70.66.85.183
In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by caspian@peak.org on October 18, 2009 at 13:31:25
What the problem is that Accuracy is either "accurate" or it is not accurate. 2+2=4 and 4 is the ONLY correct answer. It is either 4 or it is an innacurate answer.
Using the notion that if something has flat response it is more accurate doesn't mean much if it doesn't SOUND or is not PERCEIVED as being more accurate. No matter what an engineer tells you it is completely irrelevant is the perceived response is that it sounds "unlike" the real thing.
And now you have a serious problem because without an Accurate baseline where every engineer and perfect pitch listener agrees that stereo system A is perfectly accurate and so now you can compare system B and C to A then all you're doing is relying in a highly incomplete set of measurements and looking for broad correlations.
And then you're left with perception and subjective opinions on what is "closer" to the real thing. Ask engineers what is more accurate and you get everything from horn speakers to panels to line arrays to single drivers. Engineers with degrees in the field can;t even agree on a speaker design that is "accurate" or "closer to the ideal". People bicker about tubes and SS but speakers make the bigger difference and on one is even remotely close on agreeing about them let alone the smaller differences of Tubes and SS or vinyl and CD.
And if we learn to accept the fact that nothing is perfectly accurate then why not look at what is subjectively enjoyable and reminds the listener that this "seems" to be the "real thing." For instance by far the most realistic sound to my ear when it comes to transient attack of instruments and decay (body) of acoustic instruments of piano comes from SET amplifier than something like a Bryston. Yet every scientific aspect and measured response that I've seen makes that a curious proposition that is highly frustrating for me.
I want to trust the measurements and the specs but I can't listen to the two and walk away from it saying the Bryston sounds more like the real thing - it may in fact be more "accurate" but it sure as hell doesn't sound more accurate. So what is the consumer to do - buy what it is "said" to be "accurate" because that is the goal or buy what makes a piano sound like a piano despite the second harmonic distortion goofball impedance problems and high THD. The fact is the brain ear interface is what provides us with the notion of "accuracy" and this is not a perfectly accurate interface.
And over the years of endless arguments why can't both coexist? It's like the vinyl CD debate - to me it's irrelavent - if this is about music there is SOOOO much music on vinyl not on CD that you should have a turntable. Conversely there is SOOOO much music on CD not on vinyl that vinyl philes should buy a CD player. If someone likes one over the other - so what? Why does everyone get upset?
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]