What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?

[Blackmorec]

The biggest problem with understanding what resolution sounds like is in understanding the difference between what you can hear consciously and what your brain is actually capable of detecting and processing subconsciously.

Your two ears are approximately 30-35cm apart. Our ability to detect the source of a sound is based on that difference…..on the changes in amplitude, timing and phase between the soundwaves from a sound source impinging on one ear vs. the other. Your brain is able to pick up and process those miniscule differences with a high degree of resolution….(the higher the resolution, the smaller the differences that are detectable). Our entire ability to discriminate direction is based on these minute differentials. Those differences are far, far smaller than our conscious brain is able to detect. That’s because what we are able to discriminate consciously is far, far lower in resolution. High resolution hearing is automatic and subconscious. What we actually hear is a result of the processed differential signals, not the signals themselves. Remember that soundstage for example is not contained in the actual signals, its contained in the differentials between the signals.

When we turn up the volume, we seem to hear more detail, so we conclude that we have increased the resolution….but we haven’t! The resolution at high or low volume is identical. What we have done is to increase the volume of all sounds, lifting the quietest ones above the threshold of hearing. That threshold is fundamentally the quietest sound the ear can detect, plus any ambient, recorded and processing noise. Because increasing volume increases both the loudest and quietest parts of the music equally, the actual resolution remains the same. To increase resolution, we need to find ways of removing noise….the ambient noise in our listening room, the recorded noise and the noise associated with all the electronics, stray emi and the network used to produce the sound. When you add detail without increasing amplitude you’ve essentially increased resolution.
The other problem with understanding resolution is the fact that in hi-fi there are multiple areas where different resolutions play a roll. Amplitude, frequency, time, and phase resolution all have an effect on what we consciously hear as does the various combinations of those changes.
Increasing resolution should make any music sound more natural because in essence we are removing distortions and noise and revealing more of the subtle differences that together make up the fine structure and strands of the music.

 

[Carlos269]

Resolution as an objective property or attribute only exists for digital audio or digital imaging. The word can be taken from that domain and applied backword to the analog world, but qua objective attribute it does not exist in the analog world (the real world?).

This is simply not true. In the electrical domain we have the mV (milli-Volt) as a unit of measure for resolution and in the acoustical domain we have the dB (Decibel) as a unit of measurement for resolution. The ear can hear differences in 0.2 to 0.3 dB.

There is so much misinformation in these audio forums, that I’m in disbelief.

 

[wil]

Resolution as an objective property or attribute only exists for digital audio or digital imaging. The word can be taken from that domain and applied backword to the analog world, but qua objective attribute it does not exist in the analog world (the real world?).

I don’t understand the above statement. Two examples of objective resolution in the analog visual world: our eyes ability to focus and resolve detail. And a camera len’s ability to do the same depending on the quality of the lens resolution.

 

[Cellcbern]

Fun to debate all of this perhaps but it just isn't that complicated. Resolution in audio is simply a a component/system/accessory's ability to extract and accurately reproduce the information encoded in the recorded medium, whether vinyl, tape, disc, or bits. Audio writers and reviewers have talked about, and audiophiles have upgraded to higher performing/more expensive gear since the hobby began in order to resolve more of that information (i.e., the smallest details, spatial cues, venue ambience, etc.). Reviews of good inexpensive gear often note that a component gets the "gestalt" of the music right which refers to "natural" sound, but doesn't resolve as much of the detail as more expensive gear. Reviews of the vast array of noise reducing products are couched in terms of removing amusical artifacts that overlay the signal in order to reveal more of the detail and nuance encoded in the record/disc/tape/file. This isn't rocket science. Two examples to illustrate this simple definition of resolution: There are two camps on this forum when it comes to the question of gold vs. rhodium plated connectors. Those who prefer rhodium say that it is "more resolving" than gold, i.e., it reveals greater detail and nuance that the inherent warmth of gold plating obscures. I don't remember seeing by the way, this argument qualified based on whether the source was vinyl, tape, disc, or bits. The gold camp (which I am in) says that rhodium plating sounds unnaturally cool and clinical while gold sounds more like live music, even if rhodium does mine more detail. The same debate plays out on this forum with regard to solid state (more "resolving") vs. tube (warmer with more "natural" timbres) amplification. Pretty straightforward.

 

[rando]

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?

The formal arrangement of traditionally staged works doesn't satisfy all endeavors. Even inside the modern concert hall. Stadium shows also grow technically complicated enough avoidance this manner of complication grows narrower every year. Smaller spaces with larger displacement of other senses can provoke similar responses. It is one of the peaks artistic industry explores from time to time.

When was the last time you attended a concert in a large ancient church or sound art exhibit in a gallery space. My feeling is you like the intimate atmosphere of a performance space not much larger than is realistic for a listening room. Centuries old churches with complex internal architecture or the empty void of a warehouse filled with clever contraptions that shape relationships with unusually encountered aural circumstances do not match with this expectation.

Maybe you were refuting the existence of MCH or any amount of artistic creativity in this direction being relevant to home reproduction of audio. Where 8+ amps and 4+ speakers is not highly uncommon in the high end to create stereo effect. Worlds colliding, I made a few (blandly technical or at least exciting to that which shall not be named) aspersions to this topic on another site a few years ago. I won't recount them here, but they dealt with how sensitive air is and the effects of changing the environmental conditions directly impacted by the act of making sound.

Even the notes that sound like out of tune horns or ducks in flight.

 

[Blackmorec]

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?

Hi Ron,
That question should really be addressed to the recording engineer. This phenomena is mainly heard with electronic type music like Yello, where the sound stage is wholly engineered (manipulated). On several albums the sound is completely immersive with notes originating high above or decaying behind the listener. Its really quite entertaining, like audio fireworks. On more regular recordings its sometimes the case that the performance is in front or to the sides of the listener but with venue ambiance that has an atmosphere and presence that extends behind the listener
I started hearing these phenomena listening near field with a highly refined network stream, that is built around progressively improving network modules, where each subsequent module in the chain benefits from improved LPS noise specs, cable shielding, resonance isolation and jitter specs. Based on the hi-fi‘s typical better-in, better-out phenomena, improvements made early on in the network stream gain from each subsequent module, much like compound interest. When each step of the network was optimised in this manner, the clarity of the recording venue reached new levels of palpability, often creating the venue’s unique atmosphere before the music starts. Linking back to this thread, I’m guessing that the improvements are related to the improvements to resolution brought about by decreasing noise, EMI, resonance and jitter.

 

[Cellcbern]

Hi Ron,
That question should really be addressed to the recording engineer. This phenomena is mainly heard with electronic type music like Yello, where the sound stage is wholly engineered (manipulated). On several albums the sound is completely immersive with notes originating high above or decaying behind the listener. Its really quite entertaining, like audio fireworks. On more regular recordings its sometimes the case that the performance is in front or to the sides of the listener but with venue ambiance that has an atmosphere and presence that extends behind the listener
I started hearing these phenomena listening near field with a highly refined network stream, that is built around progressively improving network modules, where each subsequent module in the chain benefits from improved LPS noise specs, cable shielding, resonance isolation and jitter specs. Based on the hi-fi‘s typical better-in, better-out phenomena, improvements made early on in the network stream gain from each subsequent module, much like compound interest. When each step of the network was optimised in this manner, the clarity of the recording venue reached new levels of palpability, often creating the venue’s unique atmosphere before the music starts. Linking back to this thread, I’m guessing that the improvements are related to the improvements to resolution brought about by decreasing noise, EMI, resonance and jitter.

If we are talking about the resolution capabilities of our audio systems how does the recording engineer enter into it?

 

[Blackmorec]

If we are talking about the resolution capabilities of our audio systems how does the recording engineer enter into it?

The recording engineers puts something into the recording that our audio system has to extract. If it happens to be very subtle phase detail, the system has to be able to resolve that detail in order for a listener to hear its effect.
Rons question was; why would we want to listen to sounds that are behind us? All I was saying is that since it was the recording engineer who put it there, you’d need to ask him or her why. All we’re doing is accurately replaying what’s on the recording

 

[Atmasphere]

This is just me personally... detail is that which tells you about the nature of an instrument, sound or quality of the sound. Resolution is the gestalt of detail.

Getting distortion down is important- it obscures detail and resolution, causing the reproduction to be less focused.

 

[Carlos269]

This is just me personally... detail is that which tells you about the nature of an instrument, sound or quality of the sound. Resolution is the gestalt of detail.

Getting distortion down is important- it obscures detail and resolution, causing the reproduction to be less focused.

At face value, you think that lowering the noise floor and distortion uncovers obscured details and resolution, but experience and AES Technical papers have shown that added noise can also increase perception of fine details and increase resolution; this is analogous to the addition of salt to food to extract deeper flavors. The human sensory system is very complex and highly resolving.

In my recent exploration and comparison of OTL versus SET DHT amplifiers I was able to experience the lower distortion, greater bandwidth, and snappy bass of the OTL topology and at the same time the more 3D, euphonic and organic sound of the more distorted SET DHT amplification topology.

Don’t discount distortion as it has a lot to do with audiophiles’ passion and preference for turntable-playback, magnetic tape playback and tube amplification.

Ralph, I think that you and I have had this same conversation on several instances so I will leave it at that.

 

[Atmasphere]

At face value, you think that lowering the noise floor and distortion uncovers obscured details and resolution, but experience and AES Technical papers have shown that added noise can also increase perception of fine details and increase resolution; this is analogous to the addition of salt to food to extract deeper flavors. The human sensory system is very complex and highly resolving.

In my recent exploration and comparison of OTL versus SET DHT amplifiers I was able to experience the lower distortion, greater bandwidth, and snappy bass of the OTL topology and at the same time the more 3D, euphonic and organic sound of the more distorted SET DHT amplification topology.

Don’t discount distortion as it has a lot to do with audiophiles’ passion and preference for turntable-playback, magnetic tape playback and tube amplification.

Ralph, I think that you and I have had this same discussion on several instances so I will leave it at that.

Yes, some 2nd and 3rd harmonic seems to bring out sound stage information, at least IME. Distortion is a thing you can't get rid of, so IMO, IME if you are going to have it, it should be the right kind of distortion so that its innocuous and otherwise musical.

 

[Solypsa]

. It all depends on who’s doing the work.

ah ha the human element again. Just like those early Mercury recordings which had so many compromises....

 

[Tim Link]

A couple of points here:

'Bit' is computer terminology (or digital terminology if you prefer) - a bit is a binary digit, the smallest or most basic unit of information that digital technology works with - and there are only two of them: 0 or 1. If you can write machine code or assembler, you can work with bits. (I did this for a while, way back.)

Let's sllightly modify @Tim Link 's notion that "high resolution audio" refers to high bit rate and high bit depth to remove the relative assessment of 'high', then we have bit rate and bit depth. Bit rate (or bitrate) is the number of bits transmitted across some measure of time. EG. Kbps is kilobits per second. Bit depth comes from the conversion of analog information to digital, the number of values captured or available in some period of time - parsing analog information into pieces (samples) where each sample gets a value that represents the amplitude of the sample such that bit depth defines the dynamic range of (what is now) digitized analog. (Correct or refine this as you please.)

The claim that resolution is objective (because there are measurable or countable bit rates and depths) requires digitization - taking samples. The word 'resolution' is only useable in the context of sampling. Analog is infinite in resolution, and we can only say that upon presumption of the concept of sampling it, of grinding it into the smallest unit of information for a system designed to work with zeroes and ones. Can I say resolution is a function of a process applied to the world - the making of information, putting the world into a form not of it.

Now, we come to @PeterA 's question: "Do you agree with him [Ron] that “resolution” when referring to audio replay is an objective quality?"

The slippery part here is limiting objectivity to obtain only under conditions of audio replay.

Sound is sound independent of its source. The sound made by a digital audio system and a toaster share fundamental characteristics across our description of them: mechanical vibrations transmitted through a medium at 331 meters per second, or the sensation produced by vibrating small hairs in our ears.

Why should one limit the notion of resolution - the very existence of this supposedly objective quality - to audio replay (or images) ? Why? Because the objective existence of resolution is concocted - it comes into existence through the application of a process (analog to digital conversion) and discussion of it presumes that process.

What is the resolution (the "objective property") of the primary instrument played live in a performance of Aaron Copland's 'Clarinet Concerto'?

When musicians talk about sound they don't talk about 'resolution'. The original meaning of 'resolution' comes from the Latin term 'solvere' - to loosen, break into parts, the process of reduing things into simpler forms. (cf. here)

Resolution as an objective property or attribute only exists for digital audio or digital imaging. The word can be taken from that domain and applied backword to the analog world, but qua objective attribute it does not exist in the analog world (the real world?).

I should have said sample rate and bit depth. I agree the true resolution of a playback system would be measured in its actual sound output, not in its recording format.

 

[KostasP.]

This is simply not true. In the electrical domain we have the mV (milli-Volt) as a unit of measure for resolution and in the acoustical domain we have the dB (Decibel) as a unit of measurement for resolution. The ear can hear differences in 0.2 to 0.3 dB.

There is so much misinformation in these audio forums, that I’m in disbelief.

Carlos,

Obfuscation and conflation can be powerful tools! Am I also a culprit of misinformation? Cheers.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos,

Obfuscation and conflation can be powerful tools! Am I also a culprit of misinformation? Cheers.

I think not. Is this the one Kostas Metaxas?

 

[tima]

In the electrical domain we have the mV (milli-Volt) as a unit of measure for resolution and in the acoustical domain we have the dB (Decibel) as a unit of measurement for resolution.

Try saying the above in a different way. The locution "unit of measure for resolution" is confusing.

Resolution exists as an objective property and the proof of this is a voltmeter? Is that what you're saying? I thought voltmeters measured electricity; a millivolt is 0.001 volt. That you can measure millivolts, or some electricity has a millivolt measurement ... describes resolution? ... is resolution?

Having a unit of measurement for X assures us it is an objective property? Is that your claim?

 

[tima]

Two examples of objective resolution in the analog visual world: our eyes ability to focus and resolve detail. And a camera len’s ability to do the same depending on the quality of the lens resolution.

Because our eyes or a camera can focus, there is something called objective resolution?

In the eye and camera example Isn't 'resolution' an attempt at a description of the relative difference between say state A and state B - or of what happens when moving between them? Could we say that is a process (focusing) and not a thing? Or a description we create about the change in state? Only when an event is broken into pieces does it acquire the property of resolution.

 

[Blackmorec]

At face value, you think that lowering the noise floor and distortion uncovers obscured details and resolution, but experience and AES Technical papers have shown that added noise can also increase perception of fine details and increase resolution; this is analogous to the addition of salt to food to extract deeper flavors. The human sensory system is very complex and highly resolving.

In my recent exploration and comparison of OTL versus SET DHT amplifiers I was able to experience the lower distortion, greater bandwidth, and snappy bass of the OTL topology and at the same time the more 3D, euphonic and organic sound of the more distorted SET DHT amplification topology.

Don’t discount distortion as it has a lot to do with audiophiles’ passion and preference for turntable-playback, magnetic tape playback and tube amplification.

Ralph, I think that you and I have had this same conversation on several instances so I will leave it at that.

Hi Carlos,
Adding noise to audio and salt to food are not actually analogous. Salt is pure Sodium Chloride and in food is a desirable ingredient with known effects. Noise on the other hand is by nature random and therefore impure, with unpredictable effects and is therefore an undesirable constituent in a signal intended to produce high fidelity sound.

If you want an analogy with noise, it would be adding a random mix of dirt to food.

 

[Carlos269]

Hi Carlos,
Adding noise to audio and salt to food are not actually analogous. Salt is pure Sodium Chloride and in food is a desirable ingredient with known effects. Noise on the other hand is by nature random and therefore impure, with unpredictable effects and is therefore an undesirable constituent in a signal intended to produce high fidelity sound.

If you want an analogy with noise, it would be adding a random mix of dirt to food.

You need to educate yourself. I’m was not talking about random noise. There are plenty of Audio Engeneering Society (AES) technical papers on this topic that you can read. In addition to the pleasing affects of tube and transformer harmonic distortions that Ralph mentioned in his post above, there is also an audio effect by adding a “measured” amount of high-frequency distortion has been proven to increase clarity, intelligibility and enhance timbre in sound.

This “measured“ amount of small non-linearities (distortion) yield marked psychoacoustic effects that clearly improve sound. This is not some esoteric theory or textbook analysis, this concept is employed and enjoyed every day by all of us in telecommunications and entertainment technologies. One example is through Apple Logic Pro. And this technology is used like “salt” in the studio environment on many of the recordings that we listen to and enjoy as it is found in audio editing softwares such as Pro Tools.

Let me know if you need to learn more.

 

[bonzo75]

One should not add wasabi to sushi, milk to coffee, and ketchup to omelette - unless the taste of the core dish sucks and you want to color it