The system’s ability to present that information in a natural way, assuming it is on the recording, is an indication of the system’s level of resolution. It is the retrieval and presentation of information. The more information retrieved the better. If it sounds real then it is natural resolution.
What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The system’s ability to present that information in a natural way, assuming it is on the recording, is an indication of the system’s level of resolution. It is the retrieval and presentation of information. The more information retrieved the better. If it sounds real then it is natural resolution.
Audiophiles always think too much. Resolution is simply degree of details. It only gets more complicated when we put adjective in front of the word resolution. Resolution have nothing to do with natural or not natural, real or not real, hyper or not hyper, low or high. These are just adjective in front of resolution. Resolution is also not clarity. But to see/hear high resolution, clarity is needed. For example you have a super high resolution tv but your kid rub Vaseline all over the tv screen, you not going to see high resolution. Two different element.
@bonzo75 How am I doing with wanting to be included badly in this thread.
@bonzo75 How am I doing with wanting to be included badly in this thread.
Audiophiles always think too much. Resolution is simply degree of details. It only gets more complicated when we put adjective in front of the word resolution. Resolution have nothing to do with natural or not natural, real or not real, hyper or not hyper, low or high. These are just adjective in front of resolution. Resolution is also not clarity. But to see/hear high resolution, clarity is needed. For example you have a super high resolution tv but your kid rub Vaseline all over the tv screen, you not going to see high resolution. Two different element.
@bonzo75 How am I doing with wanting to be included badly in this thread.
For once you are spot on
Instead of debating what's resolution let's try to understand why some look at resolution negatively. The whole system needs to be in balance. Sometimes you can have lower resolution across the board but the system can sound whole and real because it is in balance. Vintage tannoys are a good example. However, if you just tweak something to add some treble, technically you can argue that is more resolution, but that upsets balance. Some then call it "hifi" with a negative connotation. A lot of gear is designed to play up one or two areas rather than improve balance, to give the initial impression of resolution. So yes, details and high resolution can get confused with some pointy sparks that appear on the high frequencies.
As resolution increases positively, you will notice more music as a whole without losing balance. The violin sounds more nuanced without getting screechy. The notes will resolve more, hence resolution. You will see each instrument unravel more.
As resolution increases positively, you will notice more music as a whole without losing balance. The violin sounds more nuanced without getting screechy. The notes will resolve more, hence resolution. You will see each instrument unravel more.
Last edited:
Within audio, the term resolution can be applied to several different areas.
Essentially resolution is the ability to detect small differences between very similar characteristics. The smaller the differences, the higher the resolution
Lets look at a few examples. Spacial resolution in stereo would be the ability to detect very small differences in the phase and amplitude of the sound waves reaching each ear i.e differential phase and amplitude. A poorly resolving system will have little spacial information because those fine differences in phase and amplitude are lost (i.e are not resolved (differentiated) from one another). A highly resolving system on the other hand will provide music with tremendous spacial information, because those very small differences in phase and amplitude are resolved from one another, thereby providing tremendous spacial detail…..layering for example or 3 dimensional ’body’, greater ‘depth’ and greater apparent focus.
Resolution may also be frequency related, so in this case small differences between the signal’s frequencies and spectral content can be detected. This allows you for example to hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a Guarneri violin, or between high amplitude strings and low amplitude voice with similar frequency content.
Combining both spacial and frequency resolution is what allows a listener to detect individual voices in a choir or the individual violins that make up a string section.
Resolution may also relate to timing….when small differences in timing are highly resolved, the system’s rhythmic abilities and perceived interplay between musicians improve. When timing together with amplitude and frequency are all very well resolved, we get a far more accurate ‘picture’ of the performance venue because we can easily tell the difference between the primary and delayed reflected soundwaves where the differences in amplitude, frequency and timing are all heard to be correct and in the appropriate ratios.
In total, a highly resolving hi-fi system will do a great job in presenting very small differences in phase, amplitude and frequency. When these differences are fully ‘resolved’ they no longer interfere with one another and the music sounds purer, clearer, more rhythmical and more fleshed out with increased spacial structure and focus
So why does a highly resolving system generally sound better? When frequency, timing and amplitude are all well resolved, small differences in each are easily detected and the brain is then able to differentiate all the different components of the music…. what we refer to as ‘detail’. But when the system is unable to differentiate these small differences, these differences are heard as ’one’ (i.e no difference) which means that the brain ‘combines‘ the differences in a form of distortion, essentially causing a lack of purity, a blurring of detail, poor rhythmic timing and a lack of spacial accuracy and depth.
The higher a system’s resolution, the more accurately it portrays subtle differences in phase, amplitude (timing) and frequency…..resulting in a more accurate and detailed representation of the music.
Essentially resolution is the ability to detect small differences between very similar characteristics. The smaller the differences, the higher the resolution
Lets look at a few examples. Spacial resolution in stereo would be the ability to detect very small differences in the phase and amplitude of the sound waves reaching each ear i.e differential phase and amplitude. A poorly resolving system will have little spacial information because those fine differences in phase and amplitude are lost (i.e are not resolved (differentiated) from one another). A highly resolving system on the other hand will provide music with tremendous spacial information, because those very small differences in phase and amplitude are resolved from one another, thereby providing tremendous spacial detail…..layering for example or 3 dimensional ’body’, greater ‘depth’ and greater apparent focus.
Resolution may also be frequency related, so in this case small differences between the signal’s frequencies and spectral content can be detected. This allows you for example to hear the difference between a Stradivarius and a Guarneri violin, or between high amplitude strings and low amplitude voice with similar frequency content.
Combining both spacial and frequency resolution is what allows a listener to detect individual voices in a choir or the individual violins that make up a string section.
Resolution may also relate to timing….when small differences in timing are highly resolved, the system’s rhythmic abilities and perceived interplay between musicians improve. When timing together with amplitude and frequency are all very well resolved, we get a far more accurate ‘picture’ of the performance venue because we can easily tell the difference between the primary and delayed reflected soundwaves where the differences in amplitude, frequency and timing are all heard to be correct and in the appropriate ratios.
In total, a highly resolving hi-fi system will do a great job in presenting very small differences in phase, amplitude and frequency. When these differences are fully ‘resolved’ they no longer interfere with one another and the music sounds purer, clearer, more rhythmical and more fleshed out with increased spacial structure and focus
So why does a highly resolving system generally sound better? When frequency, timing and amplitude are all well resolved, small differences in each are easily detected and the brain is then able to differentiate all the different components of the music…. what we refer to as ‘detail’. But when the system is unable to differentiate these small differences, these differences are heard as ’one’ (i.e no difference) which means that the brain ‘combines‘ the differences in a form of distortion, essentially causing a lack of purity, a blurring of detail, poor rhythmic timing and a lack of spacial accuracy and depth.
The higher a system’s resolution, the more accurately it portrays subtle differences in phase, amplitude (timing) and frequency…..resulting in a more accurate and detailed representation of the music.
Audiophiles always think too much. Resolution is simply degree of details. It only gets more complicated when we put adjective in front of the word resolution. Resolution have nothing to do with natural or not natural, real or not real, hyper or not hyper, low or high. These are just adjective in front of resolution. Resolution is also not clarity. But to see/hear high resolution, clarity is needed. For example you have a super high resolution tv but your kid rub Vaseline all over the tv screen, you not going to see high resolution. Two different element.
@bonzo75 How am I doing with wanting to be included badly in this thread.
Tango, what if one hears all sorts of detail, but it does not sound natural because that detail is the result of enhanced frequencies, like emphasized trebble, or big bass? Is that system resolving, or is it something else?
I think this is how two people can listen to two different systems and one declares a different system to be more resolving than the other one. This is actually fairly common in my experience.
If you choose to respond to these two questions, even Bonzo will think, you are included in this seminal thread, LOL.
Last edited:
Audiophiles always think too much. Resolution is simply degree of details. It only gets more complicated when we put adjective in front of the word resolution. Resolution have nothing to do with natural or not natural, real or not real, hyper or not hyper, low or high. These are just adjective in front of resolution. Resolution is also not clarity. But to see/hear high resolution, clarity is needed. For example you have a super high resolution tv but your kid rub Vaseline all over the tv screen, you not going to see high resolution. Two different element.
@bonzo75 How am I doing with wanting to be included badly in this thread.
Fortunately some of those who think a lot are very clear on their words. Gordon Holt glossary clearly separates resolution from details. I quote from it:
resolution See "definition."
definition (also resolution) That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group. See "focus."
detail The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components. See "low-level detail." Compare "haze," "smearing," "veiling."
focus The quality of being clearly defined, with sharply outlined phantom images. Focus has also been described as the enhanced ability to hear the brief moments of silence between the musical impulses in reproduced sound.
I also use the term as a degree of differentiation. There are a lot of analogies. I think of the two-point discrimination neurological test where the patient is asked to discern the sensation of two points touching the skin. Depending on the distance between the points and the part of the body, the caliper can feel like one point. Audiology uses thresholds and resolution. Objectifying resolution in hifi seems reasonable in theory but in practice, not so easy.
When I think of resolution in mono audio I think of timing. How fast can the sound start and stop at all frequencies, and how together in time are all those frequencies produced. I think the relationship to digital images is apt. For images, resolution is in dots per inch. For sound it is in "dots" per second. With sound it gets complicated because audible sound waves vary much more in size and cycle time than visible light waves. Also all visible light is of very short wavelength and cycle time compared to our naked eye's resolving and timing power, and timing issues between eyes are not an issue due to the high speed of light. With sound we get different resolution perceiving capabilities at different frequencies. Perceivable dots per second of bass is lower, perceivable dots, or perhaps I should say pulses per second of treble is higher. This is why accentuating the highs may make a system seem to have more resolution. A similar thing could happen in a picture by brightening or darkening certain colors where there happens to be more detail going on. Images that suffer from chromatic aberration don't look as high resolution even if each color alone has excellent resolution because now the colors conflict with each other by not being lined up correctly. The same thing can happen in audio if different frequencies are not adequately time aligned with each other.
So far I've been referring to a mono image or mono sound. With stereo, a new dimension of resolution becomes available, spatial placement resolution with sound, and depth perception with vision. Timing is again key with sound, making sure that each sound arrives at each ear at the proper time, and would be akin to properly lining up a stereoscopic pair of images with the viewer's eyes. But with sound HRTF is important as well. Spatial resolution is optimized when HRTF is fully optimized. With 2 channel audio this is impossible for anything but hard panned left and right material. Fortunately our hearing is more forgiving in some ways than our eyes, so the fact that both speaker's sounds make it to both ears when creating a phantom center image is less bothersome than a stereoscopic image that lets a lot of light leak from each image into both eyes. We end up seeing ghost images off to the sides, but with hearing the HRTF helps us out a bit and we don't perceive the crosstalk or room reflections as giving us multiple phantom images. Still, the highest possible spatial resolution is going to come from a system that lets us hear sound from any direction with fully proper HRTF. The best way I can imagine to do this is with many channels of time aligned high resolution speakers surrounding the listener in an anechoic space, or perhaps with head tracking headphones using HRTF correction. Or, go to a BSO concert!
So far I've been referring to a mono image or mono sound. With stereo, a new dimension of resolution becomes available, spatial placement resolution with sound, and depth perception with vision. Timing is again key with sound, making sure that each sound arrives at each ear at the proper time, and would be akin to properly lining up a stereoscopic pair of images with the viewer's eyes. But with sound HRTF is important as well. Spatial resolution is optimized when HRTF is fully optimized. With 2 channel audio this is impossible for anything but hard panned left and right material. Fortunately our hearing is more forgiving in some ways than our eyes, so the fact that both speaker's sounds make it to both ears when creating a phantom center image is less bothersome than a stereoscopic image that lets a lot of light leak from each image into both eyes. We end up seeing ghost images off to the sides, but with hearing the HRTF helps us out a bit and we don't perceive the crosstalk or room reflections as giving us multiple phantom images. Still, the highest possible spatial resolution is going to come from a system that lets us hear sound from any direction with fully proper HRTF. The best way I can imagine to do this is with many channels of time aligned high resolution speakers surrounding the listener in an anechoic space, or perhaps with head tracking headphones using HRTF correction. Or, go to a BSO concert!
Hi Peter,
You are talking resolution with an adjective in front. With adjective in front it becomes more subjective to individual interpretation. But if you just talk resolution alone, put people listen to two different systems, they should be able to come to the same conclusion which one lay out higher degree of details. Natural or not, enhanced or not is a different issue. You and I are in the same school of what sounds natural. I do understand what you said but I still think certain Magico sounds even more resolving than your vitavox and my cessaro if we talk resolution alone. Do we hear things so resolve in that type of manner and presentation like that in normal living? I don't.
Hi Micro,
Are you responding to me or you just want to make quotes from an audio preacher for us to explore his view of resolution, focus, detail? Can I imply that you agree with him?
Anyway, this quote I do not relate to resolution.
" also resolution) That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group"
What he said above is contrast and differentiation to me. You said he clearly separate resolution from details. This he accidentally got it right. "Contrast and differentiation" should clearly be separate from details.
What is your definition of resolution Micro?
kind regards,
Tang
Thank you Tango. I’ve heard systems that enhance some things at the expense of other things. It’s an uneven and unbalanced presentation. A person who prioritizes the things that the system emphasizes will consider that system more resolving then one that is more balanced and even but does not emphasize certain aspects of the sound.
I think it is important to consider how comprehensive or complete the resolution is. If the goal is to have the system sound like real music, then it is important to qualify the resolution. That is why I think in terms of natural resolution. I understand if you reject the concept or do not think a qualifier is necessary.
If you have regular exposure to real music, it is easier to assess the level of resolution in a given system and to make comparisons between different systems.
In other words, the more real it sounds the more resolving is the system.
Last edited:
After further thought, Peter, and our discussion today, I think that combining naturalness with resolution creates more definitional and comprehension problems than it solves.
I am more with Tang on this one. I think of resolution as an audio version of being able to see things more clearly in a photographic image -- being able to resolve details more clearly in a photographic image. Whether or not the color palette of the image is accurate and true-to-life (natural) I think is a separate question than the resolution of that image.
I think I definitely feel that this is not at all necessarily the case. I think Kedar had an excellent point, above, with regard to Tannoy Westminster.
I think a system fronted by Tannoy Westminsters and driven by tube electronics will, to my ears, easily sound more real and natural than a system fronted by YG XV driven by Boulder electronics. But I very likely will find the latter system to be more highly resolving, to be a more finely pixelated microscope image of the music, rather than the less finely pixelated reproduction of the more natural and realistic, yet less granularly resolving sound, of the former system.
This proves, to me, that there is not a direct correlation between increasing resolution and increasing naturalness or realness.
The vaguer the description the greater liklihood more will agree with it.
The more specific the description the more personal it becomes.
Some seek knowledge, some seek accord.
Are you sure you didn't make a decent argument precisely contrary to your conclusion?
If you sit in a concert hall during an orchestral performance, what do you hear?
If you sit in an audio room listening to an orchestral performance, what do you hear?
Is there a point where greater resolution causes an audio system to sound less natural?
Of course there is.
Can't answer that without knowing the meaning of the word resolution.
Based on the various posts in this thread, that question can be interpreted as:
1. Is there a point where greater naturalness causes an audio system to sound less natural?
2. Is there a point where greater timing causes an audio system to sound less natural?
etc
Similar threads
