Sounds like you would like to define "resolution" to include musicality, which would be different from the historical definition. Here's why that doesn't work. Whatever you might want to add to the category "resolution", it still centers on the extent to which the detail available in the medium is mined and accurately reproduced. With a great recording more resolution (i.e., retrieving more of the available information) might result in more musicality (realistic timbres, emotional content, etc.). However with a less than great recording, even of a great performance, more resolution can result in less musicality and listening pleasure because more of the "warts" are being highlighted. I have experienced this in my own system. For a decade I owned Merlin VSM speakers, the resolution of which was frequently compared to electrostatics. The speakers were called "ruthlessly revealing" by several reviewers, and I found this to be true. With a well recorded sacd for example they were revelatory. I heard detail and nuance in familiar recordings I had never heard before along with outstanding musicality. However when I played anything that wasn't superbly recorded the superior resolution was a curse. Much of my collection became unlistenable. My Ars Aures F1 monitors by contrast were much more forgiving. They didn't retrieve all of the detail that the Merlins did but because of their voicing were more musical and enjoyable over a much broader range of recordings. In this case the less resolving component was more musical, something I've experienced many times over the 40+ years I've been an audiophile.
