thought provoking! Do you have any other favorites? Anyone else that can compare to Evind Earl? Just like getting into audio, I thought art was okay until I saw Evind Earl. That was something that has put it in a whole new perspective.

My point is that there is no single Carnegie Hall or Ella Fitzgerald sound. Depending on how and the conditions of the recording sessions any number of Carnegie Halls could result. When you play a recording made there, how do you know which version of Carnegie is on the recording? I don't think you can say. That was my earlier point about having to be at the mastering session to be able to gauge what a recording is supposed to sound like.

I find the standard of live music as a reference to be useful, but as commonly applied by audiophiles it virtually ignores the recording process which is at least as important as anything on the reproduction side.

***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.

Onhwy61 wrote: "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 assume that this was in response to my earlier post, and I have the impression that you are posting this as some sort of rebuttal? I mean no offense, but I sincerely fail to understand the point of this post - of course all of these scenarios will sound different when recorded, this goes without saying to a professional musician. I will also add that 10 different engineers will record those scenarios in 10 different ways, resulting in 10 different sounding recordings. And I said nothing about tuning rooms or systems sharply. Not sure what you are in disagreement with here, but Frogman's first post of 5-16 again (with its example of Carnegie Hall as a reference) addresses the point I was making very well, if that helps to clarify what I was saying - it seems to be something about that that you are disagreeing with?

***I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up something else*** -Lily Tomlin

***Where's the psychiatrist when you need one?*** -Bifwynne

***Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B minor Mass?*** -Michael Torke

Jax2- My Apologies. You are correct, in that I did skip the majority of the posts in this thread. Too busy with my music, to do so much reading. Too be sure; if we all had the same tastes(regardless of the subject matter); what a boring World this would be! Happy listening.

To Bifwynne,

I'm on the floor laughing at your post!
I should have thought thrice before penning so glibly...

A shrink? Can't afford one - but I thank The Great Cat in the Sky (Stephen, are you reading this?) for alcohol!

Nick

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

Jax2- If what you have asserted were true, about those that are committed to a standard of accuracy or perfection, we that create and/or record music, could not enjoy what we do. Had you any experience, in the music biz, in any capacity; you would understand. Personally, I enjoy music most when functioning as a Sound Tech(as opposed to playing guitar or recording). Setting up a venue for the best possible sound, then listening into the mix and being certain every voice(instrumental or vocal) is being heard, as naturally and proportionately as possible(given the venue's acoustic, available equipment, etc), is both challenging and rewarding. I can't even conceive of a listener in the audience, that enjoys or gets into the music more than I. If those of us, that truly care about the sound of music, gave up(what you consider) our, "trivial pursuits"; the quality of whatever you use as source material, would certainly be down the crapper. I NEVER presume to tell another HOW to enjoy what they enjoy, but do find myself often helping others enjoy their pursuits more fully(also very gratifying). Often they are not aware of ALL that they are missing. It's usually right under their nose, and if it were only open to smelling it....

Hey 57s4me: I was just about to make a comment about Angels on Pinheads. But then I caught your post from Friday: "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!"

Well, as regards anyone disputing the existence of angels, I just caught a Yahoo News article today which reported that Steven Hawkings doesn't believe in the existence of a Diety -- just the laws of science, that's his G-d. Therefore, I can only assume he doesn't believe in angels either, least of all how many can fit on a pinhead, or anyone's head for that matter.

My goodness, if we can't agree on the existence of a Diety, angels, or even angels on pinheads, how can we possibly expect to agree on a definition of what constitutes an accurate stereo system??? Where's the psychiatrist when you need one?