George M. Middius wrote:

Trevor Wilson said:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

**A good question, with no simple answer. However, I would suggest to
that, rather than asking "why accuracy"? The question might more
accurately be: "WHICH innaccuracy, how much innaccuracy and under what
conditions?" IOW: IT is a can 'o worms.

Inaccuracy has only one "n".

**OOps, I misspelt. Here is the correct spelling: Innnaccccuracy. Three
'n's and four 'c's.


Suppose a listener has a speaker system which exhibits a pronounced
'peak' at (say) 10kHz. That listener will probably tend to seek out an
amplifier which suffers a 'suckout' at roughly that frequency. He/she
will forever be 'locked into' using faulty amplifiers to complement
his/her faulty speakers.

You must be an equipment dealer. Ever heard of equalizers?

**Equalizers can only be used usfully, if several conditons are met:

* A reference is available.
* An accurate measurement system is used.
* Non-phase shifting eqs are used.


Of course, that is a rather rough and ready example, but you get the idea.

Point not taken. Anyway, the presence of a "peak" or a "suckout" isn't an
argument for or against accuracy. Both characteristics are subordinate to
personal choice.

**Perhaps, but if one is attempting to build a pleasing system, it makes
sense to use equipment which is accurate. Using innnaccccurate equipment
may cause the use of more innnaccccurate equipment to support the
original innnaccccurate equipment. IOW: Two wrongs do not usually make a
right.


[snip]
A few weeks later, I was required to assist in the set up for equipment
at the Sydney Opera House for a public release of the Pianocorder. From
the first few notes, I was awe-struck. It was faulous. Cable of much
more than any one human could manage. The sound of the piano was
delightful. I asked what had changed. "Oh, we're using a different
piano." said the tech. It made all the difference. I can well imagine
that anyone listening to an inferior piano through their system, would
go to heroic lengths to make the sound acceptable.

IMO, that's an argument against a dogmatic pursuit of "accuracy". Find
equipment that behaves more to your liking ("better") and you'll get better
sound.

**Ah, but there's the rub: Had I used a recording of a Baldwin piano, I
may well be tempted to choose equipment which made the sound of the
Baldwin palatable. When time came to play a recording of a Steinway, I'd
be screwed. This is the fundamental problem with the choice of
innnaccccurate equipment.


Fundamentally, however, when one actively inserts innaccuracy into a
system, then ALL the music will suffer. The pleasant and the not so
pleasant.

That might be your experience, but it's far from universal.

**Perhaps. Refer to my example of Musique Concrete.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com