Yes, resolution, as commonly understood, is a subject different from tonal density and body/warmth.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Yes, resolution, as commonly understood, is a subject different from tonal density and body/warmth.
Hmmm... if those are characteristics of a recording and they are not reproduced well by system A and they are reproduced well by system B, is A less resolving than B?
I'm inclined toward Peter's view that resolution is not just information density (the limited pixel per square inch analogy), but almost any audiophile attribute in terms of reproducing well or not what is on the recording. I see it as a broad general term.
This is not a courtroom Ron. Resolution is about reproducing ALL the information on a recording not just some of it that you want to listen for. We are not talking about just pixel count. The quality of those pixels counts too, as well as frame rate to use a poor video analogy.
Cafes, like audio forums, are meant for discussion.
Yes but how well a system conveys these qualities to the listener is just that- resolution. If on the recording, the system should resolve them.
Well, if you want to introduce idiosyncratic definitions that only you and some like-minded people subscribe to, that's your choice.
Reminds me of "black background", frankly, even though that nonsensical term has more backers.
***
I completely understand what you mean, Peter, but let's not mix up commonly understood terms.
Ron, do you tell your readers and speaker customers that a system that does not reproduce all the information embedded in a recording is still highly resolving?
After 300 hours break-in the time needed for full harmonics:
One day for amplifier and pre
Two day for DAC
Commonly understood by whom? Who defines the terms? It is about conveying meaning. Pixel count that Ron wants to focus on is not enough. The quality of those pixels counts too. How black are the blacks? What is the grey scale? What is the frame rate? How big is the screen. All these thing effect the resolution. Video is a bad analogy, but the point is that it is about more than just pixel count or bit rate.
hummmmmm. i'll pass on any reaction.
i can just unplug the clock and listen. this one is very simple.
of course it is.
but the chassis of the clock is carefully designed to mitigate that. so it comes down to the rack and environment. if it's good enough then it's ok. but i know that there are degrees of improvement that are there if i had that option in space and especially height to add tweaks. the greater the system performance the more that can be done. OTOH a system less than mature might not reveal some tweak efforts. the results can be below the noise/resonance floor that is there. tweak results are system contextual. YMMV
plenty of deep bass in the music so far. all is well with it. perfectly behaved.
you don't 'hear' the clock per se.
Last edited:
No, it's not. But it is my system thread.
Common courtesy on system threads generally is to accede to the OP's wishes -- in this case on not re-litigating one of your favorite dead horse topics for the fourth or fifth time. Feel free to discuss this topic on your system thread -- or on the dedicated thread I started years ago on this exact topic.
It would be nice if you would be a gentleman and cease repeating yourself on this topic on my system thread.
Last edited:
Of course, but I'm not talking about A/Bing the clock; I'm talking about A/Bing the footers underneath the clock.
That's rich coming from you, considering you asked Steve to delete from your system thread posts you didn't like.
Stop! Frivolous, snarky posts are worse than repetitive, dead horse posts. At least Peter is talking audio.
It's not shocking that two students who have the same mentor wind up holding the same views.
well; i've already explained that i have no space to move the unit, or height to insert alternative footers. so at least for me and my system, for this clock, your issue is not answerable. i already made that clear previously.
as far as you being a skeptic on tweaks or footers or active anti-resonance or any of that, that is up to you. you have not articulated any detailed explanation as to exactly what you are skeptical about. only that you are a tweak skeptic.
i think we have to start out considering any tweak in a 'prove it' posture. and then we get into the question of change verses improvement, and how much better verses the cost/hassle of the tweak. how does it look? does it have any unintended negative consequences? so it's fair to have high expectations and not just diving into the latest thing. and maybe we just like stuff stock and just sitting there. it's what makes us happy. can't argue with any of that.
another perspective is whether we think our system development is far enough along where tweaks are a focus. sometimes we are doing basic building and set-up and we don't want to muddy the water doing tweaks. there are bigger things going on first. that makes sense. to some degree tweaks are for when we have wrung out what we can and look for extra performance in unconventional ways. the cherry on top so to speak.
but OTOH tweak denial (that can't work, and that's the end of it) and head in the sand is just stupid, stupid, stupid.....if we care about the best sound.
i'm not inferring you are in tweak denial. but i don't know exactly how you would describe yourself.
Last edited:
I agree on each point. This is why what I actually wrote (in full) is:
"I am a tweak skeptic. To me it is all audiophile nervosa until I hear a net sonic improvement."
So all I am saying is that I subscribe to "prove it" rather than assuming that tweaks necessarily achieve a net sonic benefit (and for the avoidance of doubt I know that you do not assume that tweaks necessarily achieve a net sonic benefit).
Oh Please ! It’s merely yet another Snide and Petty attempt to get under your skin … The quest for that ‘Pound Of Flesh’ over the perceived treatment of his “ mentor” as you put it , by the forum Owners and Moderators , Is pernicious and ever persistent … I can see it , so can others !
However I shall of course abide by your wishes not to post any further content on your system thread deemed as “Off Topic” and leave you to your *Virtual Stalker*
Last edited:
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |