In article
,
borosteve wrote:


How do you define "accurate"? Accurate to what? Unless you were there
when the recording was made and have an incredible memory of audio, then
the judgement of what is accurate or not is ********.

Actually, you can often define and measure accuracy. You just compare the
input with the output.

e.g. when assessing an amplifier, compare the patterns of the input and
output signal waveforms. Then define a measure of accuracy in terms of
something like the fractional rms deviation between the two when scaled for
minimu difference.

Yes you may have an idea of how it should sound..

When considering equipment to *reproduce* from a given input, you don't
necessarily have to have any idea 'how it should sound'. That is already
implicit in the information patterns provided by the recording or
broadcast.

But you can have problems when you have no 'original' with which to do a
comparison of any kind. Also, with accurate reproduction of an information
pattern that you do not like. The problem being that - as you indicated -
if you don't know how it "should sound" you can't be sure that what you
hear isn't what was intended, even if it sounds foul to you (or me!). :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html