What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?

[Ron Resnick]

We audiophiles talk endlessly about various sonic attributes we believe we discern from stereo systems. One of these attributes is "resolution."

The 6th definition of "resolution" in the American Heritage Dictionary provides:
6. The clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, often measured as the number or the density of the discrete units, such as pixels or dots, that compose it.

Does this definition work if we modify it to provide: the clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in reproduced sound?

What, exactly, do "we" mean by "resolution" in the audio context?

What is your definition of "resolution" in this audio context? What, precisely, do you mean by "resolution"?

How do we know that one component or one audio system is more "resolving" than another component or than another audio system?

How do we decide where on the spectrum of less resolving --> to --> more resolving a particular component or a particular audio system sits?

 

[rando]

I feel your visual "Dictionary" example is lacking outside of reference to digital file properties. That said, a piece of equipment could lack a feature which needs to be resolved by the manufacturer. A piece of equipment could also reflect light such that it resolved itself visually much less clearly than highly polished audio jewelry.

Musically it refers to a sense of completion. As in a composition that does not stand to prosper from any further improvement. Similar to law it is a set of ideas that exists with great room for interpretation without losing meaning or substance to that which it is meant to impose a condition upon.

Resolution, per my own thoughts, is decided by conflicting ideas of how it should be capable of performing. Incorrectly quoting how Peter A once described his current system, wielding the feather and the whip in one stroke. In practice the meaning is closer to the admixture of a term depicting physical sight in use to describe another one of the senses incapable of vision. It is palpable.

Full circle, the middle (core meaning) has no relation to the outer edges (determining what it encompasses) in attempts at perceiving it accurately. Firm grasp of one aspect is invalidated by numerous others. Including instinctual responses allowing one to zero in on where resolution is firmly not accomplished.

 

[bonzo75]

Another thread here


Thread 'The importance of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-importance-of-resolution.26082/

 

[Ron Resnick]

Another thread here


Thread 'The importance of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-importance-of-resolution.26082/

Thank you for pointing that out.

That thread seems to have gone off of the resolution-specific track early on, though.

But I like in Post #8 Lloyd's comment repeated by Barry: One of the best criteria I have found for judging resolution is the one I picked up from Lloyd (LL21) which is can you hear the words more clearly on vocals and choral music.

Maybe hearing words more clearly or less clearly on vocals and choral music would give us a compass for placing components and systems on the spectrum of less resolving to more resolving.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I think resolution means as close as possible to the original recording When playing it back.

 

[PeterA]

Ron, to me resolution means information. Greater resolution means greater amounts of information. Natural resolution means information presented naturally. The more natural resolution that a system can present, the more listening to the system reminds us of listening to real music.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, to me resolution means information. Greater resolution means greater amounts of information. Natural resolution means information presented naturally. The more natural resolution that a system can present, the more listening to the system reminds us of listening to real music.

Connecting resolution to information makes sense to me. How, in your view, is resolution different from "detail"?

Do you think that greater intelligibility of vocals and choral music equals greater resolution?

 

[PeterA]

Connecting resolution to information makes sense to me. How, in your view, is resolution different from "detail"?

Do you think that greater intelligibility of vocals and choral music equals greater resolution?

Resolution is more comprehensive than detail. And example of detail is hearing the brush work clearly on a drum kit, or that they handle of The brush is also being faintly tapped on the edge of the drum, but resolution tells you that plus size and scale and spatial relationship of that drum kit on the stage, plus the character of the space in which the drummer is playing.

Yes, the more clearly you can hear the voices in a choral performance, the greater the resolution. But clearly hearing the words is not sufficient for a higher resolution. In a highly resolving system you will hear much more than just the words being sung clearly. In other words, clear vocals are necessary but not sufficient.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

The more you can hear on a recording the higher the resolution is.

 

[PeterA]

The more you can hear on a recording the higher the resolution is.

I don’t think quantity is enough. The quality of the information is also really important. For instance simply having more slam and extension in the base frequencies does not necessarily mean higher resolution. The bass has to sound natural and real and not enhanced or artificial.

 

[PeterA]

Another thread here


Thread 'The importance of https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-importance-of-resolution.26082/

One’s ideas about resolution has a lot to do with the references on which he bases those ideas. When I started that thread my reference was my old magical-based system. My ideas about resolution have evolved quite a bit since I visited David in Utah and got my new system. I think it’s also important to have regular exposure to live music which unfortunately has been quite difficult since the dawn of the pandemic.

I think one must ask himself if he thinks black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, and sharp image outlines are an indication of natural resolution or instead various sonic attributes of a HiFi sounding system. This is where live music is important.

 

[treitz3]

Hmmmm....

"Resolution".

To me this is equated to fishing. Hear me out....

As one fishes, they look across the lake and all they see is a body of water. This is the average stereo aficionado. All they see is a body of water and they are fine with that. The body of water is the epitome of excellence to them. It is all they desire and want in a system. For many? This is bliss and there is NOTHING wrong with that whatsoever. In some aspects? I am jealous. Many of us would be.

As one gets into fishing, they get this thing called "polarized" glasses.

Oh, WOW!. This opens up a whole other world, as one can see more than they thought possible. Even beyond their wildest dreams! So cool. So, they go on with fishing and all is well in the world...

Now, they get a better pair of polarized glasses and it lets them see better. Not much better but better, nonetheless. They are amazed. They talk about the differences online and share this discovery with their friends. It's amazing to them. Although it may just be a little bit of difference? To them? Oh, it means the world because their own personal audio journey is rocked in ways that they can't fathom.

Now, imagine this....

A lake with crystal clear water. No distortion, seemingly a mile before you see any distortion of the truth. You want a crystal clear vision of it, right? Well, many systems color this to where we are all out of focus. Being out of focus leads us to paths that are not aligned with being in focus to what our realities are when it comes to reproduction of music. We wander. We sway away from our goals. It happens. It is what it is.

Getting back to the crystal clear lake a mile deep and the glasses you may or may not have worn looking at said lake....

Resolution is this:

You are looking at a lake. The lake is crystal clear for what seems like forever to one's eyes. BUT, It's hampered by 10 layers of glass. Each layer of glass has a haze that distorts the original view. Each layer (even if perfectly clean) distorts the perfectly good view. So, the listener (or in this case the viewer) looks at the view. It's amazing! He/she can see beyond what they ever thought before! Every view is exquisite!

But what they don't know is that they are being blocked by panes of glass.

Keep in mind, there are 10 panes of glass. At this point, let's say that they have already put on the polarized glasses, shall we? So, we remove one pane of glass. Distortion is improved and clarity is better. Again, the listener is amazed. They talk about the differences online and share this discovery with their friends. It's amazing to them. Although it may just be a little bit of difference? To them? Oh, it means the world because their own personal audio journey is rocked in ways that they can't fathom.

Now, let's say that we remove the 2nd pane of glass, shall we? Okay, so now the listener (viewer) can get a little more focus/clarity on the fish below the surface. He/she may be able to point out the shape and overall shape of said fish from a distance. This cool, right? Clarity.

Now, let's take out the third pane of glass. At this point, you may be able to tell from 50' away what type of fish it is. You might be able to tell the colors if you are lucky and the waters are calm.....now let's go ahead and take out 3 more panes of glass.

Holy Moly! One can see down 150' with no issues whatsoever and it's getting scary because of the depth perception. It's deep but it goes deeper. This is what you can see but what you can hear is completely different as well. Layers of audio. Perception. Sound stage. Air. Realism, the list goes on and on...

......................................

Very long story short? When you get down to the last 5% of your system. When one gets down to squeezing his/her eyes to see/hear their system at the fullest? Transparency is when all of the panes of glass are gone and one can start tweaking their system to their own liking at that point. However they want, whenever they want because all of the panes of glass are GONE.

This, to me, is transparency. YMMV.

Tom

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't know. I think I have trouble linking naturalness to resolution. I think I see resolution more as an objective attribute than as a subjective attribute like naturalness.

If we agree, at least, that greater vocal intelligibility is greater resolution, then, at least for that necessary if not sufficient element, resolution is more like a vision test: the clearer, the better.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hmmmm....

"Resolution".

To me this is equated to fishing. Hear me out....

As one fishes, they look across the lake and all they see is a body of water. This is the average stereo aficionado. All they see is a body of water and they are fine with that. The body of water is the epitome of excellence to them. It is all they desire and want in a system. For many? This is bliss and there is NOTHING wrong with that whatsoever. In some aspects? I am jealous. Many of us would be.

As one gets into fishing, they get this thing called "polarized" glasses.

Oh, WOW!. This opens up a whole other world, as one can see more than they thought possible. Even beyond their wildest dreams! So cool. So, they go on with fishing and all is well in the world...

Now, they get a better pair of polarized glasses and it lets them see better. Not much better but better, nonetheless. They are amazed. They talk about the differences online and share this discovery with their friends. It's amazing to them. Although it may just be a little bit of difference? To them? Oh, it means the world because their own personal audio journey is rocked in ways that they can't fathom.

Now, imagine this....

A lake with crystal clear water. No distortion, seemingly a mile before you see any distortion of the truth. You want a crystal clear vision of it, right? Well, many systems color this to where we are all out of focus. Being out of focus leads us to paths that are not aligned with being in focus to what our realities are when it comes to reproduction of music. We wander. We sway away from our goals. It happens. It is what it is.

Getting back to the crystal clear lake a mile deep and the glasses you may or may not have worn looking at said lake....

Resolution is this:

You are looking at a lake. The lake is crystal clear for what seems like forever to one's eyes. BUT, It's hampered by 10 layers of glass. Each layer of glass has a haze that distorts the original view. Each layer (even if perfectly clean) distorts the perfectly good view. So, the listener (or in this case the viewer) looks at the view. It's amazing! He/she can see beyond what they ever thought before! Every view is exquisite!

But what they don't know is that they are being blocked by panes of glass.

Keep in mind, there are 10 panes of glass. At this point, let's say that they have already put on the polarized glasses, shall we? So, we remove one pane of glass. Distortion is improved and clarity is better. Again, the listener is amazed. They talk about the differences online and share this discovery with their friends. It's amazing to them. Although it may just be a little bit of difference? To them? Oh, it means the world because their own personal audio journey is rocked in ways that they can't fathom.

(You will read that again and again throughout this post)

Now, let's say that we remove the 2nd pane of glass, shall we? Okay, so now the listener (viewer) can get a little more focus/clarity on the fish below the surface. He/she may be able to point out the shape and overall shape of said fish from a distance. This cool, right? Clarity.

Now, let's take out the third pane of glass. At this point, you may be able to tell from 50' away what type of fish it is. You might be able to tell the colors if you are lucky and the waters are calm.....now let's go ahead and take out 3 more panes of glass.

Holy Moly! One can see down 150' with no issues whatsoever and it's getting scary because of the depth perception. It's deep but it goes deeper. This is what you can see but what you can hear is completely different as well. Layers of audio. Perception. Sound stage. Air. Realism, the list goes on and on...

......................................

Very long story short? When you get down to the last 5% of your system. When one gets down to squeezing his/her eyes to see/hear their system at the fullest? Transparency is when all of the panes of glass are gone and one can start tweaking their system to their own liking at that point. However they want, whenever they want because all of the panes of glass are GONE.

This, to me, is transparency. YMMV.

Tom

Very interesting example, Tom!

What, Tom, is the relationship between transparency and resolution? Or are they, for you, synonyms?

 

[PeterA]

I don't know. I think I have trouble linking naturalness to resolution. I think I see resolution more as an objective attribute than as a subjective attribute like naturalness.

If we agree, at least, that greater vocal intelligibility is greater resolution, then, at least for that necessary if not sufficient element, resolution is more like a vision test: the clearer, the better.

Not necessarily. Imagine the singers up on stage having very clean voices against a very black background with no hall ambiance or spatial information. I would say that is low resolution if the system has stripped that information out of the presentation or simple can’t present the information on the recording.

in the case of the choral group, high resolution is not just clear vocals. It is also about everything else I like having those singers perform in a real space on a real stage and everything that that entails.

 

[treitz3]

What, Tom, is the relationship between transparency and resolution? Or are they, for you, synonyms?

Now that's a good question sir. The differentiation between those two could be debatable for decades to come.

Me thinks the two are intertwined. Together. One in and of itself, not separated but must.......MUST be combined together in a way that is cohesive, resolute, smooth, natural and with no differential between lower and upper volumes or changes within one's system to accommodate.

Tom

 

[Carlos269]

Resolution = fine sound granularity = delineation. For example hearing the sound of individual strings or the individual strands of a brush striking the snare drum’s head. Resolution is typically a result of speed. The sound of the lips‘ movement accompanying voices. Articulation and delineation of the aural presentation.

 

[treitz3]

Not necessarily. Imagine the singers up on stage having very clean voices against a very black background with no hall ambiance or spatial information. I would say that is low resolution if the system has stripped that information out of the presentation or simple can’t present the information on the recording.

in the case of the choral group, high resolution is not just clear vocals. It is also about everything else I like having those singers perform in a real space on a real stage and everything that that entails.

Wouldn't that be spatial locationality cues, sound stage and imaging and not so much resolution?

Tom

 

[rando]

May have attended a few vocal/choral performances. Enough to state there is a lot of accompanying noises you don't want bringing down the resolution inside of a recording.

For example, fabrics rubbing together can be just as audible as the "Natural" inability to stand completely stock still without shifting weight or your feet. Even the whoosh of air within clothing while gesticulating can be part of a live performance. None of which intrudes to the amount of at least one set of voluminous lungs refilling accompanied by all of the gurgling non-musical noises opening this deep of a chasm in the throat can broadcast. Realistically there are very strict limits to how natural one wants to get.

Resolution in this case is capturing an unnaturally prescient viewpoint detailing the highly desirable qualities found at multiple complementary distances without incurring many ills. Which was all great way back when studio magic equated to top level engineering for an audience widely learned in the arts demanding exceptional handling of all that comprised the performance. Sound so good you feel like you are transported there. I'll reuse the word palpable at risk of reliving the dreaded cough and wheeze captured for all time with stunning accuracy.




In the modern sense resolution is plastic surgery in the studio. Every element present is heightened/lessened and replaced until the committee is happy. It pushes, it pulls, it leaves one believing live music is (sonically) a letdown. It pulls, it pushes, leaving you unsatisfied in ways you can't justify the impact of (creating a need to reexperience it). Everything becomes a singular event dependent on a singular interpretation of it to be shared or not among those unaware of the heights it personally attained.

No genre has proven resistant of the draw. It is a sense of constantly longing for more improvement. Directly in contrast with reality of an honest reproduction. Catch being the best examples of what I consider desirable "resolution" coil back upon themselves by managing to portray everything I just declared wrong. That is artistry as inserted by the performer given careful reconstruction as opposed to ability lying more heavily in the ability to construct anything from any performance in any amount of resolution desired. Pulp.

 

[tima]

That thread seems to have gone off of the resolution-specific track early on, though.

Ah yes, the famous triangle thread - and other slightly off-topic topics. Structurally it might be considered the archetype of an audiophile forum thread. But there were a few posts that addressed the topic directly and were interesting.

Does this definition work if we modify it to provide: the clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in reproduced sound? ....... I think I see resolution more as an objective attribute than as a subjective attribute like naturalness.

Truly no harshness meant Ron, but I think this is terribly wrong-headed. If it is an objective attribute then it must exist apart from any one person's awareness of it. I almost think you want to measure it - a scale of resolution - a number of pixels of sonic resoltution - perhaps it is a digital attribute as digital cameras have in resolution. Preamps with little screens on them displaying '1280 sonic units per millisecond' - the higher the number the greater the resolution.

Okay, let's try a different tack - although 'resolution' can be used on its own it is usually characterized as the 'resolution of' something or in relation to something. And yet, to say "We heard a high resolution system in the Pikachu room" is pretty vacuous as far as communicating goes precisely because 'resolution' is not an objective attribute.

Can we talk about 'the resolution of dynamics'? The relative gradient of steps between f and ff and fff? Maybe. Can we talk about the "resolution of tone"? Sometimes I'll write about 'tonal depth' - a degree of richness of harmonics with a fundamental - frequencies that are multiples of the fundamental. (Cf. chart). Can we talk about the "resolution of time" ? Maybe ... I've used this example before: consider the piccolo solo in Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony - 21 notes in 3 seconds - that's 21 sequentially different finger positions. There are systems where one can, on the same recording, hear each note clear and distinct and some systems where the notes blur together. Or consider the tail or dying out of a note - on some systems the fundamental and harmonics of a note get quieter but last longer than on other systems.

What, exactly, do "we" mean by "resolution" in the audio context?

Granted we hear people talk about resolution. But maybe that's not a 'good' question - or just because we can formulate the question doesn't mean there is a good answer. You tell me.

For now - I'm kinda still working this out - I suspect trying to define 'resolution' for an audio context may get us as many answers as answerers. I'm thinking maybe describing what we find resolved, perhaps with an example, will give us "more information" than generally claiming more or less resolution. Perhaps 'resolution' is an attempt at a shorthand that doesn't really work that well in terms of 'communicating more information'.