Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: The importance of Resolution

  1. #21
    Member Sponsor [VIP/Donor]
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Marina del Rey, CA
    Posts
    2,909
    I think each listener has traits that are most important to him/her. "detail" isn't high up on my scale, but dynamics and tone are.

  2. #22
    VIP/Donor [WBF Founding Member] ack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,988
    Quote Originally Posted by the sound of Tao View Post
    He proposes that more accurate timing of transients is critical to timbral resolution and that this has been the fundamental issue for digital analogue conversion in regards to timbre.
    Thanks. I don't know what's involved in successfully increasing timbral resolution, but at the very least, it must preserve harmonics, inharmonics and overtones of each instrument, unadulterated, while keeping all instruments sufficiently distinct.
    Analog: VPI Aries 3, custom isolation/Magnetically stabilized JMW 10.5i/Ortofon A90/Modded & shielded Pass XP-25 Digital: Spectral 3000SL/Heavily modded Alpha DAC Amplification: Spectral DMC-30SV/DMA-500AR Speakers: Heavily modded MartinLogan (custom Mundorf xover, cabling, woofers; structural mods)/Modded REL Cabling: Shielded MIT Oracle 50ic,MA-X/Oracle 90.1 Power: MIT Z-Strips, Magnum Z-Traps; Shunyata Black Mamba CX HC cords, Typhon
    System link WBF

  3. #23
    Member Sponsor [VIP/Donor]
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Boston
    Posts
    3,750
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithR View Post
    I think each listener has traits that are most important to him/her. "detail" isn't high up on my scale, but dynamics and tone are.
    Yes, dynamics and tone come first for me too. Yet detail, especially timbral detail and separation of instruments, gives me more of the illusion of realism that I crave -- if tone and dynamics are there.

    I don't care about "resolution" in the absence of proper tone and dynamics.

  4. #24
    Member Sponsor [VIP/Donor]
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Boston
    Posts
    3,750
    Quote Originally Posted by MadFloyd View Post
    I think one of the pitfalls of resolution chasers is that they often forsake musicality for detail. For example a tonal balance that is tipped up will give the perception of detail/resolution but often lacks realistic weight (e.g. lack of body). In a real world situation you get both. Any situation where you only get half is not ultimately satisfying.
    + 1

  5. #25
    [Industry Expert] Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    159
    When writing the 'what does it sound like' portion of an equipment review I steadfastly avoid use of the word "musical." Its most generous definition is that of a personal judgement about the degree to which a component or system's sound resembles live music. On its own it has low communcation value for describing what you hear to someone else and inevitably more words are necessary to explain what it means. The word is heavly overused in general discussion. When someone uses it I generally take it to mean: "I like it."

    Thus, any squabbling about the relative mutual exclusivity or mutual compatibility of "musical" and "resolution" is a path to nowhere.

    "Resolution" typically needs a definition, additional words that cash out what you're saying when you use it. Frequently it is used to discuss the amount of detail in reproduced sound. "On system A I could not tell that Marriner introduced an organ into the orchestration, but system B made it obvious. System B had greater resolution." "The system had such resolution I could hear that the percussionist was striking the triangle on its interior, each side in turn." When looking for "resolution" in his glossary, Holt tells us to see "definition" which tells us to see "focus." "I could tell that cartridge was highly resolving because performers positions did not shift about and their outlines and separation were crisp and obvious." If you want to talk about High Resolution, tell us what you mean.

    [Sidebar: Do you want to hear more detail from your stereo than you'd hear at a live event?]

    Imo, more effective communication happens when such examples are used. Describe what you hear. That's not to say a summing-up or generalized characterization should not be done, but such becomes much more intelligible with examples of what it means. Communicating about sound can be hard. Forum level discussions tend to be quick and passing with a lot of shorthand tossed about.

    What sonic characteristics are important to me? On a small level, I find myself prioritizing toward what a score tells a musician, and then some: Timing, Dynamics and Tonality; these are, if you will, the infrastructure for Pitch and Timbre and attributes such as Resolution. On a large level: Transparency or the minimzation any 'mechanicalness', hearing the equipment - I like gear that doesn't make me think about it; Context - a sense of musicians in a space making music - partly what "presence" conveys; lastly, what I'll call Emotional Engagement - I want to be able to lose myself in the sound of a system that allows me to slip out of it and into the reality of the performance.
    See my Mahler thread here.

  6. #26
    Member Sponsor [VIP/Donor]
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Greater Boston
    Posts
    3,750
    Quote Originally Posted by tima View Post
    When writing the 'what does it sound like' portion of an equipment review I steadfastly avoid use of the word "musical." Its most generous definition is that of a personal judgement about the degree to which a component or system's sound resembles live music. On its own it has low communcation value for describing what you hear to someone else and inevitably more words are necessary to explain what it means. The word is heavly overused in general discussion. When someone uses it I generally take it to mean: "I like it."

    Thus, any squabbling about the relative mutual exclusivity or mutual compatibility of "musical" and "resolution" is a path to nowhere.

    "Resolution" typically needs a definition, additional words that cash out what you're saying when you use it. Frequently it is used to discuss the amount of detail in reproduced sound. "On system A I could not tell that Marriner introduced an organ into the orchestration, but system B made it obvious. System B had greater resolution." "The system had such resolution I could hear that the percussionist was striking the triangle on its interior, each side in turn." When looking for "resolution" in his glossary, Holt tells us to see "definition" which tells us to see "focus." "I could tell that cartridge was highly resolving because performers positions did not shift about and their outlines and separation were crisp and obvious." If you want to talk about High Resolution, tell us what you mean.

    [Sidebar: Do you want to hear more detail from your stereo than you'd hear at a live event?]

    Imo, more effective communication happens when such examples are used. Describe what you hear. That's not to say a summing-up or generalized characterization should not be done, but such becomes much more intelligible with examples of what it means. Communicating about sound can be hard. Forum level discussions tend to be quick and passing with a lot of shorthand tossed about.

    What sonic characteristics are important to me? On a small level, I find myself prioritizing toward what a score tells a musician, and then some: Timing, Dynamics and Tonality; these are, if you will, the infrastructure for Pitch and Timbre and attributes such as Resolution. On a large level: Transparency or the minimzation any 'mechanicalness', hearing the equipment - I like gear that doesn't make me think about it; Context - a sense of musicians in a space making music - partly what "presence" conveys; lastly, what I'll call Emotional Engagement - I want to be able to lose myself in the sound of a system that allows me to slip out of it and into the reality of the performance.
    Well said, Tim, and I very much agree with you. In my recent

    Review: Reference 3A Reflector monitors

    I do not once say that the speakers sound "musical". I checked, and the term "musical" occurs in the following contexts:

    musical material
    musical presentation
    musical pulse
    musical energy
    musical intelligibility
    musical strands

    In all these, "musical" could be replaced by "of the music", e.g., musical presentation means: presentation of the music, and so on.

    Under "Purity of tone and timbral resolution" and under "Separation of instruments" I give concrete examples of what I consider resolution.

    I mention all those extensively: Timing, Dynamics and Tonality, and have a dedicated chapter on "Rhythm and timing".

    Quote Originally Posted by tima View Post
    Communicating about sound can be hard. Forum level discussions tend to be quick and passing with a lot of shorthand tossed about.
    Yes, it drives me nuts when someone says component X sounds "better" than component Y. What the hell is meant by "better"? If the poster doesn't specify, his assertions become utterly meaningless. A waste of both the poster's and my time.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. The importance of playback equalizations
    By Fred Thal in forum Reel To Reel Tape Deck and Content Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-21-2017, 07:43 PM
  2. The Incredible Importance of Fine tuning (to me)
    By LL21 in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 04:59 AM
  3. The importance of VTA, SRA and Azimuth - pics
    By ack in forum Calibration Devices
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 06-11-2015, 08:14 AM
  4. Importance of Audio Measurment Revisited
    By MylesBAstor in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-15-2010, 10:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •