I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

we can say that we do not want the playback system to be supplying further changes to the recording. Holmz

I don't think this gets covered enough.  It is nice have a baseline, and I can understand why people want to be true to original.  Good, bad, or otherwise, it is nice to listen to the music as created by the artist and their team, which the artist signs off on.  Really depends on the music as well.  

@atmasphere When I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these  two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same. If not, at least one of those components cannot be accurate, we could say it has colorations. Doesn't stating any particular component as accurate, mean any component not replicating absolutely exact same sound qualities is inaccurate or colored? Anointing any component as accurate assumes an absolute hierarchy of components, the accurate one being the objective reference.

The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?

So, my issue with the term accuracy is when its used in the context of this hierarchical order, or contention there are absolute accurate components, those not meeting criteria mentioned above inaccurate. Now, accuracy in the context of conforming to timbre of live non-amplified instruments, vocals MAY be valid use of the term. A component that reproduces natural timbre can be said to be accurate.  This doesn't apply to amplified instruments as they are subject to many inaccuracies of amplifying equipment, we cannot know their exact timbre unless we were in recording venue at time of recording.  Still, both amplified and non-amplified recordings  subject to recording vagaries, perhaps these recordings don't present accurate timbre. Bottom line, very little or no opportunity to directly compare live instrumental, vocal timbre, what we'd call natural timbre, to recorded timbre which may or may not exactly replicate natural timbre.

Accuracy, in either of these contexts seems to be rather useless term for audio reproduction. And if we accept accuracy is invalid term here, what are the objective criteria we can use to judge audio components? With so many variables constantly in play, seems we are left to pleasing ourselves. Where's the problem!

Slightly off-topic I know, but me and the wife have have a half dozen quality steel string acoustic guitars. All sound different, including the clutch of Martins.What I’m trying to say here is don’t go too nuts, tone color-wise.

I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn't change from input to output.

I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.

This is electronical accuracy...

This is not acoustic and psych-acoustic "accuracy" which is a word anyway not used in acoustic to describe the naturalness of a timbre tonal playing chord (colors) in some room, at some location, with some violon or with some other violin with this player or this other one... There is not so much  accuracy as such here, but the TRANSLATION of this recorded acoustic event  which imply  a gear designed "accuracy" to convey the acoustic information and a room mechanically controlled  "accuracy" or the most optimal objective acoustic room dispostion for this optimal experience of perception ...