American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)

[ddk]

Thank you Bonzo. Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. In Tang's statement above, it seems clear that he is fine tuning his vinyl set up to get a sound he "prefers" and not one for extracting maximum resolution or information from the grooves. If that were the goal, I presume one would not consider "preference" as much as "information", which may be at odds.

By fine-tuning Tang's finishing the final parameters which are very precise, not what you think he meant. Tang's system extremely resolving while musical and "natural" so he's able to finish the setup, ie VTA with precision every time, you can't do this part accurately without real resolution.

I read these various posts and wonder why they are not in my "The importance of Resolution" thread. And I am a bit confused. It seems that Tango is fine tuning for his "preferred" sound. Ron describes this as his #3. Then David says that that leads to colorations. But David also wrote that Tango fine tunes to extract maximum resolution for each arm/cartridge combination.

I started my "resolution" thread in which my OP ranks the attributes that I most value as examples in an effort to understand what drives others in their quests to enjoy their systems. All of this came out of the 3012 thread in which people described to me the 3012R as "musical" and the V-12 as "resolving". I asked those questions in my thread with the assumption that we are perhaps don't agree on the meanings to some of these terms. I think the above quotes illustrate this, unless someone can clarify and reconcile these opinions for me to help me to better understand how "musicality" and "resolution are related.

I didn't participate in your thread because you asked for meaning of resolution to me that was an exercise in futility, somethings you just need to hear to grasp. The 3012-R comment is absolute nonsense, that tonearm is the MOST resolving of any I've ever heard and on this trip I heard all the current mega buck ones, they're no match; "IMO" and if that's what you want. The kind of resolution Tang has and what I'm talking about isn't really understood in your thread, only Tim approaches it somewhat in his posts.

david

 

[PeterA]

By fine-tuning Tang's finishing the final parameters which are very precise what you think he meant. Tang's system extremely resolving while musical and "natural" so he's able to finish the setup, ie VTA with precision every time, you can't do this part accurately without real resolution.



I didn't participate in your thread because you asked for meaning of resolution to me that was an exercise in futility, somethings you just need to hear to grasp. The 3012-R comment is absolute nonsense, that tonearm is the MOST resolving of any I've ever heard and on this trip I heard all the current mega buck ones and they're no match; "IMO" and if that's what you want. The kind of resolution Tang has or what I'm talking about isn't really understood in your thread, only Tim approaches it somewhat.

david

David, I don't quite understand this part of your first sentence: "...which are very precise what you think he meant".

I assume Tang's system is very resolving, even more so now that you have made changes to it. Are you saying that people can't accurately adjust VTA unless their systems have real resolution? And, that my other thread is asking a futile question because real resolution needs to be heard to be understood? I agree in the sense that one understands resolution in a relative sense if he hears the same music sounding more resolved in a different context. I also understand if you mean it is difficult to describe in words what real resolution is. But you seem to be saying more than that; that the kind of resolution Tang has is not really understood in my thread. That is a very interesting assertion, if I understand what you are saying. Why do you think that is? Do you think the contributors in that thread have not heard real resoluton, or not heard systems as resolving as Tang's?

 

[ddk]

David, I don't quite understand this part of your first sentence: "...which are very precise what you think he meant".

Sorry, it should have said "not" what you think he meant, I corrected it.

I assume Tang's system is very resolving, even more so now that you have made changes to it. Are you saying that people can't accurately adjust VTA unless their systems have real resolution? And, that my other thread is asking a futile question because real resolution needs to be heard to be understood? I agree in the sense that one understands resolution in a relative sense if he hears the same music sounding more resolved in a different context. I also understand if you mean it is difficult to describe in words what real resolution is. But you seem to be saying more than that; that the kind of resolution Tang has is not really understood in my thread. That is a very interesting assertion, if I understand what you are saying. Why do you think that is? Do you think the contributors in that thread have not heard real resoluton, or not heard systems as resolving as Tang's?

No offense intended to anyone I'm just not the most diplomatic poster so, all of the above Peter.
And it's not just Tang's system here with that level of resolution but since it's his thread we're focused on him.

david

 

[ack]

The other day you even wrote because you had different opinion to your Boston pals on the same music in the same system at the same listening session, and all of you are using the same BSO as reference for live natural sound. This means to me each of us has our own version of live natural sound. The “sound I preferred ” is actually happened to be in the same camp as ddk’s “natural” sound. But many people might not think that what I believe sounds natural is sounding like natural sound to them. Hence the words “the sound I preferred” in stead of generalizing that to natural sound.

It is quite late. I am going to bed. I will write my side of story about musicality and resolution later.

Good night,
Tang

Looking forward to you writing on Peter's resolution thread; meantime, I really like it when you say "the sound I preferred" as opposed to "natural". Lastly, yes, we all here use the BSO as a reference, yet our goals are different: I want to be faithful to the recording, while others are attempting to get a similar sound to the BSO's.

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, it should have said "not" what you think he meant, I corrected it.



No offense intended to anyone I'm just not the most diplomatic poster so, all of the above Peter.
And it's not just Tang's system here with that level of resolution but since it's his thread we're focused on him.

david

Thanks David. I guess I have to do some traveling to hear some of what you are talking about. I did find that my ability to adjust VTA for better results improved when I switched from my monitor speakers to my fuller range floor standers. More information makes for more cues being heard leading to greater confidence in set up. I also noticed this after Jim Smith left and improved the tone, dynamics and presence of my system. Resolution also ticked up a notch.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I beg to differ with your interpretation of my interpretation.

Peter has for a while been referring to resolution as the most important attribute. The way I interpret this is there are many other attributes, and he is ranking resolution the highest. However, when a question is posed as extracting the maximum from the LPs groove, I interpret that as getting more of everything... Tone, bass, etc etc, so musicality as a whole. So now, higher resolution is being used as more of everything hence more musicality. Like I said, if other things remain constant, why would someone not seek more resolution? A discussion is required only in case of trade offs, and where resolution is not a blanket word for more of everything.

So, a bit of a disconnect from your post

Respectfully kind sir I think I am understanding your original point. I do not think I am misinterpreting your interpretation. I fear you are not understanding my comment on your interpretation. Alternatively, I am understanding your interpretation, but I simply might be disagreeing with you.

I am saying that it is not necessarily the case that higher resolution (i.e., "more of everything") = greater musicality. Peter agrees with you, I believe (and I think MikeL would agree with you), but I do not think that an audiophile for whom the objective of the hobby is 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event" or 4) "create a sound that seems live" necessarily would agree with you.

You are suggesting that more of everything is unequivocally good. Might not too much resolution get you past the point of musical realism or musicality? Like watching a baseball game through some hyper-clear binoculars which somehow makes the experience somehow seem "better than live"?

Or attending a wedding in person and watching the proceeding with your own eyes directly on the bride and groom versus turning 180 degrees around and watching the same exact proceeding on a gigantic, life-size HDTV screen which lets you see more of everything than you could with the naked eye alone? Which is the more natural experience? Which seems more "real"?

I think believers in Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" would agree with you and Peter. Believers in one or more of the other objectives might not agree.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . we all here use the BSO as a reference, yet our goals are different: I want to be faithful to the recording, while others are attempting to get a similar sound to the BSO's.

A-ha! Thank you, ack, for using the "objectives" structure -- for observing explicitly that different objectives can lead to different opinions about the same sound or about the same musical event. I think that looking at these issues by first understanding an audiophile's objective(s) can make our resulting differing opinions more understandable.

 

[tima]

Respectfully kind sir I think I am understanding your original point. I do not think I am misinterpreting your interpretation. I fear you are not understanding my comment on your interpretation. Alternatively, I am understanding your interpretation, but I simply might be disagreeing with you.

I am saying that it is not necessarily the case that higher resolution (i.e., "more of everything") = greater musicality. Peter agrees with you, I believe (and I think MikeL would agree with you), but I do not think that an audiophile for whom the objective of the hobby is 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event" or 4) "create a sound that seems live" necessarily would agree with you.

You are suggesting that more of everything is unequivocally good. Might not too much resolution get you past the point of musical realism or musicality? Like watching a baseball game through some hyper-clear binoculars which somehow makes the experience somehow seem "better than live"?

Or attending a wedding in person and watching the proceeding with your own eyes directly on the bride and groom versus turning 180 degrees around and watching the same exact proceeding on a gigantic, life-size HDTV screen which lets you see more of everything than you could with the naked eye alone? Which is the more natural experience? Which seems more "real"?

I think believers in Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" would agree with you and Peter. Believers in one or more of the other objectives might not agree.

Interesting. This is something like what I am getting at in Peter's thread when I put the question, viz.: Do you want your stereo to sound better than the real thing? as part of the discussion on Resolution.

By 'the real thing' I mean what I hear in the concert hall from a decent seat when the orchestra or quartet or soloist (etc.) is performing before me. What I'll call a 'natural' performance. It's not realistic - that's a comparative term, but it is real.

Then there is, what for lack of a better term, I'll call the archetype of such an event that I carry around in my head. That is the notion from possibly super memory and more likely from hearing orchestras many times that serves me as what a live concert sounds like. Having played piano and clarinet I know how those instruments sound. Having sat in the orchestra and also observed groups and individuals practicing their parts I know how many other instruments are played and how they sound. Over time I've built up (and had confirmed) these archetypes; yeah, not the best word, "composite" might also work. From multiple expereiences I build up a composite of what, for example, a live piano performance sounds like - what a piano sounds like.

From my experience with music making and live listening I have a composite against which to gauge whether what comes reproduced out of my stereo sounds like what I know, for example, what a wind ensemble sounds like. To that extent I gauge whether what I hear reproduced is more or less realistic, in congruence, if you will, with my archetypes grounded in natural performance. It is not that it needs to sound like the Eastman Wind Ensemble or the Cleveland Youth Wind Symphony, but it does need to sound like a group of wind instruments playing well together. Is it true to a natural performance or as close as my mind allows? (i.e. realistic, i.e. my archetypes). Is it believable? (Or better yet does it put me in a place where asking questions is irrelvant and I am 'taken' by the music and no longer thinking of gear or reproduction.)

This is where I say "1) recreate the sound of an original musical event" and "4) create a sound that seems live" are the same thing. If #1 said recreate the sound of the original event, they would be different.

Just as I am in the concert hall, I don't need to hear everything a microphone hears - by definition I will take in a/the natural performance from my seat. (Likely there are more microphones spread farther apart than I have ears.) Likewise listening to my stereo I don't need to hear everything the microphone heard, or dropped onto the master tape for me to hear realistic sound, evocative of a natural performance. Thus if one posits that a reproduction will be "more musical" (whatever that means) with more information, yes it may be true, but not necessarily.

 

[shakti]

To proper set up a turntable , the complete set up, I mean all the components involved plus! the in room performance should have a "high" resolution in that regard, that a proper turntable set up is possible at all.

For instance, to make a Koetsu Stonebody or a vdh Colibri "fly" (I choose this carts, as they are in the first instance very different in sound)
the set up should make all the differences of fitting a cartridge audible.

I need to hear not only VTA and VTR , antiscating and tracking force, the real run starts,
when you try out different torques on all the tonearm-, tonearm base- and headshell screws, or if you change the material of the screws from brass to aluminium to titan.

If your set up has not the resolution to translate the changes in something audible, you will miss something.

Comparing a Cartridge set up with cooking is sometimes helpful.
For cooking you need all the good ingredients and I compare the Cart with a good peace of meat. If the meat is not good, you do not need to start at all
But the choice of spices is important. There so many different peppers and salts out there (like different screws and headshell materials) .
An experienced cook will taste the difference and will choose the best combination to make the meat a perfect dish.

An experienced Cart fitter will do the same, fortunately fitting a carts with different screws (and all the other things)
is a process with a possible reverse and start again button.

The peace of Art in setting up analog gear is, that the result sounds just "natural" , means, that all different "spices" are integrated and a listener would not be able to "taste" the different "flavors" involved.

Again like cooking, if you can taste salt or pepper as individual taste, the balance is wrong and the spices are overlaying the originals character of the meat (the cartridge)

So the high resolution of the complete gear in the room is a must for a high class turntable set up.

when ready, this high resolution needs to be inaudible as a character of the gear as such!

The possible resolution of the gear involved should work as a function of "natural" sound. If you listen to music, you should follow the beat

but if you like, you should be possible to focus on one single instrument, being able to hear all the details of the instrument in the correct position of the recording room. But only, if you focus on the instrument, not that this details are that evident and present, that it becomes difficult to follow the intention of the music.

Some of you do use the different vdh colibri versions. For me the big different from a standard Colibri to Colibri Stradivarius to Colibri Stradivarius master signature ist exactly this. Even a standard Colibri has high resolution, but it presents his capability for high resolution as main character, the Colibri Stradivarius integrates the high resolution, so your focus can follow the musical such in a better way . The Colibri Stradivarius Master Signature even extends the resolution, but also improves the integration of the resolution in the natural flow of music. For me the later Master Signature versions (around 0,9mv) have the perfect balance of natural and resolution (if you like to focus on it, the resolution is there , if you just like to flow with the music, you can do...)

 

[Ron Resnick]

Interesting. This is something like what I am getting at in Peter's thread when I put the question, viz.: Do you want your stereo to sound better than the real thing? as part of the discussion on Resolution.

By 'the real thing' I mean what I hear in the concert hall from a decent seat when the orchestra or quartet or soloist (etc.) is performing before me. What I'll call a 'natural' performance. It's not realistic - that's a comparative term, but it is real.

Then there is, what for lack of a better term, I'll call the archetype of such an event that I carry around in my head. That is the notion from possibly super memory and more likely from hearing orchestras many times that serves me as what a live concert sounds like. Having played piano and clarinet I know how those instruments sound. Having sat in the orchestra and also observed groups and individuals practicing their parts I know how many other instruments are played and how they sound. Over time I've built up (and had confirmed) these archetypes; yeah, not the best word, "composite" might also work. From multiple expereiences I build up a composite of what, for example, a live piano performance sounds like - what a piano sounds like.

From my experience with music making and live listening I have a composite against which to gauge whether what comes reproduced out of my stereo sounds like what I know, for example, what a wind ensemble sounds like. To that extent I gauge whether what I hear reproduced is more or less realistic, in congruence, if you will, with my archetypes grounded in natural performance. It is not that it needs to sound like the Eastman Wind Ensemble or the Cleveland Youth Wind Symphony, but it does need to sound like a group of wind instruments playing well together. Is it true to a natural performance or as close as my mind allows? (i.e. realistic, i.e. my archetypes). Is it believable? (Or better yet does it put me in a place where asking questions is irrelvant and I am 'taken' by the music and no longer thinking of gear or reproduction.)

This is where I say "1) recreate the sound of an original musical event" and "4) create a sound that seems live" are the same thing. If #1 said recreate the sound of the original event, they would be different.

Just as I am in the concert hall, I don't need to hear everything a microphone hears - by definition I will take in a/the natural performance from my seat. (Likely there are more microphones spread farther apart than I have ears.) Likewise listening to my stereo I don't need to hear everything the microphone heard, or dropped onto the master tape for me to hear realistic sound, evocative of a natural performance. Thus if one posits that a reproduction will be "more musical" (whatever that means) with more information, yes it may be true, but not necessarily.

I think this is very well written. I think the composite concept, derived from many years of actual performance experiences, is the correct barometer of “natural” sound.

 

[bonzo75]

Ron, the reason for the disconnect in this post is as follows:

W.r.t your 4 points, I want to recreate the sound as closest to live, and in certain cases only, the act of reproducing recordings accurately achieves both objectives - accurate reproduction that also makes the whole system sound closest to live.

My reply to Peter, had to do with a completely different thread - what is the meaning of resolution, and what is the hierarchy of resolution in a required list of desired attributes. And the VTA adjustment to show record information or to reduce information. While this might have some overlap with your post, discussing them as one confuses replies. So what I mean to address to Peter is not what you are understanding since you are thinking with your 4 objective hat on.

Your statement below "Might not too much resolution get you past the point of musical realism or musicality?" - it could, but that is not the point I am addressing here. I addressed that in the resolution thread.

Respectfully kind sir I think I am understanding your original point. I do not think I am misinterpreting your interpretation. I fear you are not understanding my comment on your interpretation. Alternatively, I am understanding your interpretation, but I simply might be disagreeing with you.

I am saying that it is not necessarily the case that higher resolution (i.e., "more of everything") = greater musicality. Peter agrees with you, I believe (and I think MikeL would agree with you), but I do not think that an audiophile for whom the objective of the hobby is 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event" or 4) "create a sound that seems live" necessarily would agree with you.

You are suggesting that more of everything is unequivocally good. Might not too much resolution get you past the point of musical realism or musicality? Like watching a baseball game through some hyper-clear binoculars which somehow makes the experience somehow seem "better than live"?

Or attending a wedding in person and watching the proceeding with your own eyes directly on the bride and groom versus turning 180 degrees around and watching the same exact proceeding on a gigantic, life-size HDTV screen which lets you see more of everything than you could with the naked eye alone? Which is the more natural experience? Which seems more "real"?

I think believers in Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" would agree with you and Peter. Believers in one or more of the other objectives might not agree.

 

[Tango]

So the high resolution of the complete gear in the room is a must for a high class turntable set up.

when ready, this high resolution needs to be inaudible as a character of the gear as such!

The possible resolution of the gear involved should work as a function of "natural" sound. If you listen to music, you should follow the beat

but if you like, you should be possible to focus on one single instrument, being able to hear all the details of the instrument in the correct position of the recording room. But only, if you focus on the instrument, not that this details are that evident and present, that it becomes difficult to follow the intention of the music.

Some of you do use the different vdh colibri versions. For me the big different from a standard Colibri to Colibri Stradivarius to Colibri Stradivarius master signature ist exactly this. Even a standard Colibri has high resolution, but it presents his capability for high resolution as main character, the Colibri Stradivarius integrates the high resolution, so your focus can follow the musical such in a better way . The Colibri Stradivarius Master Signature even extends the resolution, but also improves the integration of the resolution in the natural flow of music. For me the later Master Signature versions (around 0,9mv) have the perfect balance of natural and resolution (if you like to focus on it, the resolution is there , if you just like to flow with the music, you can do...)

Darn You hit all the right buttons.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[PeterA]

I think this is very well written. I think the composite concept, derived from many years of actual performance experiences, is the correct barometer of “natural” sound.

This is what Al M. refers to as "convincing" or "believable". There is no one absolute sound, but rather a range of sounds from any particular instrument depending on how it is played, where it is played, and how it is made. Also, how it is recorded. If we listen to or "know" enough examples of this live sound, then we understand this range of sounds and whether or not what we hear from a stereo sounds real to us. Does it convince us and is the sound believable.

It is not enough to think that a violin does not sound like a cello or viola. It must sound like a violin.

Ack made an interesting comment that our Boston group has been discussing for a while. His goal is to recreate or extract the information on the recording because that is all he has. He is after a high level of resolution from his system so that he can hear what, read everything, that is on the recording. He also listens to radio broadcasts and to live performances to give him a reference, I suppose to guide him with his extensive modifications. Al and I want our systems to remind us of our memories of what we hear live while also being transparent to the recording. These are slightly different approaches, equally valid IMO, and they do guide us in our approaches. I often wonder if it is just semantics because each of us is after resolution and a sound which is convincing using live music as a reference. Other references are other systems and particular recordings. The discussion becomes circular after a while.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Ack made an interesting comment that our Boston group has been discussing for a while. His goal is to recreate or extract the information on the recording because that is all he has. He is after a high level of resolution from his system so that he can hear what, read everything, that is on the recording. He also listens to radio broadcasts and to live performances to give him a reference, I suppose to guide him with his extensive modifications. Al and I want our systems to remind us of our memories of what we hear live while also being transparent to the recording. These are slightly different approaches, equally valid IMO, and they do guide us in our approaches. I often wonder if it is just semantics because each of us is after resolution and a sound which is convincing using live music as a reference. Other references are other systems and particular recordings. The discussion becomes circular after a while.

Using such approaches the discussion is intrinsically circular, spiced by our private biases. Floyd Toole scientifically broke the circle, using a completely direct approach. Unfortunately its application to the high-end is too resource consuming, so he skipped the high-end, considering it a non significant case.

 

[Folsom]

I would like to say that in no way would I call resolution the same as detail. Natural sound has more resolution, not more detail. By resolution it is the character of the actual thing coming through, by detail it is a heightened sense of what that thing is doing and not the character. You can have high detail & low resolution, it's actually pretty common. I believe this is congruent with those that are really interested in natural sound.

 

[DaveyF]

I would like to say that in no way would I call resolution the same as detail. Natural sound has more resolution, not more detail. By resolution it is the character of the actual thing coming through, by detail it is a heightened sense of what that thing is doing and not the character. You can have high detail & low resolution, it's actually pretty common. I believe this is congruent with those that are really interested in natural sound.

??? So you are saying that IF we have a recording that has an emphasis on the different sounds of say a guitar pick and these sounds are quite buried in the mix, that it is ok if these sounds are not revealed at all...resulting in a different meaning to the piece than what the artist originally was trying to portray with his or her particular picking technique. So long as the playback sounds natural, it is no problem to lose this detail through lack of resolution?

 

[ddk]

Interesting. This is something like what I am getting at in Peter's thread when I put the question, viz.: Do you want your stereo to sound better than the real thing? as part of the discussion on Resolution.

By 'the real thing' I mean what I hear in the concert hall from a decent seat when the orchestra or quartet or soloist (etc.) is performing before me. What I'll call a 'natural' performance. It's not realistic - that's a comparative term, but it is real.

Then there is, what for lack of a better term, I'll call the archetype of such an event that I carry around in my head. That is the notion from possibly super memory and more likely from hearing orchestras many times that serves me as what a live concert sounds like. Having played piano and clarinet I know how those instruments sound. Having sat in the orchestra and also observed groups and individuals practicing their parts I know how many other instruments are played and how they sound. Over time I've built up (and had confirmed) these archetypes; yeah, not the best word, "composite" might also work. From multiple expereiences I build up a composite of what, for example, a live piano performance sounds like - what a piano sounds like.

From my experience with music making and live listening I have a composite against which to gauge whether what comes reproduced out of my stereo sounds like what I know, for example, what a wind ensemble sounds like. To that extent I gauge whether what I hear reproduced is more or less realistic, in congruence, if you will, with my archetypes grounded in natural performance. It is not that it needs to sound like the Eastman Wind Ensemble or the Cleveland Youth Wind Symphony, but it does need to sound like a group of wind instruments playing well together. Is it true to a natural performance or as close as my mind allows? (i.e. realistic, i.e. my archetypes). Is it believable? (Or better yet does it put me in a place where asking questions is irrelvant and I am 'taken' by the music and no longer thinking of gear or reproduction.)

This is where I say "1) recreate the sound of an original musical event" and "4) create a sound that seems live" are the same thing. If #1 said recreate the sound of the original event, they would be different.

Just as I am in the concert hall, I don't need to hear everything a microphone hears - by definition I will take in a/the natural performance from my seat. (Likely there are more microphones spread farther apart than I have ears.) Likewise listening to my stereo I don't need to hear everything the microphone heard, or dropped onto the master tape for me to hear realistic sound, evocative of a natural performance. Thus if one posits that a reproduction will be "more musical" (whatever that means) with more information, yes it may be true, but not necessarily.

If we substitute "sound" with "experience" in Ron's 1), ie.; "recreate the experience of an original musical event" then you'll have the distinction that I believe Ron intended.

Most of what you wrote which I agree with describes 4) which you can get from fairly modest setups when you know what you're doing. The increases in resolution in terms of accuracy, musical detail, tonality, timbre, tonal depth and range, dynamics, etc. get you closer to that live like sound, the glass in the window to the live event getting bigger and cleaner. The ultimate step is getting beyond the system or the window and actually stepping into that event, not just sonically but emotionally so your brain and body react to what one hears in a completely natural way. To get there you need a lot more resolution and the complete tonal picture picture of an actual not and not only parts or highlights of it which is what you get even in the best systems. The AS2000 is where you can step Beyond the system, the room and life like to an actual live event where you have full resolution. Even a single note from a good musical instrument is very rich sophisticated and complex, then you have the character of note changing with the quality of that instrument, finally there's the individual creating that note with their virtuosity and essence of self. This what you can have and get in a live event and what might think impossible from a recording but it's there. The purpose of the AS2000 is to bring out that information from the grooves and get out of the way, all the macro, micro, the dynamic, all the resonance, the decay, the rise, the fall, the speed, the attack, the sweetness and the harshness of a note and then the notes and their delivery but the artist, this is resolution. As in a live event you get not to just hear a violin but to know who's Heifetz, who's Haendel or Grumiaux; Starker & Rastropovich and then there's Casals. This information is all there in the better analog recordings and you'll be able to touch it when the system can resolve all of it.

david

 

[dminches]

When people refer to “live sound” are they limiting it to non-amplified music? Once you add amplification aren’t you now at the mercy of the sound characteristics of the PA and other amps/speakers?

 

[ddk]

I would like to say that in no way would I call resolution the same as detail. Natural sound has more resolution, not more detail. By resolution it is the character of the actual thing coming through, by detail it is a heightened sense of what that thing is doing and not the character. You can have high detail & low resolution, it's actually pretty common. I believe this is congruent with those that are really interested in natural sound.

Exactly! Hifi detail is commonly thought of as resolution which in fact is the opposite because it's wall or a veil between the listener and the performance. This difference is what Tang also commented on upon first hearing the AS-2000 and recognizing what resolution can do what's meant by natural.

david

 

[DaveyF]

When people refer to “live sound” are they limiting it to non-amplified music? Once you add amplification aren’t you now at the mercy of the sound characteristics of the PA and other amps/speakers?

Absolutely. Plus these days there are things called 'amp modelers' that can re-create for the artist any number of different sounds ( many of them built into the amp itself)...you want to hear a Vox amp with 2 twelves, no problem, you want to hear a classic Tweed amp with a single eight, no problem; you want to add a rotating speaker..no problem. All of these sounds are created in the digital realm. None of them, at least to my ears, are that close to the sound of the real thing, but they are a nice imitation...and useful to the artist depending on what he/she is trying to accomplish.

Add to that the numerous other steps and modifications that the signal passes through before it gets to the recording device..and you have a bit of an issue, LOL.