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.
The importance of Resolution
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
What an excellent thread with so many first class contributions.
Should be required reading for all members.
I have certainly learn't from it and will not use the description "musical" in future without additional amplification and description.
Coincidentally I have also learnt very recently how distortion can lead people into thinking the sound is more real and therefore better but equally there is the other problem of kit that has majored so much on the reproduction of detail that the sound becomes artificial and unreal which not surprisingly leads people to describe it as lacking musicality.
Should be required reading for all members.
I have certainly learn't from it and will not use the description "musical" in future without additional amplification and description.
Coincidentally I have also learnt very recently how distortion can lead people into thinking the sound is more real and therefore better but equally there is the other problem of kit that has majored so much on the reproduction of detail that the sound becomes artificial and unreal which not surprisingly leads people to describe it as lacking musicality.
I listen to FM radio in my car... 
Resolution is one of the key things I aim to achieve in my system. There are several reasons...
1. Soundstage... better resolution means more spatial cues will be present and improve the "You Are There" aspect, resulting in an enveloping 3-D soundstage. Without sufficient resolution the system tends more towards "They Are Here" with the listening room acoustics being more audible.
2. Timbre... realistic timbre and resolution are inseparable in a hifi system. The definition of timbre is variation in the basic frequency that make a sound different from a pure sine wave. So, we need a resolving system to capture the correct timbre, and this is why listening to sounds with the most complex timbre is the best test for a system... Vocals and string instruments have the most complex timbre and are the most popular things to listen to when evaluating a system.
3. Fine details in the music are discernible. More subtle things like the breathing of a vocalist and their relationship to the mic, valves on brass and woodwinds opening and closing, etc... the small details come into focus with good resolution.
I don't think resolution is ever a bad thing, but it can reveal problems with the system and recordings. People often want some warmth added to smooth out the problems, which decreases resolution. So the appropriate amount of resolution for a system does depend on how far the owner is willing to go to reduce the system's shortcomings along with their own personal preferences. The main things often overlooked are interconnect cables and AC power quality/AC power cables. Also, crossover components, chassis connectors and chassis wiring are very seldom high quality from the manufacturer even in high-$ components, and this causes problems. Some passive components are also problematic... certain resistors, caps and inductors can sound very colored when used in a hifi system.
Most systems, even cost-no-object systems, are lacking in resolution or have other issues that prevent them from sounding realistic. This makes sense as resolution in an audio system isn't as clear-cut as something like frequency response. We don't have a good test or measurement for it. Often harshness, grain or accentuated leading edges are confused for resolution, which causes fatigue, and leads to the person being anti-resolution when they should really be anti-distortion and anti-noise. Again, we don't have tests or measurements for grain, harshness, etc... and these phenomenon aren't even well defined or accepted as real by many people. So there is a lot of confusion on the subject, which is really unfortunate.
Resolution is one of the key things I aim to achieve in my system. There are several reasons...
1. Soundstage... better resolution means more spatial cues will be present and improve the "You Are There" aspect, resulting in an enveloping 3-D soundstage. Without sufficient resolution the system tends more towards "They Are Here" with the listening room acoustics being more audible.
2. Timbre... realistic timbre and resolution are inseparable in a hifi system. The definition of timbre is variation in the basic frequency that make a sound different from a pure sine wave. So, we need a resolving system to capture the correct timbre, and this is why listening to sounds with the most complex timbre is the best test for a system... Vocals and string instruments have the most complex timbre and are the most popular things to listen to when evaluating a system.
3. Fine details in the music are discernible. More subtle things like the breathing of a vocalist and their relationship to the mic, valves on brass and woodwinds opening and closing, etc... the small details come into focus with good resolution.
I don't think resolution is ever a bad thing, but it can reveal problems with the system and recordings. People often want some warmth added to smooth out the problems, which decreases resolution. So the appropriate amount of resolution for a system does depend on how far the owner is willing to go to reduce the system's shortcomings along with their own personal preferences. The main things often overlooked are interconnect cables and AC power quality/AC power cables. Also, crossover components, chassis connectors and chassis wiring are very seldom high quality from the manufacturer even in high-$ components, and this causes problems. Some passive components are also problematic... certain resistors, caps and inductors can sound very colored when used in a hifi system.
Most systems, even cost-no-object systems, are lacking in resolution or have other issues that prevent them from sounding realistic. This makes sense as resolution in an audio system isn't as clear-cut as something like frequency response. We don't have a good test or measurement for it. Often harshness, grain or accentuated leading edges are confused for resolution, which causes fatigue, and leads to the person being anti-resolution when they should really be anti-distortion and anti-noise. Again, we don't have tests or measurements for grain, harshness, etc... and these phenomenon aren't even well defined or accepted as real by many people. So there is a lot of confusion on the subject, which is really unfortunate.
The sound becoming artificial and unreal is, ime, a result of noise, artifacts and distortion present in combination with a system that doesn't smooth out or hide these issues. If you get rid of the problems and keep the resolution, this is the ideal solution and will result in the best possible outcome. Reducing resolution by adding warmth and smoothing out the sound will forever limit the system to a reduced level of fidelity, but it is the easy way to deal with problems.
Just because we can apportion meaning to a concept does not mean we can articulate that meaning directly via other concepts.
Take ‘love’, as an example. We might perhaps all agree it possesses meaning, yet to describe what love is is both beyond science and reason.
Often, it is best understood not directly - by looking at the thing-in-itself (which is impossible; dissection destroys the thing because its individual parts lack the meaning of the whole) - but indirectly via another lense; like, art. In fact, if we were to consider the greatest most historically-valued examples of literature, or poetry, or music, or sculpture, or painting or dance, many of them would be thematically defined by that singular notion.
However, metaphorical expression must be perceived by the perceiver. And perception will therefore introduce subjectivised preference. We may therefore disagree about which works of art best express the notion of love. It is Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, or, Magritte’s The Lovers, or Robert Indiana’s LOVE? We might say it is all of those things, or none of them. We might further say that all works of art fail to define love as a notion - it simply cannot be encapsulated by externalised material actions.
Therefore, we are often forced to consider what love is by its negation. We do better by discussing what love is not.
I would argue the term ‘musical’ is similar in this regard. At any given hi-fi show I could point out systems I perceive are not musical. And I could tell you why they are not. It is much more difficult for me to point to a system I perceive to be musical and tell you why it is.
Best,
853guy
Take ‘love’, as an example. We might perhaps all agree it possesses meaning, yet to describe what love is is both beyond science and reason.
Often, it is best understood not directly - by looking at the thing-in-itself (which is impossible; dissection destroys the thing because its individual parts lack the meaning of the whole) - but indirectly via another lense; like, art. In fact, if we were to consider the greatest most historically-valued examples of literature, or poetry, or music, or sculpture, or painting or dance, many of them would be thematically defined by that singular notion.
However, metaphorical expression must be perceived by the perceiver. And perception will therefore introduce subjectivised preference. We may therefore disagree about which works of art best express the notion of love. It is Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, or, Magritte’s The Lovers, or Robert Indiana’s LOVE? We might say it is all of those things, or none of them. We might further say that all works of art fail to define love as a notion - it simply cannot be encapsulated by externalised material actions.
Therefore, we are often forced to consider what love is by its negation. We do better by discussing what love is not.
I would argue the term ‘musical’ is similar in this regard. At any given hi-fi show I could point out systems I perceive are not musical. And I could tell you why they are not. It is much more difficult for me to point to a system I perceive to be musical and tell you why it is.
Best,
853guy
I pretty much agree with what most of Tima wrote.
Also, for me, musicality is an overall feeling, I should feel/react like I do listening to a good concert. Resolution for me is more detail and separation of instruments, less muddiness, and more clarity. It is just another attribute that along with other attributes makes a whole that leads to musicality.
That aside, I think the subject of the thread is leading. For me, discussing the importance of resolution, or of bass, of midrange, is like discussing any other attribute that is part of a whole. All these attributes have to be in balance, too much lack on one attribute will cause us to miss it, but we will not select a component or a system just because one attribute is there in spades. Also, the ranking of attributes for me changes based on the system – some systems sound better when they focus on their strengths – and these strengths could differ. And yes, I am talking about the real world, where you can’t have it all and have to compromise. Not a world where you will have resolution and clarity and musicality, everything.
Examples – if I hear a good stat-based system, openness, transparency, midrange, coherence down to at least 250hz, great decay, overall musicality, are what makes the system sing. Now, if I choose to move from Stats to ribbon planars like Apogees, I am actually dropping some resolution. But I am gaining in bass, dynamics, body, with pure ribbons even more midrange, and very importantly, might. Orchestra has might. Power. Even on the softer movements. The big apogees are fantastic at might, to me unmatched for this attribute. Stats are delicate. But more resolution.
If we take horns, they might or might not have more resolution than planars. But they have more microdynamics, better flow and tone. The flow, the way the music flows out like a tap with the tone and inflections, is what brings them closest to live as compared to other gear. Would I take a horn that does this but lacks in bass? No. Would I take one that does bass but sounds honky and shrieky like many horns do? No. While looking at these things, resolution is not even a consideration, because both the bad and the good horns hit at least an acceptable level of resolution.
Now, the vintage horns have noticeably lower resolution, but I always find western electrics the best sounding room in Munich over all others. So there are other attributes here that I am giving weightage to. Yet, there are a couple of DIYs built inspired by the WEs, which I prefer to WEs mainly because they have more resolution top to down and better bass, without giving up on the natural tone and flow. So I am actually changing my emphasis on resolution on a case by case basis.
For achieving realism, wide, deep soundstage and backward layering matters much more in planar and cone based systems than in a horn based system
If I don’t consider speakers, yes, high resolution attributes of carts like Lyra always impress…but not if Lyra in that particular set up is not showing decay or natural tone. The Pacific has slightly more resolution than the GG. I prefer the GG. There are many high res products like Spectral, Lyra, etc that if not set up right do not have decay. They have clarity, they have separation, they have details.
There are other attributes like timing and energy too, but I find these more due to system match and not specifically a characteristic of stats, planars, horns, etc
Ps: reading backposts, my interpretation of resolution is different from what DaveC and ack have.
Also, for me, musicality is an overall feeling, I should feel/react like I do listening to a good concert. Resolution for me is more detail and separation of instruments, less muddiness, and more clarity. It is just another attribute that along with other attributes makes a whole that leads to musicality.
That aside, I think the subject of the thread is leading. For me, discussing the importance of resolution, or of bass, of midrange, is like discussing any other attribute that is part of a whole. All these attributes have to be in balance, too much lack on one attribute will cause us to miss it, but we will not select a component or a system just because one attribute is there in spades. Also, the ranking of attributes for me changes based on the system – some systems sound better when they focus on their strengths – and these strengths could differ. And yes, I am talking about the real world, where you can’t have it all and have to compromise. Not a world where you will have resolution and clarity and musicality, everything.
Examples – if I hear a good stat-based system, openness, transparency, midrange, coherence down to at least 250hz, great decay, overall musicality, are what makes the system sing. Now, if I choose to move from Stats to ribbon planars like Apogees, I am actually dropping some resolution. But I am gaining in bass, dynamics, body, with pure ribbons even more midrange, and very importantly, might. Orchestra has might. Power. Even on the softer movements. The big apogees are fantastic at might, to me unmatched for this attribute. Stats are delicate. But more resolution.
If we take horns, they might or might not have more resolution than planars. But they have more microdynamics, better flow and tone. The flow, the way the music flows out like a tap with the tone and inflections, is what brings them closest to live as compared to other gear. Would I take a horn that does this but lacks in bass? No. Would I take one that does bass but sounds honky and shrieky like many horns do? No. While looking at these things, resolution is not even a consideration, because both the bad and the good horns hit at least an acceptable level of resolution.
Now, the vintage horns have noticeably lower resolution, but I always find western electrics the best sounding room in Munich over all others. So there are other attributes here that I am giving weightage to. Yet, there are a couple of DIYs built inspired by the WEs, which I prefer to WEs mainly because they have more resolution top to down and better bass, without giving up on the natural tone and flow. So I am actually changing my emphasis on resolution on a case by case basis.
For achieving realism, wide, deep soundstage and backward layering matters much more in planar and cone based systems than in a horn based system
If I don’t consider speakers, yes, high resolution attributes of carts like Lyra always impress…but not if Lyra in that particular set up is not showing decay or natural tone. The Pacific has slightly more resolution than the GG. I prefer the GG. There are many high res products like Spectral, Lyra, etc that if not set up right do not have decay. They have clarity, they have separation, they have details.
There are other attributes like timing and energy too, but I find these more due to system match and not specifically a characteristic of stats, planars, horns, etc
Ps: reading backposts, my interpretation of resolution is different from what DaveC and ack have.
IMHO in order to debate resolution we must go back to the optical definition - the capability of distinguishing and finding details. These details are in the recording - but many of them will not help to create the illusion needed for higher enjoyment, and we need a selective system that enhances the good details and hides the bad details. This is an extremely subjective affair, particularly because normal listening of music is most of the time a single event - unless you spend your time listening to the same recordings daily. We should perceive the details naturally at first pass, so that the performance impresses and catches us, even if we do not know explicitly why.
A good friend who listens a lot on headphones evaluates resolution looking for details he can easily spot on the headphones when listening to the stereo system. He found that my secondary system using the Devialet/ B&W Silver Signatures has higher resolution than anything else in my main system. For example, I have found that Quad ESL63 have significantly higher resolution than Soundlab's at equivalent sound levels.
My favorite test for detail resolution is the old Paniagua recording "La Folia" (Harmonia Mundi) . Listen to the fly's and the water stream - in a very high resolution system you should be able to find how it was artificially created for the recording!
Unfortunately these demos tests show little correlation with our subjective perception of resolution during normal listening - we can't forget we are an intelligent measuring tool with high processing capability during listening and, sorry too say, the more we go to live concerts the more specialized becomes our bias and larger become our divergences.
A good friend who listens a lot on headphones evaluates resolution looking for details he can easily spot on the headphones when listening to the stereo system. He found that my secondary system using the Devialet/ B&W Silver Signatures has higher resolution than anything else in my main system. For example, I have found that Quad ESL63 have significantly higher resolution than Soundlab's at equivalent sound levels.
My favorite test for detail resolution is the old Paniagua recording "La Folia" (Harmonia Mundi) . Listen to the fly's and the water stream - in a very high resolution system you should be able to find how it was artificially created for the recording!
Unfortunately these demos tests show little correlation with our subjective perception of resolution during normal listening - we can't forget we are an intelligent measuring tool with high processing capability during listening and, sorry too say, the more we go to live concerts the more specialized becomes our bias and larger become our divergences.
I see your point, 853guy. However, when you perceive something as musical, but cannot describe why it is so, this is more useful for your own internalization than to communicate anything.
If you then say, "oh I found this system sound very musical", without specifying, what does that even mean? How do I know if your "musical" is the same as my "musical"? Perhaps it is a warm, comfortable, syrupy sound (not saying it is, I just mention an example), whereas for me a system should be able to portray the bite of a trumpet for example, in order to satisfy my demands on "musicality".
Talking about musicality without specifying is like saying "x sounds better than y" without explaining why, what specifically is "better". It's an infuriating waste of everyone's time.
And once you specify why you find something sound so good, there is no point in adding that it sounds "musical". Your explanation had already provided the why, and adding on top that it's "musical" is adding a meaningless tautology.
Can someone be so kind to give me idea on sound difference in striking triangle on its interior vs exterior?
Kind regards,
Tang
Hello Al,
I don't disagree with you.
As a further attempt to clarify my thinking, I would posit music is pitch and amplitude over time. Each of those things is objectively measurable. 'Musicality' is the perception of pitch and amplitude over time, and as such, contextualised via subjectivised evaluation.
As you mention, we might say system/performer X is more or less musical relative to system/performer Y, but only ever relative to our perception of X and Y, and hence, a set of individualised preconceived subjective notions.
This, I would suggest, is our continual problem. When we discuss "what is love", or "what is musical", or "what is sublime", we are always using something else, something other - an artist, an artwork, an emotion, an ideal - as metaphorical or material examples. But I am no closer to defining the thing-in-itself, and hence, as you suggest, can only ever offer you an observation of lesser value.
For whatever it’s worth, I personally find all descriptions of a system’s qualitative value to be problematic. As I have written often, and will repeat again here, even in the cases in which the perceiver is able to articulate via specific ideas the 'why' and do so eloquently (or be paid to do so), it tells me much less about the ultimate qualitative values of the system in question than it does the fundamental preferences and biases of the one making the observations.
Be well, Al!
853guy
In the last few years, I've heard some fascinating systems, all with very high resolution, but often night and day when it comes to musicality and enjoyment.
I've heard Cessaro Liszts uber horns sound compelling (despite a highly flawed room) on DD tt and Class AB SS amps, and ironically pretty uninvolving on belt drive tt and Class A tubes, doubly ironic since the latter was in a vastly better room, seemingly more resolution and details, but just anodyne and bloodless.
I've heard Apogee Divas, restored by Rich, the main man in the US, in a room to die for, superb rig incl Kuzma tt, Kondo and Spectral, power setup and acoustics at the bleeding edge. Detail in abundance, I could literally tell how many feet the hi-hat was to the bass player. And a purely intellectual exercise in HiFi box ticking, all sizzle and no steak.
I then head Apogee Duettas in a much less optimised space, detail and resolution of an order less, w more colourstions, and yet these Apogees were fully engaging.
I've also heard an uber neutral system w no apparent signature, superficially similar to the failed Divas demo, but the end result was hypnotically engaging. Here the careful attention to component matching, room and power produced an invisible fingerprint, this allowing musicality unfettered.
And last, but absolutely not least, the single most musical component ever, the Denman Exponential Horn.
25' long, 6' x 5' horn mouth, in a brutal conference type space, it had no business sounding good, let alone cosmically awe inspiring.
We're talking detail at a quantum level, raindrops in a storm each of which had a personality, bullets in gunfire which could be picked out of the air, voice that sounded like from on high.
But nothing below 30Hz or above 6kHz. No Magico type uber resolution. Just a sound hard wired to one's pleasure centres.
I've heard Cessaro Liszts uber horns sound compelling (despite a highly flawed room) on DD tt and Class AB SS amps, and ironically pretty uninvolving on belt drive tt and Class A tubes, doubly ironic since the latter was in a vastly better room, seemingly more resolution and details, but just anodyne and bloodless.
I've heard Apogee Divas, restored by Rich, the main man in the US, in a room to die for, superb rig incl Kuzma tt, Kondo and Spectral, power setup and acoustics at the bleeding edge. Detail in abundance, I could literally tell how many feet the hi-hat was to the bass player. And a purely intellectual exercise in HiFi box ticking, all sizzle and no steak.
I then head Apogee Duettas in a much less optimised space, detail and resolution of an order less, w more colourstions, and yet these Apogees were fully engaging.
I've also heard an uber neutral system w no apparent signature, superficially similar to the failed Divas demo, but the end result was hypnotically engaging. Here the careful attention to component matching, room and power produced an invisible fingerprint, this allowing musicality unfettered.
And last, but absolutely not least, the single most musical component ever, the Denman Exponential Horn.
25' long, 6' x 5' horn mouth, in a brutal conference type space, it had no business sounding good, let alone cosmically awe inspiring.
We're talking detail at a quantum level, raindrops in a storm each of which had a personality, bullets in gunfire which could be picked out of the air, voice that sounded like from on high.
But nothing below 30Hz or above 6kHz. No Magico type uber resolution. Just a sound hard wired to one's pleasure centres.
I agree with the last para. When I am looking at a component X, if someone says Y is better than X, I simply go and listen to Y. I don't really care for the poster's why... Yes, if I l listen to Y, I might be able to relate to his why's better.
FWIW, if you hear or read me say that something is musical in the absolute or more musical in relative comparison then I am stating that for whatever reason, that system sounds closer to what I perceive real/live music to sound like. This is a wholistic analysis and not due to any one or even 10 traits a system exhibits. IMO musical = more real. It can be colored, lacking detail or have other detectable issues and still sound realistic or more real than another system that has arguably more resolution...although I would argue this is more likely superficial resolution...aka detail.
Similar threads
Members online
- Solotov
- moby2004
- dminches
- cdka
- GSOphile
- JGlacken
- TWJeff
- Another Johnson
- bouncing_noobs
- trekpilot
- daytona600
- Sarge
- Nascimento
- ketcham
- Backpacker
- brad225
- Geoffkait
- SCAudiophile
- flowcharts
- mtakeda
- alexx
- kyoya78
- WLP3
- wbass
- TooCool4
- Long Live Analog
- RaChiK
- Young Skywalker
- Rollsngrooves
- Nathanu
- MTS
- jazzdude99
- PYP
- unboxed
- HeavyD
- Argonaut
- cfl839
- fbhifi
- Opabin
- No Regrets
- audioquad
- mlhotts
- Walnut Horns
- Gryffles
- Mike Lavigne
- kswanson27
- cminer
- Pokey77
- KrellFan1
- Avidlistener
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |