Just a quick question unrelated to the topic of the thread: why would you want music to seem to be coming from behind your seating position?
What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Just a quick question unrelated to the topic of the thread: why would you want music to seem to be coming from behind your seating position?
That's kinda the way I look at it, Ron. While they are intertwined, they are still separate (to me).
Tom
Tom
Lol some people here have music coming out from under their seating position. At least the system sounds like it
Music seems hard to me but it is possible that after having eaten beans for example that sounds emerge from under the seating position 
Ron, I think I now understand where you’re coming from. You seem to want to break up the audio experience into bits and pieces that are easily understood with terms that we can all agree on. You are trying to break down the live music experience and the systems which are designed to reproduce that experience the same way Holt and Pearson did.
For me, the term resolution is a much broader and all encompassing concept. A system can either resemble the sound of the original live performance by playing the recording of that performance, or it cannot reproduce it in a believable and convincing way. I wrote this before. The more the system sounds like the live performance, the more resolving it is.
Last edited:
It’s the feeling you’re wrapped by the music. You’re aural perception is one of being totally engulfed to the point where everything disappears and it’s just you and the music. If you heard it you would doubtless enjoy and be enthralled
Resolution to me is the ability to accurately reproduce what's on the recording.
You can break this down further to dynamics and frequency response as examples.
If you have a system with limited frequency response or dynamics it will miss the mark.
It appears like an easily defined attribute but in my mind it's all encompassing. It takes the whole system with all of the individual components weaknesses to either be insignificant or somehow masking occurs from component to component to pull it off.
We have all had head turning moments when everything just jells. Damn hard to get that all the time and damn lucky to get it at all.
Rob
You can break this down further to dynamics and frequency response as examples.
If you have a system with limited frequency response or dynamics it will miss the mark.
It appears like an easily defined attribute but in my mind it's all encompassing. It takes the whole system with all of the individual components weaknesses to either be insignificant or somehow masking occurs from component to component to pull it off.
We have all had head turning moments when everything just jells. Damn hard to get that all the time and damn lucky to get it at all.
Rob
Peter, like you say, you're using "Resolution" as a general term to be equivalent to another general term, "Natural." But to achieve the overall natural gestalt, all the "bits and pieces" have to working in harmony to reach that result. I agree that the final result of the art (auditory or visual) shouldn't draw too much attention to the pieces.
Wil, yes I’m using the term in a comprehensive general sense just as I use the term “natural”. However, I do not think the terms mean the same thing.
ddk’s four systems in Utah all sound natural on good recordings but they have different degrees of resolution. It is not a coincidence that his main system sounds the most natural and has the highest degree resolution. I played a re-issue of some great music but suddenly the instruments did not sound natural on that Bionor system. It was the same highly resolving system telling us exactly what was on the recording.
It was the extreme resolution of the system that allowed us to hear the less than natural presentation of the reissue LP.
Edit: No one hears an orchestra from the violinist’s perspective while seated in the hall. Too much detail does not give a natural presentation from the listener’s perspective. This is the recording engineer‘s job. But a highly resolving system reproducing what is on the recording should sound natural if that was the engineers intent and he was successful with the recording. I think this is what DDK is getting at with his phrase “natural resolution“. There should be a balance and realistic sense of proportion to the performance if it is on the recording.
Last edited:
Sterophile's list of audio terms (https://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary) gives this answer:
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."
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.
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."
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.
Yes I'm sure I did not concur.
I thought your point tried to say there was no crrelation between resolution and natural sound.
Why is it a decent argument?
A while back I recorded a few tracks of me playing my Gibson SJ200 Custom Cutaway.
Playing it back through my system at high volume was just a staggering experience. I was totally blown away by how much more I could hear it terms of detail than when actually playing the instrument.
Like the equivalent of an audio magnifying glass. The whole instrument's presence gets magnified by two much larger emitters of sound i.e. the panels of my planar magnetic speakers, capable of far higher playback levels.
The point is playback systems are capable of providng higher resolution than the original instruments.
Playing it back through my system at high volume was just a staggering experience. I was totally blown away by how much more I could hear it terms of detail than when actually playing the instrument.
Like the equivalent of an audio magnifying glass. The whole instrument's presence gets magnified by two much larger emitters of sound i.e. the panels of my planar magnetic speakers, capable of far higher playback levels.
The point is playback systems are capable of providng higher resolution than the original instruments.
Ron, further to my comment on Keith's Fynes thread, you formally declared you weren't too bothered if the LTAs demonstrated more or less resolution than the Dartz. Because the LTA had the edge on naturalness. I think that's quite telling.
Thank you for bringing your question over here, Marc. I appreciate it!
Dissecting my state of mind when I visited Keith . . . I was not focused on individual audiophile sonic attributes like resolution or frequency extension or dynamics. I was hoping simply to discern if there was any basis on which I would prefer one amplifier over the other.
I jumped immediately on the greater liquidity (which to me means more natural and more real and more human and greater suspension of disbelief) on Jennifer's voice with the LTA. I did not think about which amplifier resolved information more finely -- which amplifier resolved more finely the sound of Jennifer's voice.
I am totally fine with Peter and TimA, on the one side, considering naturalness and realism to be inextricably linked with resolution, and with me (and maybe Tang) , on the other side, who, at the moment, considers resolution to be a narrower and simpler concept. I think resolution and naturalness or accuracy to musical instrument tonality (Peter's violin versus viola example), etc., simply to be different sonic parameters (just like in the engine context horsepower is a different engine parameter than torque; just like in the television context contrast is a different parameter than brightness).
I hoped my red rose that appears orange analogy would help, because it, to me, highlights the difference between naturalness or realism versus native resolution.
You are a very experienced videophile. Does my video analogy about native resolution make any sense to you as applied to this audio context?
Last edited:
Ron, I'm not sure video is a relevant comparison. However where it may be is on film type. I remain convinced by film over digital, despite "artifacts" like film grain.
Techies will say digital has greater resolution than film, and it may well do in pure detail terms, but I rate warmth, texture, saturation and black density/contrast levels better on film than modern digital.
Coming back to audio, resolution and naturalness have to go together, you can't make use of extra information if it doesn't sound true or resemble the real thing.
And let me propose something. It may well be the fact that Hi Rez playback off Extreme thru MSB Select surpasses vinyl.
At that point higher resolution alone won't satisfy you.
Techies will say digital has greater resolution than film, and it may well do in pure detail terms, but I rate warmth, texture, saturation and black density/contrast levels better on film than modern digital.
Coming back to audio, resolution and naturalness have to go together, you can't make use of extra information if it doesn't sound true or resemble the real thing.
And let me propose something. It may well be the fact that Hi Rez playback off Extreme thru MSB Select surpasses vinyl.
At that point higher resolution alone won't satisfy you.
You may be correct. But this is precisely why I consider resolution to be an independent variable.
Yes we are on the same page on this Ron. My comments are strictly sticking to the heading of your thread " What do me mean by "Resolution"?" If resolution is not resolution unless it appear natural by human standard. Then tv, mobile phone would simply have no resolution. Pixel PPI would have no meaning and should not be referred to.
Getting out of the box just a little. I wonder if you and I had bat ears or superman ears would most human think what we hear is unnatural. Too detailed beyond what most human normally hear and therefore unnatural => no resolution. Poor Ron and Tang. To us two probably sound natural. And what if every human except Peter has hearing like superman, would we think that Peter's hearing is unnatural and no resolution? What I am saying is if we want to tie the word resolution to be more specific more subjective then we put an adjective like natural in front of it.
We can discuss "natural resolution" by human ears if we want. Peter already opened a thread about that a while ago.
Of course it's an independent variable. As is bass extension, treble definition, mids density etc. But none of these attributes maxxed out alone, or in combination, guarantee a natural listening experience.
Last edited:
I agree that none of these alone, or in combination, guarantee a natural listening experience. But I feel that is a different question.
Similar threads
