What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?

[tima]

Can't answer that without knowing the meaning of the word resolution.

Many/several people on the thread think it means 'more detail'. Use their example.

 

[microstrip]

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

As shown by many long WBF threads there is no possibility of full agreement on subjective terms meaning in high-end audio - it is why most of our threads never end, lots of semantics and little audio content. IMHO we are not here to define a new language, but mainly to communicate and share our perceptions, feelings and adventures to others and discuss them.

The "audio preacher" (Gordon Holt) I quote is the founder of the high-end movement and IMHO his audio glossary is a key point in audio communication. Considering my obvious limitations in audio language I surely prefer to move around the language of some one most respect and I can trust and has all his glossary and part of his work online. It is why I shared his definitions. YMMV.

If interested please look at them at https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-r-s

His points of view are not perfect, surely, but are logical, coherent and well thought. Another example:

naturalness Realism.

realism A subjective assessment of the degree to which the sound from an audio system approaches that of live music. This has meaning only when the recording purports to reproduce an acoustical event taking place in a real acoustical space. See "quality."

 

[rando]

The only broadly relevant definition of 'Resolution' on WBF is when a discussion shortens and this stuff comes out.

 

[microstrip]

Many/several people on the thread think it means 'more detail'. Use their example.

Even detail can have very different meanings. We have the good detail and the bad detail.

 

[andromedaaudio]

And even with that in mind " its only all just talk "
What for some people is the utmost detail for another one its just talk / crap

 

[Cableman]

Back in the day I managed to get the music in my rather small listening room to appear to literally fill the room even to the point of music seeming to be coming from behind my seating position. It was like being in the middle of a star cluster. Omnidirectional- music from all directions and you smothered in it soothed and overwhelmed by it.

Many from far and wide including hi end manufacturers journalists and music professors came to hear and were mesmerised. They went in skeptical. They came out jaw dropped. I called it ‘the perfect sound’. I didn’t worry about resolution or detail or clarity or soundstage. It was just ‘all there’. In spades. Oh how I wish I could get that sound back. Today it sounds immense, wonderful, beautiful etc to everyone except me. I believe I experienced the holy grail and I’ll keep searching till I find it again.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Greetings from Melb! We're finally out of lockdown and the "resolution" is now greater! Too many people running around like those pixels on our screens...

Speaking of which, I may add to this rather interesting topic: a short discussion way back in time with Jim Winey of Magnepan. As we were ordering our very first MG20 series panels, back then we hadn't experienced anything larger than the MG3.6/r then the first MG20 was on order. I asked the boss, so what's the big deal with this larger panel, other than more bass and a much taller tweeter? Jim replied in one word, "resolution!"

Ah! There it was indeed, greater resolution along every Maggie model, which is also found in other types of panel speakers. Probably the reason why we were so passionate about panels in general. Definition, clarity and quality of holographic images resulted in improved resolution and that's why now, fast fwd 30 yrs and I simply love the way full range ribbons and stats deliver that brilliance in transparency.

From that point made by Jim W and about the same time as Gayle M Sanders, when I experienced the ML Statements Evo-II's, this resolution factor became even more obvious. It's definitely a marvellous thing, and to me greater resolution/ transparency makes more sense in speaker selection. Of course there is other gear in the system that contribute towards this, for example DACs and Clocks. However, I find that no matter how much you were to spend on external gear, I firmly believe it's the speakers that provide that fine level of resolution.

At the same time, I would also believe too much resolution leads to greater transparency, which also highlights bad recordings... oh well, can't win it all, as long as the music is mighty fine!

Cheers, and do enjoy those fine tunes!
Best, RJ

 

[Cableman]

Greetings from Melb! We're finally out of lockdown and the "resolution" is now greater! Too many people running around like those pixels on our screens...

Speaking of which, I may add to this rather interesting topic: a short discussion way back in time with Jim Winey of Magnepan. As we were ordering our very first MG20 series panels, back then we hadn't experienced anything larger than the MG3.6/r then the first MG20 was on order. I asked the boss, so what's the big deal with this larger panel, other than more bass and a much taller tweeter? Jim replied in one word, "resolution!"

Ah! There it was indeed, greater resolution along every Maggie model, which is also found in other types of panel speakers. Probably the reason why we were so passionate about panels in general. Definition, clarity and quality of holographic images resulted in improved resolution and that's why now, fast fwd 30 yrs and I simply love the way full range ribbons and stats deliver that brilliance in transparency.

From that point made by Jim W and about the same time as Gayle M Sanders, when I experienced the ML Statements Evo-II's, this resolution factor became even more obvious. It's definitely a marvellous thing, and to me greater resolution/ transparency makes more sense in speaker selection. Of course there is other gear in the system that contribute towards this, for example DACs and Clocks. However, I find that no matter how much you were to spend on external gear, I firmly believe it's the speakers that provide that fine level of resolution.

At the same time, I would also believe too much resolution leads to greater transparency, which also highlights bad recordings... oh well, can't win it all, as long as the music is mighty fine!

Cheers, and do enjoy those fine tunes!
Best, RJ

My 2p. It’s actually the amp-loudspeaker combination that produces the magic. Without that synergy youre on a losing streak.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

My 2p. It’s actually the amp-loudspeaker combination that produces the magic. Without that synergy youre on a losing streak.

Absolutely! Without a doubt.
The sum of those parts creates the synergy and when it comes together, it's truly remarkable.
Putting it altogether is an art form. Takes several years... and as the years pass by, so does the resolution!
Cheers, RJ

 

[PeterA]

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 difference Ron is that I would not consider that YG/bolder system to be more resolving. If you’re saying that system is closer to what is on the recording, then I would I agree with you, but absent knowing that for certain, I would conclude that there are distortions going on that give the illusion of greater resolution. I hear systems that have exaggerated high frequencies that do not sound real but that people think are higher in resolution. Same with big bass. If it is not believable, how can it be resolving?

Do you think resolution has anything to do with how cleanly a system can play at very high volumes that approach live levels?

I think we just have a different understanding of what resolution means but that’s fine thanks for starting the thread. I hope you find more clarity in your audio chat room tomorrow night regarding this very topic.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Ron, how can something that is NOT accurate and true to life (natural) be highly resolved? If the recording is of a violin and it sounds like a viola, there’s clearly something wrong with the resolution of the system. I suppose it could be the recording or the listener’s perception.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Is there a point where greater resolution causes an audio system to sound less natural?
Of course there is.

Are you sure you just didn't concur with my decent argument?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I hear systems that have exaggerated high frequencies that do not sound real but that people think are higher in resolution. Same with big bass. If it is not believable, how can it be resolving?

Let's put aside for the moment what people other than you and me think about resolution which we both seem to think is incorrect.

I do not think that turning up the "Sharpness" control on a television set increases native image resolution.

I think that resolution is different from exaggerated high frequencies or frequency balance. I continue to feel that exaggerated high frequencies or tipped-up frequency balance is not greater inherent resolution (intelligibility or fineness of musical information) but rather Contrast or Brightness control.

I think we have highlighted our disagreement. I think believability (or naturalness or realness) is a different parameter than resolution. You believe that believability (or naturalness or realness) is an inherent component of resolution, or informs your understanding of a component's or a system's resolution.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think we just have a different understanding of what resolution means but that’s fine thanks for starting the thread.

Thank you for participating in it!

 

[Lagonda]

Back in the day I managed to get the music in my rather small listening room to appear to literally fill the room even to the point of music seeming to be coming from behind my seating position. It was like being in the middle of a star cluster. Omnidirectional- music from all directions and you smothered in it soothed and overwhelmed by it.

Many from far and wide including hi end manufacturers journalists and music professors came to hear and were mesmerised. They went in skeptical. They came out jaw dropped. I called it ‘the perfect sound’. I didn’t worry about resolution or detail or clarity or soundstage. It was just ‘all there’. In spades. Oh how I wish I could get that sound back. Today it sounds immense, wonderful, beautiful etc to everyone except me. I believe I experienced the holy grail and I’ll keep searching till I find it again.

Yes the drugs where a lot better in the 70's and 80's !

 

[Cableman]

I do not think that turning up the "Sharpness" control on a television set increases native image resolution.

But I also think that resolution is different from exaggerated high frequencies or frequency balance. I continue to feel that exaggerated high frequencies or tiptop frequency balance is not greater inherent resolution (intelligibility or fineness of musical information) but rather Contrast or Brightness control.

I think we have highlighted our disagreement. I think believability (or naturalness or realness) is

Nothing should be exaggerated. Everything should sound ‘appropriate’. Just as the artist who performed it intended it to be heard. As someone who has worked in some of the most famous studios in the world (and yes including Abbey Road) I can say without fear that if I play a record I personally have been involved with, my ‘musical memory’ kicks in and I can at least be reasonably confident when it feels and sounds ‘right’.

 

[Ron Resnick]

If the recording is of a violin and it sounds like a viola, there’s clearly something wrong with the resolution of the system.

I would totally agree that there's clearly something wrong. But I don't think the parameter that is wrong is "resolution." It might be frequency balance or unrealistic "tonal density" or some other sonic parameter.

 

[Cableman]

Yes the drugs where a lot better in the 70's and 80's !

And yet I never took any. But thx for playing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

How about this analogy, gentlemen?

We are looking at a television set. We see a red rose filling the screen. We know it's a red rose because the narrator just told us it is a rose that is red in color.

But on our screen it looks kind of orange. That inaccuracy is not a problem with resolution.

If we were watching a 1080 video panel we would see that same mis-colored rose in slightly lower resolution than we would if we were watching it on a 4K video panel.

We see a finer image of the rose on the 4K video panel, but the color is not any more correct. It still looks a little bit orangey when it should be red.

So to me resolution is different from accuracy or naturalness or other parameters. Resolution is an independent variable from naturalness or realism.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I some times have the feeling that if in society ( or hifi ) for that matter enough people agree on the latter then that becomes the standard , sometimes wavering of from reality

We see a finer image of the rose on the 4K video panel, but the color is not any more correct.