Resolution vs. Musicality

stehno

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2014
1,588
456
405
Salem, OR
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Naylor

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
726
585
70
Washington, DC
I'm guessing you're coming from the premise that others know what they're talking about?
If I post someone's review or other commentary it is safe to assume that I believe they know what they are talking about. Many of your posts on the other hand, the one above included, leave me wondering what the hell you are talking about. Certainly I would put more stock in commentary from Alex Halbestadt or Michael Lavorgna than anything you might post.
 
Last edited:

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,018
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
The intellectual progress we made the last time we discussed the meaning of "resolution" resulted, I think, in two dominant, and irreconcilable, views:

1) Resolution is a substantially objective concept, analogous to pixels in video (more pixels per inch equals greater resolution), and

2) Resolution is a substantially subjective concept which overlays on resolving power a subjective sense of "naturalness." (Resolution is a combination of clarity or intelligibility and naturalness.)
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
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:

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

Let's start with some thread curation: What do we mean by "Resolution"? is a 13 page thread on the topic. The OP probably could have used that thread inasmuch as he posted the pentultimate comment there (quoted above) identical to his opening post here, posing the same question in two places.

It depends what you mean by resolution.

Peter rightly points to one of two pertinent questions. The other is "What do you mean by musicality?"

I stay away from the adjective 'musicality'. It is certainly a common term among audiophiles - we see it a lot - it means many different things to many different users, so much so that it is basically useless as a description. It is a fall-back term, seen when its user lacks the vocabulary or the will to spell out more precisely what he intends by it. Don't tell me it is musical, tell me why.

In the above cited article about a Jadis digital processor, 'resolution' to the author means 'detail'. He does not define or use the term 'musicality' but does mention 'musical aptitude' which I assume is the ability to sound musical - whatever that means.

If you want Gordon Holt's take from his 'The Audio Glossary':

He has no definition of 'resolution'. When asked about 'resolution', he says see 'definition'.
Definition: "That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between and to follow, the melodic lines of the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group."

Musicality: "A purely personal judgement as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live unamplified music. Musical sound is both accurate and euphonic."

I don't know about that second sentence. The first sentence suggests that to a listener, subjectively, musical sound is natural sound. Do you agree with that or do you think "musical" is simpler, meaning pleasant, enjoyable, I like it?

The notion that there is some trade-off, much less mutual exclusivity, between musicality and resolution is a false dichotomy that makes no sense.
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
726
585
70
Washington, DC
Let's start with some thread curation: What do we mean by "Resolution"? is a 13 page thread on the topic. The OP probably could have used that thread inasmuch as he posted the pentultimate comment there (quoted above) identical to his opening post here, posing the same question in two places.



Peter rightly points to one of two pertinent questions. The other is "What do you mean by musicality?"

I stay away from the adjective 'musicality'. It is certainly a common term among audiophiles - we see it a lot - it means many different things to many different users, so much so that it is basically useless as a description. It is a fall-back term, seen when its user lacks the vocabulary or the will to spell out more precisely what he intends by it. Don't tell me it is musical, tell me why.

In the above cited article about a Jadis digital processor, 'resolution' to the author means 'detail'. He does not define or use the term 'musicality' but does mention 'musical aptitude' which I assume is the ability to sound musical - whatever that means.

If you want Gordon Holt's take from his 'The Audio Glossary':

He has no definition of 'resolution'. When asked about 'resolution', he says see 'definition'.
Definition: "That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between and to follow, the melodic lines of the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group."

Musicality: "A purely personal judgement as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live unamplified music. Musical sound is both accurate and euphonic."

I don't know about that second sentence. The first sentence suggests that to a listener, subjectively, musical sound is natural sound. Do you agree with that or do you think "musical" is simpler, meaning pleasant, enjoyable, I like it?

The notion that there is some trade-off, much less mutual exclusivity, between musicality and resolution is a false dichotomy that makes no sense.

Let's start with some thread curation: What do we mean by "Resolution"? is a 13 page thread on the topic. The OP probably could have used that thread inasmuch as he posted the pentultimate comment there (quoted above) identical to his opening post here, posing the same question in two places.



Peter rightly points to one of two pertinent questions. The other is "What do you mean by musicality?"

I stay away from the adjective 'musicality'. It is certainly a common term among audiophiles - we see it a lot - it means many different things to many different users, so much so that it is basically useless as a description. It is a fall-back term, seen when its user lacks the vocabulary or the will to spell out more precisely what he intends by it. Don't tell me it is musical, tell me why.

In the above cited article about a Jadis digital processor, 'resolution' to the author means 'detail'. He does not define or use the term 'musicality' but does mention 'musical aptitude' which I assume is the ability to sound musical - whatever that means.

If you want Gordon Holt's take from his 'The Audio Glossary':

He has no definition of 'resolution'. When asked about 'resolution', he says see 'definition'.
Definition: "That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between and to follow, the melodic lines of the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group."

Musicality: "A purely personal judgement as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live unamplified music. Musical sound is both accurate and euphonic."

I don't know about that second sentence. The first sentence suggests that to a listener, subjectively, musical sound is natural sound. Do you agree with that or do you think "musical" is simpler, meaning pleasant, enjoyable, I like it?

The notion that there is some trade-off, much less mutual exclusivity, between musicality and resolution is a false dichotomy that makes no sense.
Disagree completely!
 
Last edited:

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,018
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
This thread looks to be repopulating the same two definitional camps I described above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paolo

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
726
585
70
Washington, DC
Let's start with some thread curation: What do we mean by "Resolution"? is a 13 page thread on the topic. The OP probably could have used that thread inasmuch as he posted the pentultimate comment there (quoted above) identical to his opening post here, posing the same question in two places.



Peter rightly points to one of two pertinent questions. The other is "What do you mean by musicality?"

I stay away from the adjective 'musicality'. It is certainly a common term among audiophiles - we see it a lot - it means many different things to many different users, so much so that it is basically useless as a description. It is a fall-back term, seen when its user lacks the vocabulary or the will to spell out more precisely what he intends by it. Don't tell me it is musical, tell me why.

In the above cited article about a Jadis digital processor, 'resolution' to the author means 'detail'. He does not define or use the term 'musicality' but does mention 'musical aptitude' which I assume is the ability to sound musical - whatever that means.

If you want Gordon Holt's take from his 'The Audio Glossary':

He has no definition of 'resolution'. When asked about 'resolution', he says see 'definition'.
Definition: "That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between and to follow, the melodic lines of the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group."

Musicality: "A purely personal judgement as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live unamplified music. Musical sound is both accurate and euphonic."

I don't know about that second sentence. The first sentence suggests that to a listener, subjectively, musical sound is natural sound. Do you agree with that or do you think "musical" is simpler, meaning pleasant, enjoyable, I like it?

The notion that there is some trade-off, much less mutual exclusivity, between musicality and resolution is a false dichotomy that makes no sense.
This "curation" sheds no additional light on the subject.
 

DasguteOhr

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2013
2,354
2,515
645
Germany
You can never have enough resolution, the problem is when the tonality drifts into the analytical. then it gets on your nerves when it no longer sounds natural. timbres look pale, voices become thinner, you get the feeling that no real person is singing. the music is dissected with skapel you can hear every little detail, it sounds exciting in the first few hours, after a few days it is uncomfortably long to listen to music. Whether tube or transistor, both are only amplified elements, it depends on the circuit and operating points, both can sound excellent or bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas 911

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,523
10,688
3,515
USA
Cellcbern, I do not agree with the premise that there is a necessary "trade off" that can arise between resolution and musicality, assuming I understand how you define those two terms. Why does there have to be a trade off? The best system I have ever heard - ddk's Bionor/Lamm/AS2000 system - is both the highest resolving system I've heard, and the one that most reminds me of what live music sounds like.

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?

I do not think it has anything to do with tubes or SS. That is more a system dependent and listener preference kind of choice. The listener decides what kind of system is high resolving and/or musical to him.

I think I would better understand your OP if you shared your definitions of the terms "resolution" and "musicality".
 

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
726
585
70
Washington, DC
This thread looks to be repopulating the same two definitional camps I described above.
I would suggest that Marshall Nack opens his review of the Marigo platforms by outlining the view of resolution (and its opposition to musicality) embodied in your #1 because that is the long standing, widely accepted understanding in the industry and in audio journalism. Your #2 is a product of this forum, the dynamics of which sometimes result in combining/complicating concepts which are not complex to begin with. This is at least in part a function of us being too deep in our "audio navels" and too enamored of our own prose. Be clear that this is not a criticism. It is probably inevitable with smart and knowledgeable people interacting on a forum like this.

Key line from Mr. Nack's review:

"The industry is complicit by making products that overwhelmingly favor resolution".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sujay

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,523
10,688
3,515
USA
You can never have enough resolution, the problem is when the tonality drifts into the analytical. then it gets on your nerves when it no longer sounds natural. timbres look pale, voices become thinner, you get the feeling that no real person is singing. the music is dissected with skapel you can hear every little detail, it sounds exciting in the first few hours, after a few days it is uncomfortably long to listen to music. Whether tube or transistor, both are only amplified elements, it depends on the circuit and operating points, both can sound excellent or bad

DasguteOhr, I agree that more resolution is better, but sometimes, enough is enough. To me, what you describe "when the tonality drifts into the analytical" is no longer resolution. If it no longer sounds real or convincing, then it is not resolving, assuming the recording is good and of natural instruments. Here we rely on memory of the real thing. We tend to know when it sounds right. (It is more difficult to know what electronic instruments with weird studio effects really sounds like. For that, we just go by the recording and what we hear.)

People often think of the resolving power of a good microscope and make an analogy. I would argue that the analogy of what one could see with the aid of a powerful microscope is still natural, but not useful when it comes to what we can hear from the concert seat or from our listening seat simply using our ears. We hear music with our ears, and we can sit closer or further from the violin for a different perspective, but what we hear from a recording is based on the mic position relative to the instrument and space and the choices made by the engineer.

If the system is highly resolving, it should present what is on the recording without enhancement. It the recording is well made, and the system is up to it, it should sound natural to the listener, unless he or she is after something else.
 

Blackmorec

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2019
747
1,271
213
I would just like to add a couple of observations:
1. I have spent the last 3 years improving the specifications of my network streaming supply in several ways
Power supply stability, noise, ripple and impedance
Cable performance e.g screening, conductors,
Resonance (vibration) control
EMI isolation
Oscillator accuracy (jitter/phase noise)
In order to get the maximum from the system I ensure that every stage of the network is equal to or better than the previous stage. On the basis of “better in - better out” I get compounding improvements (In a 6 stage network, an improvement to stage one say is uplifted in the next 5 stages as long as the = to or better than hierarchy is maintained)

With the above system, an improvement will bring both an increase in detail and an increase in naturalness, always both. This is how it should work given that a more accurate and precise signal should be at the same time be a less noisy sIgnal (more detailed) and a less distorted signal (more natural).

Second, the phrase ‘more musical’ can apply equally well to both an oboe or a synthesizer. The music doesn’t have to be acoustic to sound musical. For me, the more musical something is, the more beautiful it sounds and the more effectively it stimulates my pleasure centres.
 

Blackmorec

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2019
747
1,271
213
DasguteOhr, I agree that more resolution is better, but sometimes, enough is enough. To me, what you describe "when the tonality drifts into the analytical" is no longer resolution. If it no longer sounds real or convincing, then it is not resolving, assuming the recording is good and of natural instruments. Here we rely on memory of the real thing. We tend to know when it sounds right. (It is more difficult to know what electronic instruments with weird studio effects really sounds like. For that, we just go by the recording and what we hear.)

People often think of the resolving power of a good microscope and make an analogy. I would argue that the analogy of what one could see with the aid of a powerful microscope is still natural, but not useful when it comes to what we can hear from the concert seat or from our listening seat simply using our ears. We hear music with our ears, and we can sit closer or further from the violin for a different perspective, but what we hear from a recording is based on the mic position relative to the instrument and space and the choices made by the engineer.

If the system is highly resolving, it should present what is on the recording without enhancement. It the recording is well made, and the system is up to it, it should sound natural to the listener, unless he or she is after something else.
Hi Peter,
The microscope analogy is very handy to understand the downside of resolution in a hi-fi system. When you increase the resolution of a microscope you are essentially increasing its magnification, but when you do that, unless you simultaneously increase vibration isolation you’ll actually make the picture less resolved, less detailed and less pleasant or easy to look at. Its why high magnification binoculars are often problematic due to hand shake

Its no different in hi-fi. If you actually resolve a lot of detail, then lose it again for reasons like noise, EMI, vibration, power supply noise etc….the lost resolution is still part of the signal, just not separated from other parts, so instead of being heard as detail its heard as obscured detail, otherwise known as distortion. This is why unless you are careful, attempts at increasing resolution can end up sounding less musical….more irritating, less pleasant
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karen Sumner

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,523
10,688
3,515
USA
Hi Peter,
The microscope analogy is very handy to understand the downside of resolution in a hi-fi system. When you increase the resolution of a microscope you are essentially increasing its magnification, but when you do that, unless you simultaneously increase vibration isolation you’ll actually make the picture less resolved, less detailed and less pleasant or easy to look at. Its why high magnification binoculars are often problematic due to hand shake

Its no different in hi-fi. If you actually resolve a lot of detail, then lose it again for reasons like noise, EMI, vibration, power supply noise etc….the lost resolution is still part of the signal, just not separated from other parts, so instead of being heard as detail its heard as obscured detail, otherwise known as distortion. This is why unless you are careful, attempts at increasing resolution can end up sounding less musical….more irritating, less pleasant

Blackmore, you make a good point. I understand what you are saying. My point is simply the more resolution from a system, the better. If you increase something but the details get blurred because you haven’t done something else, then is the whole system actually more resolving or not? It needs to be a system-wide approach so in that sense I think we agree. You are just being a little more specific in the details about how one gets there with the system.

I understand the desire to make a visual analogy, but I don’t think hearing things with our ears sitting in our listening seat is quite analogous. But I do appreciate what you were saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karen Sumner

Cellcbern

VIP/Donor
Jul 30, 2015
1,222
726
585
70
Washington, DC
DasguteOhr, I agree that more resolution is better, but sometimes, enough is enough. To me, what you describe "when the tonality drifts into the analytical" is no longer resolution. If it no longer sounds real or convincing, then it is not resolving, assuming the recording is good and of natural instruments. Here we rely on memory of the real thing. We tend to know when it sounds right. (It is more difficult to know what electronic instruments with weird studio effects really sounds like. For that, we just go by the recording and what we hear.)

People often think of the resolving power of a good microscope and make an analogy. I would argue that the analogy of what one could see with the aid of a powerful microscope is still natural, but not useful when it comes to what we can hear from the concert seat or from our listening seat simply using our ears. We hear music with our ears, and we can sit closer or further from the violin for a different perspective, but what we hear from a recording is based on the mic position relative to the instrument and space and the choices made by the engineer.

If the system is highly resolving, it should present what is on the recording without enhancement. It the recording is well made, and the system is up to it, it should sound natural to the listener, unless he or she is after something else.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karen Sumner

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,127
651
1,200
Alto, NM
Interchangeable (or not) depending on the individual. Totally subjective. Personally and it applies to my system, I'll take musicality over resolution any day of the week.
 

Dasmania

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
15
19
70
56
Interesting that Stereophile ranked the Chord DAVE higher than the Jadis JS1. I own both and in fact use the Chord Blu as an upscaler, giving the DAVE a performance boost. In my system and with my ears, the Jadis communicates more emotion and more of the musical message. Maybe it system synergy as I have matching Jadis preamp and 845 amps. Both however, are outdone by my MSB reference DAC. I expect this given the cost differential and what tubes bring to the table. All DACS inferior to my vinyl setups But vinyl is a meticulous time consuming process
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing