Blinking heck, Ked. That's the best thing you've ever written!
Must be quite something then given historical standards
The importance of Resolution
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Must be quite something then given historical standards
Hey Bonzo,
Absolutely. Their "why" might be wrong for the right reasons or right for the wrong ones, i.e. they conflate one variable for another ('detail' for upper-mid hardness, or 'dynamics' for lack of dynamic range and vice versa). Any definition is only as useful as the insight of the individual offering it (1). And even then, that observation tells me less about the system in question than it does the preferences and blah blah blah
853guy
(1) Duration of exposure is not the same as expertise. Indeed, it’s completely possible to work at something for a long time and remain incompetent.
Expertise is not the same as insight. Indeed, it’s complete possible to be highly competent, yet suffer from domain-dependent blindness.
I will take insight from someone who has no experience over ignorance from someone who is considered an expert every time. Experience and expertise (i.e. status) should never be conflated with robust thinking. They are never ever the same.
Last edited:
Hey morricab,
Agree. Conflation of variables (as I mention above to Bonzo) is one of the single greatest problems apropos subjectivised preferential pursuits. I would include evaluation of all art forms of which recorded music reproduced via an electro-mechanical mechanism is obviously one, to be problematic in this regard. We are never reading the review. We are always reading the reviewer.
Best,
853guy
The harmonics are different depending on where on the triangle you strike it and how hard you strike it. Striking one on a corner versus on the middle of a section yields a more obvious difference.
May I suggest you sneak into an orchestra's rehearsal and sit with the percussion section. You need more exposure to classical music anyway.
. Or you could buy a 'professional' triangle and try it. more I can't give any technical explanation about the triangle, only this one during a horn-audio-sit-in session (CD Dum & Track Disc - Sheffield Lab) with a friend percusionist.
He heard (blindly & not knowing the CD) with surprise how the stroking & tapping of the stick on the cymbal on the bottom or the top happened .....
An unheard view/sound, subtle .... (dixit my friend)
Karel
And yet the most limited in many ways was the most realistic sounding to you...curious don't you think?
Thank you for both explanation and suggestion. Striking cymbals in different places I can hear the differences. My asking was about striking inside vs outside the triangle; not striking one in the middle and one near the corner nor hard vs softer strike.
When there is a chance I will strike it myself to hear.
Kind regards,
Tang
When there is a chance I will strike it myself to hear
.Kind regards,
Tang
Brad, well this is the rub.
Those Denmans were uber resolving, all off 0.4W into a highly modded WE field coil driver, fully saturating a 40m x 30m x 15m space made out of partitions in the middle of a museum.
So none of that third violinist sneezing rubbish or drummers throne squeaking malarkey that uber resolution fiends crave.
No, this was resolution at a subatomic level where the whole was truly the sum of its parts.
My GF had to literally drag me home after I fell under the greatest spell any audio has cast on me.
This horn worked on so many levels, I felt like a toddler discovering the power of music for the first time.
Those Denmans were uber resolving, all off 0.4W into a highly modded WE field coil driver, fully saturating a 40m x 30m x 15m space made out of partitions in the middle of a museum.
So none of that third violinist sneezing rubbish or drummers throne squeaking malarkey that uber resolution fiends crave.
No, this was resolution at a subatomic level where the whole was truly the sum of its parts.
My GF had to literally drag me home after I fell under the greatest spell any audio has cast on me.
This horn worked on so many levels, I felt like a toddler discovering the power of music for the first time.
Blinking heck, Ked. That's the best thing you've ever written!
Yup, agree. As I said, a fascinating post.
Al M. said:
Given the nature of forums and, especially, forums dealing with human perception and preference, it’s usually not long before the point one strongly agrees with is followed by another point from the same person one strongly disagrees with. Often it’s the next post, if not the next sentence.
853guy
Bah-DUM-Pssssssshhhhhhhh.
853guy
P.S. Could you tell I was using a maple stick with a nylon tip, and hitting the bow of the cymbal close to the stick's taper? If not, my posts probably could do with more resolution.
853, at the weekend I heard Rush YYZ for the umpteenth time since 1981, and thought I knew it backwards.
This time I was fully aware of NPeart's ride cymbal technique as never before, switching from bell to shank and back again.
Now I heard similar things re Bill Brufords drumkit on the Apogee/Kuzma/Spectral/Kondo setup, but it wasn't half as musical as this Aqua/SGM/tubes/AG Duos sound.
Both are really resolute and detailed. Only one was forensic and uninvolving, only one was immersive and holistic. And both presentations were a product of uber resolution.
This time I was fully aware of NPeart's ride cymbal technique as never before, switching from bell to shank and back again.
Now I heard similar things re Bill Brufords drumkit on the Apogee/Kuzma/Spectral/Kondo setup, but it wasn't half as musical as this Aqua/SGM/tubes/AG Duos sound.
Both are really resolute and detailed. Only one was forensic and uninvolving, only one was immersive and holistic. And both presentations were a product of uber resolution.
Thanks for the (as always) engaging thoughts Tim, I love the challenge on the question over using musical as part of gear description. I would be one who often distinguishes the capacity of some systems to engage musically and agree that the term itself is hard to define.
As an abstract the definition is, as you say, vague but I believe the actual experience of a system that is playing and musically engaging is something that is quite often mutually recognised in a shared listening. So maybe we know what the experience feels like but just not what actually defines it.
So all the criteria or qualities you discuss deeper into the post like timing, tonality presence, dynamics etc are all qualities that can build on replaying the expressiveness of the performance.
I’ve always related the idea that a setup is musically engaging with the notion that the expressiveness of the performance is conveyed in a way much as it might be if heard live.
For whatever reason some systems can deliver much detail yet somehow still fail to engage you in the music. This falls into the perception that the system is presenting in a manner that leads you to listen in a detached or analytical way.
Like many abstract concepts it presents a challenge to being boxed in and analysed, but surely this is in the nature of subjectivity and higher order concepts.
Actually it was an example of giving an example to explain what someone might mean by "resolution." The point being that the term "resolution" by itself is, well, insufficently resolved, and warrants further explication or example(s) in order to better communicate what is meant to someone else.
And, fwiw, that use of the triangle strike as an example did not mention where on the inside it was struck. But to try to speak to your curiousity rather than the way it is broached: "how a triangle sounds different depending on whether it is struck on the inside or outside..." I am neither physicist nor perscussionist, though I'm somewhat familiar with the playing of and listening to percussion instruments. I believe how a triangle (or other piece of metal) will sound depends on where on the instrument and how hard it is struck. (If you disbelieve that statement then the example may be moot as a useful example for you.) There is a technique where the instrument is struck on its interior sides in rapid succession. Side one, two, three then repeat and do it quickly. The sound can be different than striking the outside quickly and successively in the same spot. In the former approach - the dinner bell strike as it were - the interior side struck has time to resonate longer before being struck again. The motion of the musician in making the strike, possibly circular on the interior, whether glancing or direct can be a factor. Whether a given person hears it or a given system resolves it is a different matter.
If someone made that statement about hearing the reproduction of a triangle, would you accept it as an example of resolution whether you knew its truth-value or not?
Hey Spirit,
Right. But there’s often two processes at work there. One may be increased resolution in the mechanism, the other may be increased perception/understanding on the part of the individual.
My own comprehension of the difference between a guitarist playing an upstroke versus a downstoke on heavy distorted riffs only became clearer when I picked up guitar and started playing the riffs myself. It was my own perception via the process of becoming a practitioner - learning the how as distinct from the what - that offered greater insight into what I heard, not greater ‘insight’ provided by the system. The resolution of the system was irrelevant. One can only hear what one can perceive.
Consequently, it’s possible to increase system resolution through set-up and gear changes, while remaining ignorant of what’s being heard and why. A highly resolving system is no more an indication of the owner’s insight, than a garage full of supercars is an indication of their driving ability. In fact, sometimes, there's an inverse correlation.
Best,
853guy
Last edited:
Thanks Tao. I'm inclined to agree, at least somewhat. I believe that in large we all hear similarly and for those of us familiar in the tradition of Western composers share many of the same expectations about such things as the completion or release at the end of musical phrases. We do have different preferences among ourselves though it is not surprising that some of those preferences can be shared, both for live music and reproduction. I don't think it is uncommon for one person to say "that system is musical" and some other listener nods in agreement. The common experience can be a far better communicator than reading about it. But here we are in audio forums talking about our preferences and priorities.
The audiophile vocabulary, our guild-speak, is pretty limiting. Then again that is often what is expected in reviews. (Does it have slam?) And forum posts tend to be written quickly, with less time spent in expository writing and often too much time with hyperbole - in order to make a point and get on to the next one. Thinking more about it, my point was (probably) that examples of what we hear - efforts at describing what we hear while listening - tend to say more than the shorthand words we like to use. The shorthand has its uses to congeal the listening experiences. Sometimes we don't have the time or patience to work through listening descriptions of music we don't know.
Similar threads
