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?