Resolution vs. Musicality

[tima]

When does increased resolution, as long as it is natural and not artificial, ever detract from musicality, realism, believability, suspension of disbelief, whatever you want to call it?

Tonality "drifts into the analytical" when a component designer focuses too much on "resolution", i.e., mining all of the detail in a disc, file, record, or tape, and not enough on voicing the component so it sounds like real music. It follows that more resolution is not always better since it can result in a component that fails to foster the emotional connection with the music that is the raison d'etre of home audio systems.

I see this thread resurrected with comments about DACs, minus the thread topic. Such is forum life.

Even on topic the thread didn't last long. But it could go on for a long time because both 'musicality' and 'resolution' are, at least thus far, such vague or ill-defined notions. Here they are treated almost as contrasting attributes. At least that seems the case for the claim that increased focus on resolution can diminish emotional connection with one's music, the latter I gather is synonymous with 'musicality'. Certainly the thread title "Resolution vs Musicality" suggests these notions - experiences if you will - are at odds with one another.

The best, imo, that can be said is when a stereo's sound emphasizes some particular characteristic to the detriment of other characteristics, the result can be sound out of balance with natural believable sound.

For example, overly sharp transient attack versus soft or blurred transient attack versus the skilled launch of notes from a professional musician. On the other hand, the ability to reveal a finer dynamic gradient going from pianissimo to forte is, at least for me, more realistic not less. A system that lets me hear differentiated pitch and articulation from violas, cellos, and basses when all are playing together is believable versus one that does not.

I"ve used this example before ... Consider Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony which contains a very challenging piccolo solo - 21 notes in about three seconds. Even in the middle of its range, say around 1000-1500Hz, the piccolo has a high pitched sound. A component or system that lets me hear the natural piccolo sound with separation between those 21 notes is enjoyable and gives me appreciation for the musician's performance. If the notes are blurred or shrill, then no - but I don't consider that as emphasized 'resolution' - whatever that is.

Thus far no one in this thread is using examples to make their points. Rather than talk in vague generalities (such as 'musicality' and 'resolution') using visual analogies, describe what you hear. I suspect for some the 'debate' will go away. We can always find poorly performing components, but that is not the point of the thread.

 

[LL21]

I see this thread resurrected with comments about DACs, minus the thread topic. Such is forum life.

Even on topic the thread didn't last long. But it could go on for a long time because both 'musicality' and 'resolution' are, at least thus far, such vague or ill-defined notions. Here they are treated almost as contrasting attributes. At least that seems the case for the claim that increased focus on resolution can diminish emotional connection with one's music, the latter I gather is synonymous with 'musicality'. Certainly the thread title "Resolution vs Musicality" suggests these notions - experiences if you will - are at odds with one another.

The best, imo, that can be said is when a stereo's sound emphasizes some particular characteristic to the detriment of other characteristics, the result can be sound out of balance with natural believable sound.

For example, overly sharp transient attack versus soft or blurred transient attack versus the skilled launch of notes from a professional musician. On the other hand, the ability to reveal a finer dynamic gradient going from pianissimo to forte is, at least for me, more realistic not less. A system that lets me hear differentiated pitch and articulation from violas, cellos, and basses when all are playing together is believable versus one that does not.

I"ve used this example before ... Consider Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony which contains a very challenging piccolo solo - 21 notes in about three seconds. Even in the middle of its range, say around 1000-1500Hz, the piccolo has a high pitched sound. A component or system that lets me hear the natural piccolo sound with separation between those 21 notes is enjoyable and gives me appreciation for the musician's performance. If the notes are blurred or shrill, then no - but I don't consider that as emphasized 'resolution' - whatever that is.

Thus far no one in this thread is using examples to make their points. Rather than talk in vague generalities (such as 'musicality' and 'resolution') using visual analogies, describe what you hear. I suspect for some the 'debate' will go away. We can always find poorly performing components, but that is not the point of the thread.

Personally, I like this post, and I do aspire to elucidate my observations around fingering, Yo Yo Ma Cello vs the mandolin playing (Bach Trios) and when certain notes clearly show the artist coming up just a little short on timing to catch up/slow down, etc...but I admit, I have not been as specific as you, Tima, on classical. I have been more specific around electronic deep house, soundtracks (Hans Zimmer)...but even then, still not quite as specific.

I will aim to be more specific in my listening notes.

 

[microstrip]

(...) A component or system that lets me hear the natural piccolo sound with separation between those 21 notes is enjoyable and gives me appreciation for the musician's performance. If the notes are blurred or shrill, then no - but I don't consider that as emphasized 'resolution' - whatever that is. (...)

Tim,

Sorry, I thing that 99% of our readers will not look for these few seconds of this particular Symphony to fully understand your argument. And even so, IMHO the more critical part of your view on resolution is what is the "natural picollo sound ". Some systems will be able to separate those notes clearly and will deliver a tonally wrong piccolo that I do not consider enjoyable sound.

IMHO the main idea in the debate between resolution and musicality is that microphones have more resolution than the human ear and particularly when placed close to instruments capture more information than what we hear commonly and this information is encoded in the recording. Does this extra information spoil our enjoyment? Should our systems "censor" or disguise some information to increase our enjoyment?

Some people refer that listening in some systems they are able to perceive the recording techniques and the microphone set up. Is this a positive aspect or is it simply showing non natural aspects of music? Should not we expect such aspects to disappear in top sound reproduction?

I will end with a narrative. Some Xenakis music asks for the sound of water flowing. Once listening in a system I could easily notice that the water recording was just carried using a microphone over a bathtub being emptied. Is this desirable? In a friend less exotic system we would only listen to some vestigial water flowing - but also less music detail!

IMHO another perfect recording to debate resolution versus musicality is Paniagua LaFolia - everyone is able to figure out what is being referred with easiness.

Apologies for asking more questions than giving answers.

 

[tima]

Sorry, I thing that 99% of our readers will not look for these few seconds of this particular Symphony to fully understand your argument. And even so, IMHO the more critical part of your view on resolution is what is the "natural picollo sound ". Some systems will be able to separate those notes clearly and will deliver a tonally wrong piccolo that I do not consider enjoyable sound.

Actually my 'argument' is the advocation of describing sound using straightforward accounts of what we hear rather than using vague terms over which we cannot agree. The business about the piccolo was an example; one needn't hear the symphony to get that.

IMHO the main idea in the debate between resolution and musicality is that microphones have more resolution than the human ear and particularly when placed close to instruments capture more information than what we hear commonly and this information is encoded in the recording. Does this extra information spoil our enjoyment? Should our systems "censor" or disguise some information to increase our enjoyment?

Granted some people have hearing deficiencies such as loss of higher frequencies when older compared to their hearing when young, but for the sake of argument I'll put that consideration aside. If microphones have more resolving power than the human ear and their information is encoded in a recording, why do you think we can hear from a recording what we can't hear live?

As a noun 'resolution' has no ostensive definition, it is not a thing, At best it is an act or a state. I won't adopt a sonic syntax that talks about 'capturing resolution' as if it were a raccoon and the microphone a trap. This is the problem with these sorts of words. Better to describe what you hear.

 

[Gregm]

Actually my 'argument' is the advocation of describing sound using straightforward accounts of what we hear rather than using vague terms over which we cannot agree. The business about the piccolo was an example;

I agree. Here's another example: in the live recording of Simon & Grafunkel's concert in Central Park, in the early moments of "Homeward Bound", the two sing in harmony but one of the two voices (Garfunkel's) comes and goes and the pich is not the same each time. This is not easily perceptible unless the playback system is capable of bringing forth these details. Overall, the result is more plausible with these details than without.
Presumably, this is resolution; however it does not (IMO) make the system any less "musical", i.e. it sounds very much like music -- if anything, even more so.

 

[microstrip]

Actually my 'argument' is the advocation of describing sound using straightforward accounts of what we hear rather than using vague terms over which we cannot agree. The business about the piccolo was an example; one needn't hear the symphony to get that.

Surely we will never fully agree on anything is stereo in semantics. However most people in audio have agreed since long about the meaning of resolution. My point is that better using a non optimum lexicon with examples than relying on imprecise too subjective short descriptions brought from the concert hall using exclusively the sound of instrumental music.

Granted some people have hearing deficiencies such as loss of higher frequencies when older compared to their hearing when young, but for the sake of argument I'll put that consideration aside. If microphones have more resolving power than the human ear and their information is encoded in a recording, why do you think we can hear from a recording what we can't hear live?

In a closed mic recording you encode details you can't listen at your listening position. Also except for a few purist recordings all recording engineers add microphones to capture extra information they include in the recording. And except for a few exceptional persons, any good microphone has a more extended response than the human ear at any age.

Audio professionals sometimes debate the tape/digital recording in terms of resolution and information. One explanation presented for people preferring the tape is that its lower resolution cuts the excesses of information that we can have in the high resolution digital. They refer that an high resolution media needs new ways of recording.

As a noun 'resolution' has no ostensive definition, it is not a thing, At best it is an act or a state. I won't adopt a sonic syntax that talks about 'capturing resolution' as if it were a raccoon and the microphone a trap. This is the problem with these sorts of words. Better to describe what you hear.

Resolution has a very precise meaning in instrumentation and audio systems are instruments - the smallest increment an instrument can detect and display. An extremely simple idea. Audio reviewers since long centered their use of the word in this definition and were able to transmit a proper idea of what they meant.

Surely the use of the word "resolution" become more confusing when the word become being associated with the number of bits and sampling frequency in HiRez audio. But audiophiles should be able to separate the concepts.

 

[microstrip]

I agree. Here's another example: in the live recording of Simon & Grafunkel's concert in Central Park, in the early moments of "Homeward Bound", the two sing in harmony but one of the two voices (Garfunkel's) comes and goes and the pich is not the same each time. This is not easily perceptible unless the playback system is capable of bringing forth these details. Overall, the result is more plausible with these details than without.
Presumably, this is resolution; however it does not (IMO) make the system any less "musical", i.e. it sounds very much like music -- if anything, even more so.

Exactly - a good example of resolution. IMHO audiophiles have a precise idea of it. I have recently referred the case of the two flutes in Vivaldi flute concerts. I considered it as a positive effect, although in a life performance listening at 20 meters I would be able to listen to it so clearly . Do you feel the presence of the two singers with different spaces and location in your system?

 

[PeterA]

I see this thread resurrected with comments about DACs, minus the thread topic. Such is forum life.

Even on topic the thread didn't last long. But it could go on for a long time because both 'musicality' and 'resolution' are, at least thus far, such vague or ill-defined notions. Here they are treated almost as contrasting attributes. At least that seems the case for the claim that increased focus on resolution can diminish emotional connection with one's music, the latter I gather is synonymous with 'musicality'. Certainly the thread title "Resolution vs Musicality" suggests these notions - experiences if you will - are at odds with one another.

The best, imo, that can be said is when a stereo's sound emphasizes some particular characteristic to the detriment of other characteristics, the result can be sound out of balance with natural believable sound.

For example, overly sharp transient attack versus soft or blurred transient attack versus the skilled launch of notes from a professional musician. On the other hand, the ability to reveal a finer dynamic gradient going from pianissimo to forte is, at least for me, more realistic not less. A system that lets me hear differentiated pitch and articulation from violas, cellos, and basses when all are playing together is believable versus one that does not.

I"ve used this example before ... Consider Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony which contains a very challenging piccolo solo - 21 notes in about three seconds. Even in the middle of its range, say around 1000-1500Hz, the piccolo has a high pitched sound. A component or system that lets me hear the natural piccolo sound with separation between those 21 notes is enjoyable and gives me appreciation for the musician's performance. If the notes are blurred or shrill, then no - but I don't consider that as emphasized 'resolution' - whatever that is.

Thus far no one in this thread is using examples to make their points. Rather than talk in vague generalities (such as 'musicality' and 'resolution') using visual analogies, describe what you hear. I suspect for some the 'debate' will go away. We can always find poorly performing components, but that is not the point of the thread.

Thanks for getting us back on track Tim. I like your example of the piccolo. People familiar with the sound of a piccolo will hear that and know if the 21 notes are distinct and if each has the right tone. For the sound to be natural, and the system to be sufficiently resolving, the sound the listener hears will have to meet both criteria. If either is off, the resolution is not what it could be, assuming the recording is good. I would take this example further and write that the system should also present some sense of the space in which the piccolo is being played, the spatial relationship of the piccolo to other instruments in that space, the scale and distance of the instrument from the listener, and if all is right, perhaps some insight into the music and the meaning the composer or musician is trying to impart to his audience.

Resolution is about the amount of information and how it is being presented to the listener. More is always better. The problem is that if certain aspects of the information get enhanced beyond what is natural, then one must ask if there is something wrong with the recording or the resolving abilities and presentation of the system or a particular piece of gear. In this case, it is not high resolution but something else. It is an effect, and this is also enjoyed by some.

 

[Gregm]

Do you feel the presence of the two singers with different spaces and location in your system?

Now that you mention it -- mostly they sound close to one another yet at times the 2nd voice sounds as if he's moving momentarily away from the mic and then back again.
Methinks this is an artefact, mastering perhaps: if the mics were individually hand held, the physical movement could only have been visually perceptible, not sonically -- right? Unless the mics were stationary and Simon was standing in front while Garfunkel moved away & back again...

 

[PeterA]

Now that you mention it -- mostly they sound close to one another yet at times the 2nd voice sounds as if he's moving momentarily away from the mic and then back again.
Methinks this is an artefact, mastering perhaps: if the mics were individually hand held, the physical movement could only have been visually perceptible, not sonically -- right? Unless the mics were stationary and Simon was standing in front while Garfunkel moved away & back again...

I would think if the recording system and the replay system were of sufficient resolution, even if the mics were hand held and remained in the same position relative to the singer as he moved around the stage, there would still be some indication of the movement because of the interaction between the voice and the boundaries of the stage. This information should be picked up by the mics. Members of the audience with eyes closed should be able to hear a singer moving around the stage by the change in sound. This should be the same on a recording and playback given sufficient resolution.

 

[PeterA]

Interesting review of the Jadis JS1 Mk. V DAC which gets at the heart of the trade-off that can arise between resolution and musicality, and what tubes can bring to the table that solid state simply cannot:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/jadis-js1-mkv-reference-da-processor

@Cellcbern , could you describe what you mean by the terms "resolution" and "musicality", and also explain why you think a trade-off can arise?

 

[microstrip]

I would think if the recording system and the replay system were of sufficient resolution, even if the mics were hand held and remained in the same position relative to the singer as he moved around the stage, there would still be some indication of the movement because of the interaction between the voice and the boundaries of the stage. This information should be picked up by the mics. Members of the audience with eyes closed should be able to hear a singer moving around the stage by the change in sound. This should be the same on a recording and playback given sufficient resolution.

In the Simon & Grafunkel's concert in Central Park ???

As far as I remember the mics were on stands and all we should notice is the effect of moving from the microphone. I have a few recordings where the effect is clearly noticed and I think it helps a lot to enjoyment. These are amplified events and we do not expect them to sound like Quartetto Italiano!

Wether this is desirable in a classical recording is open to debate. IMHO detecting the inevitable approaching and going away from the microphone is a good case of resolution versus musicality.

 

[PeterA]

In the Simon & Grafunkel's concert in Central Park ???

As far as I remember the mics were on stands and all we should notice is the effect of moving from the microphone. I have a few recordings where the effect is clearly noticed and I think it helps a lot to enjoyment. These are amplified events and we do not expect them to sound like Quartetto Italiano!

Wether this is desirable in a classical recording is open to debate. IMHO detecting the inevitable approaching and going away from the microphone is a good case of resolution versus musicality.

Yes, I forgot about the open air setting of central park and that the sound is through a PA system. Forget my comments in that context. My oversight. I was making the inelegant point that if a singer is six feet from the mic, the sound of the voice should change depending if he is standing in the center of a small stage or off on the side close to a wall, based on the reflection of his voice in the space.

Quartetto Italiano is a good example to discuss resolution: the distinct instruments and their timbre, their scale, the ambiance, spatial relationships, balance.

 

[Cellcbern]

@Cellcbern , could you describe what you mean by the terms "resolution" and "musicality", and also explain why you think a trade-off can arise?

Are we back to this? Really?

Again, the widely accepted, (decades) long standing definition of "resolution" in audio is the extent to which a component/system mines/accurately reproduces all of the musical information that is encoded in the medium (tape, vinyl, disc, file - whatever). Musicality is the extent to which a component/system creates the illusion of live music, which involves both achieving natural timber and tonality, and recreating the emotional impact of the performance. For every piece of audio equipment both resolution and musicality are the result of a series of design choices, typically constrained by cost, which is why trade-offs arise. The key word is "design". Every component is "voiced" by the designer via the choices made in designing circuits and selecting parts. Some design for "neutrality" while others deliberately seek a particular sonic signature, but it is the same in the end. All components are voiced, and the choices made to maximize resolution are sometimes different from the ones that will maximize musicality. I have heard expensive, highly touted equipment that resolved every last bit of detail and nuance but overall sounded analytical and ultimately uninvolving to listen to. I have also heard inexpensive but emotionally engaging and fun to listen to equipment that was clearly deficient at the frequency extremes and mssing some of the detail. Perhaps it is possible to create a component that resolves all of the detail while being overwhelmingy musical. I have heard a few that come close but none that have achieved this.

FYI: Marshall Nack of PFO, in his review of the Marigo Labs isolation platforms (link below), addresses this trade-off, states that "...The industry is complicit by making products that overwhelmingly favor resolution....", and proclaims the product under review as a rare one that addresses both resolution and musicality.

Marigo Audio Lab Isolation Platforms - Positive Feedback

Isolation Platforms from Marigo Audio Lab

positive-feedback.com

 

[PeterA]

Are we back to this? Really?

Again, the widely accepted, (decades) long standing definition of "resolution" in audio is the extent to which a component/system mines/accurately reproduces all of the musical information that is encoded in the medium (tape, vinyl, disc, file - whatever). Musicality is the extent to which a component/system creates the illusion of live music, which involves both achieving natural timber and tonality, and recreating the emotional impact of the performance. For every piece of audio equipment both resolution and musicality are the result of a series of design choices, typically constrained by cost, which is why trade-offs arise. The key word is "design". Every component is "voiced" by the designer via the choices made in designing circuits and selecting parts. Some design for "neutrality" while others deliberately seek a particular sonic signature, but it is the same in the end. All components are voiced, and the choices made to maximize resolution are sometimes different from the ones that will maximize musicality. I have heard expensive, highly touted equipment that resolved every last bit of detail and nuance but overall sounded analytical and ultimately uninvolving to listen to. I have also heard inexpensive but emotionally engaging and fun to listen to equipment that was clearly deficient at the frequency extremes and mssing some of the detail. Perhaps it is possible to create a component that resolves all of the detail while being overwhelmingy musical. I have heard a few that come close but none that have achieved this.

FYI: Marshall Nack of PFO, in his review of the Marigo Labs isolation platforms (link below), addresses this trade-off, states that "...The industry is complicit by making products that overwhelmingly favor resolution....", and proclaims the product under review as a rare one that addresses both resolution and musicality.

I appreciate you clarifying and expanding your thoughts on this topic. The sharing of these thoughts would have been beneficial to me in the opening post. The thread makes more sense to me now. Thank you.

I still think that the ability of a component or system to present the timbre of instruments accurately and distinctly is a matter of resolution and not musicality.

 

[sbnx]

Are we back to this? Really?

Again, the widely accepted, (decades) long standing definition of "resolution" in audio is the extent to which a component/system mines/accurately reproduces all of the musical information that is encoded in the medium (tape, vinyl, disc, file - whatever). Musicality is the extent to which a component/system creates the illusion of live music, which involves both achieving natural timber and tonality, and recreating the emotional impact of the performance. For every piece of audio equipment both resolution and musicality are the result of a series of design choices, typically constrained by cost, which is why trade-offs arise. The key word is "design". Every component is "voiced" by the designer via the choices made in designing circuits and selecting parts. Some design for "neutrality" while others deliberately seek a particular sonic signature, but it is the same in the end. All components are voiced, and the choices made to maximize resolution are sometimes different from the ones that will maximize musicality. I have heard expensive, highly touted equipment that resolved every last bit of detail and nuance but overall sounded analytical and ultimately uninvolving to listen to. I have also heard inexpensive but emotionally engaging and fun to listen to equipment that was clearly deficient at the frequency extremes and mssing some of the detail. Perhaps it is possible to create a component that resolves all of the detail while being overwhelmingy musical. I have heard a few that come close but none that have achieved this.

FYI: Marshall Nack of PFO, in his review of the Marigo Labs isolation platforms (link below), addresses this trade-off, states that "...The industry is complicit by making products that overwhelmingly favor resolution....", and proclaims the product under review as a rare one that addresses both resolution and musicality.

I will likely throw gas on this fire but ...

Resolution = information
Musicality = Timbre and Tone & Emotional impact

What about timing? Music is all about timing. You might ask "what does he mean by timing? Isn't the timing of the song recorded and fixed?" Yes it is. But the setup of the speakers influences this to a very great extent. Yes, electronics has an influence on this too (See the Wilson XVX thing where they give you the driver adjustment to make based on the amplifiers transfer function) I will also put out there that both resolution and tone are related to the time alignment of the speakers. poor setup blurs sounds together and results in a loss of resolution. it also greatly affects the tone.

As an example where it hurts resolution I will offerTim Reynolds "Stream" from Live at Luther College. Imprecise time alignment can cause the guitar notes to sound slurred and change the whole dynamic of the song. (It can sound like Tim has a hangover from the heavy drinking the night before and his fingers aren't doing what his brain says).

As an example where it hurts tone I offer Shubert's Piano Sonata No. 20 Andantino. Again poor time alignment greatly damages the tone of the piano. Depending on how far off it is the problem can extend into the lower registers. But especially the upper registers the tone will be far from pure. Play starting from about the 5 min mark and you will likely see what I mean.

What about the emotional impact? Without proper timing that is all but gone. Capturing the perfect timing results in no blurring which give the very good micro-dynamics which in turn give the expressiveness of the artist and the emotion that goes along with it.

 

[tima]

Resolution is about the amount of information and how it is being presented to the listener. More is always better.

Thank you Peter.

I had to think about this. Resolution as quantity - okay ... let me try this ... resolution is one aspect of the state that obtains between the user and the recording as modulated by the reproduction system.

A recording, say an LP, has information encoded as ridges and valleys in the groove. A phono cartridge traverses the groove transducing those ridges and valleys into electrical energy. Amplified, the electrical signal is turned into physical sound waves at the speakers. We listen and hear the speaker's sound, we hear the system's resolution of playing the LP.

So yes, I think I agree that resolution is information and how it is presented to the listener. I don't want to say resolution per se is some quantity - in and of itself resolution is not a measureable physical quantity. There may be more or less information in the groove but it must be resolved and we must hear it, discounting hearing defficiencies.

The notion of resolution as a quantity - an amount of information - seems to come from the digital world with all their many different bit rates and belief that the higher the bitrate the more accurately a signal is measured. Finally numbers! Player X may do a better job resolvng an MP3 than player Y, presuming we can hear the difference. Format 9216 may yield a 'denser' sonic experience than format 1411 on the same player, assuming the player can resolve both and we can hear the difference.

No amount of quantity of information is better if it cannot be resolved by the system accessing it and resolved (heard) by our ears. And I agree with @Cellcbern that no amount of resolution alone assures believability.

 

[tima]

What about timing? Music is all about timing. You might ask "what does he mean by timing? Isn't the timing of the song recorded and fixed?" Yes it is. But the setup of the speakers influences this to a very great extent. Yes, electronics has an influence on this too (See the Wilson XVX thing where they give you the driver adjustment to make based on the amplifiers transfer function) I will also put out there that both resolution and tone are related to the time alignment of the speakers. poor setup blurs sounds together and results in a loss of resolution. it also greatly affects the tone.

Yes - timing - thank you.

Music is not a vase to look at, it is performance art that occurs in time. As I repeat (perhaps too much), the key critical attributes of music itself are denoted in the score: Tonality (notes), Dynamics (markings) and Timing (time signature). The conductor has influence over the latter two as does the soloist. For listeners the fourth attribute is physical context - the hall, the space where a performance takes place and its influence on that performance.

And sbnx as you note, the audiophile influences what he hears by his own context - his room and system setup.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Peter.

I had to think about this. Resolution as quantity - okay ... let me try this ... resolution is one aspect of the state that obtains between the user and the recording as modulated by the reproduction system.

A recording, say an LP, has information encoded as ridges and valleys in the groove. A phono cartridge traverses the groove transducing those ridges and valleys into electrical energy. Amplified, the electrical signal is turned into physical sound waves at the speakers. We listen and hear the speaker's sound, we hear the system's resolution of playing the LP.

So yes, I think I agree that resolution is information and how it is presented to the listener. I don't want to say resolution per se is some quantity - in and of itself resolution is not a measureable physical quantity. There may be more or less information in the groove but it must be resolved and we must hear it, discounting hearing defficiencies.

The notion of resolution as a quantity - an amount of information - seems to come from the digital world with all their many different bit rates and belief that the higher the bitrate the more accurately a signal is measured. Finally numbers! Player X may do a better job resolvng an MP3 than player Y, presuming we can hear the difference. Format 9216 may yield a 'denser' sonic experience than format 1411 on the same player, assuming the player can resolve both and we can hear the difference.

No amount of quantity of information is better if it cannot be resolved by the system accessing it and resolved (heard) by our ears. And I agree with @Cellcbern that no amount of resolution alone assures believability.

Tim, I listen only to vinyl in my system. I do not think of resolution as a quantity the way a camera or TV specifies pixels or a DAC has bit rates. The vinyl record has a fixed amount of information embedded in the grooves. The more of that information that the system can retrieve and present in a natural way, the higher the resolution and the more believable and convincing the listening experience. One knows it when he hears it, especially when doing direct comparisons or experimenting with set up.

If one presentation is less resolving than another, it is likely a matter of distortion or lack of information retrieval. It gets interesting when one thinks hears a slight difference in tonal balance. This might be described as a slightly different flavor in the presentation. How does one know that it is the system or the recording? I tend to go back to whether or not there’s a greater difference or similarity between a variety of recordings.

 

[tima]

I do not think of resolution as a quantity the way a camera or TV specifies pixels or a DAC has bit rates. The vinyl record has a fixed amount of information embedded in the grooves. The more of that information that the system can retrieve and present in a natural way, the higher the resolution and the more believable and convincing the listening experience. One knows it when he hears it, especially when doing direct comparisons or experimenting with set up.

So yes, I think I agree that resolution is information and how it is presented to the listener. I don't want to say resolution per se is some quantity - in and of itself resolution is not a measureable physical quantity

The notion of resolution as a quantity - an amount of information - seems to come from the digital world with all their many different bit rates and belief that the higher the bitrate the more accurately a signal is measured.

Yes. I believe we agree. I was trying to come up with a way to explain those who quantify it.