Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, what do you mean by “natural resolution”?

You are correct to point out that I am corrupting slightly here my own objective definition of resolution. I am distinguishing slightly between additional forensic detail (the audio equivalent of pixels per square inch) and resolution which improves believability by providing slightly more information.

But you are correct to point out that this veers towards your definition of resolution, which definitionally I still do not agree with.

 

[Holmz]

... There's a lot more to "noise floor" than quieter; there's importantly lower distortion, which hits very squarely in the areas you highlight as important. Just an FYI.

How did you conclude that?
(I may have missed it.)

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

my experience with Jadis is that they have balls, but lack the ultimate finesse

 

[bonzo75]

my experience with Jadis is that they have balls, but lack the ultimate finesse

That’s true with any of these KT type high watt push pull tube amps. They only compete with each other and SS amps

 

[bonzo75]

You are correct to point out that I am corrupting slightly here my own objective definition of resolution

But you are correct to point out that this veers towards your definition of resolution, which definitionally I still do not agree with.

logical?

 

[PeterA]

You are correct to point out that I am corrupting slightly here my own objective definition of resolution. I am distinguishing slightly between additional forensic detail (the audio equivalent of pixels per square inch) and resolution which improves believability by providing slightly more information.

But you are correct to point out that this veers towards your definition of resolution, which definitionally I still do not agree with.

I see. Yes, for me resolution is more than just detail or pixel count. It is all the information from the recording that one hears from his system that enables him to have insight to the performance.

To me adding the qualifier “natural” simply means that the resolution or information is presented in a way that reminds me of the experience of listening to a live performance. Some systems or components make ALL presentations sound the same or like you are up on stage inches or feet from the instrument for example. This is too much detail and not like the experience of live music. The perspective is wrong. Scale, impact, weight, timber, details - they must all be convincing and in the right proportion to each other. To me, that is natural resolution. When it is right, we know it and we go straight to the music and do not “hear” the system. The more natural the information on the recording is presented to us by our systems, the less we consciously analyze what we hear, and the more it becomes about the music.

He doesn't even know. It seems to be a roundabout conflation of diatribe. Which way it goes, is nobody's guess.

There will never be an answer.

Unless the answer is in discombobluation. This seems to be par for the course.

Usually, folks seem to request or seek offerings of advice. This does not seem to be the case here. Advice is shunted, dismissed and not given any thought.

Tom

I have no idea what this means. I presume it refers to me, but I could be wrong. It is quite vague

 

[tima]

You are correct to point out that I am corrupting slightly here my own objective definition of resolution. I am distinguishing slightly between additional forensic detail (the audio equivalent of pixels per square inch) and resolution which improves believability by providing slightly more information.

There is no objective definition of resolution for audio reproduction. There is no quantum of resolution measurable independently of each individual's hearing.

To me adding the qualifier “natural” simply means that the resolution or information is presented in a way that reminds me of the experience of listening to a live performance. ... This is too much detail and not like the experience of live music. The perspective is wrong. Scale, impact, weight, timber, details - they must all be convincing and in the right proportion to each other. To me, that is natural resolution. When it is right, we know it and we go straight to the music and do not “hear” the system. The more natural the information on the recording is presented to us by our systems, the less we consciously analyze what we hear, and the more it becomes about the music.

This account of "natural" makes sense to me.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

PeterA: The more natural the information on the recording is presented to us by our systems, the less we consciously analyze what we hear, and the more it becomes about the music.

100% agree...that is the essence .....
forgetting the system is a good sign.......

 

[microstrip]

my experience with Jadis is that they have balls, but lack the ultimate finesse

I had this idea until I partnered their amplifiers with the Jadis JP80 preamplifier. Perhaps not the "ultimate" but it added air and finesse to the system - the treble become much more enjoyable. There was magic in such system.

For some time I owned the Jadis JP80MC and JA80 moblocks - I got them used and still consider it was by far the best value for money I had in amplification in my system. Unfortunately the system had no remote, something that I consider mandatory. I would love to listen to them again, now with with top digital.

 

[LL21]

Well there are 5 senses. We can eliminate taste and touch, and if there is a smell then it’s a bit too late.
So the other way one could glean “insight”, would be with something like an o-scope.
Since we can only hear up to some frequency defined in kHz, then it is difficult to find noise up towards MHz without using the eyes.

One can either just see it go down.
Or they could see where it is, and that may give some insight into what it is, and the mechanism for how it is getting in.

However if one is not hearing anything to begin with, then it is either FOMO driven, or there is some desire to see if anything is there, and seeing if the noise can be pushed down from more of an intellectual perspective, rather than a FOMO perspective.

I can only speak for myself. There are many times when I did not realize what I was missing...a better camera lens, going from VHS after 20 years to DVD, increasing the resolution of the laptop screen. And each time, I wondered how I ever got on with the earlier version. And I also knew it would be 'impossible' to go back. (Would any of us be happy with VHS resolution anymore...I have seen a movie on VHS recently and it was amusingly grainy in comparison.)

In a not dissimilar fashion, as resolution has improved, presumably as TTs, speakers, preamps, amps have all improved...they have revealed resolution, insight, etc that many of us did not know nor appreciate was there originally. And it is not as if I was necessarily hearing the lack of something or the presence of grain. Not until someone designed something where grain was either eliminated or detail was revealed that heretofore had not been apparent.

I supposed that is what some are referring to in their 'you dont know what you dont know'. At least for me, when I have compared prior references with newer references, there certainly have been times when I realized the designer knew/discovered new information or refinements to reveal in their new references that very few if any had ever complained about until the designer had come forward.

 

[Ron Resnick]

He doesn't even know. It seems to be a roundabout conflation of diatribe. Which way it goes, is nobody's guess.

There will never be an answer.

Unless the answer is in discombobluation. This seems to be par for the course.

Usually, folks seem to request or seek offerings of advice. This does not seem to be the case here. Advice is shunted, dismissed and not given any thought.

Tom

This appears to be a personal attack on a poster. Coming from our supermoderator this post appears to be unbecoming to say the least.

It appears to violate his own admonition:

 

[Ron Resnick]

100% agree...that is the essence .....
forgetting the system is a good sign.......

+1

 

[PeterA]

This appears to be a personal attack on a poster. Coming from our supermoderator this post appears to be unbecoming to say the least.

It appears to violate his own admonition:

View attachment 156033

Yes, very strange personal attack from the moderator who is supposed to be enforcing terms of service.

Instead, he should be responding to the content of the post and comment on what he thinks about “natural resolution” or stay silent.

 

[Elliot G.]

I think the term resolution and the term natural do not in my mind refer to the same thing.
Resolution to me is the ability of the component ( really the system since a component does nothing alone) can playback all the information on the recording with out changing it.
We usually call that detail.
When I think of natural I think of does this resolution sound like the real thing that I have heard live. Does it give me the illusion , does it make me loose the system and gear and get directly involved with the music and musicians .
IMO the real real is greatly accelerated by the elimination of various noises and unnatural sounds that are inserted by the playback process, whether these are colorations added or subtracted by the gear and the room or because these are amplified or produced by the pieces of the playback chain itself .
The simplification of noise/ distortion/ unrealness as only one thing in my opinion is wrong.
BTW I did not understand this until last year I thought noise was just noise and of one type .

 

[Elliot G.]

Yes, very strange personal attack from the moderator who is supposed to be enforcing terms of service.

Instead, he should be responding to the content of the post and comment on what he thinks about “natural resolution” or stay silent.

It seems there is a selective integrity and a selective system of what and what isn’t ok defined in ways that don’t seem to be consistent.
Got to go Jays texting lol

 

[Argonaut]

This appears to be a personal attack on a poster. Coming from our supermoderator this post appears to be unbecoming to say the least.

It appears to violate his own admonition:

View attachment 156033

Have you considered that Tom may have been referring to your post(s) Ron ? , his being in following on chronological order

 

[PeterA]

I think the term resolution and the term natural do not in my mind refer to the same thing.
Resolution to me is the ability of the component ( really the system since a component does nothing alone) can playback all the information on the recording with out changing it.
We usually call that detail.
When I think of natural I think of does this resolution sound like the real thing that I have heard live. Does it give me the illusion , does it make me loose the system and gear and get directly involved with the music and musicians .
IMO the real real is greatly accelerated by the elimination of various noises and unnatural sounds that are inserted by the playback process, whether these are colorations added or subtracted by the gear and the room or because these are amplified or produced by the pieces of the playback chain itself .
The simplification of noise/ distortion/ unrealness as only one thing in my opinion is wrong.
BTW I did not understand this until last year I thought noise was just noise and of one type .

To me, details, whether you hear one of the musicians breathing or a tiny tiny tap on the cymbals that you can hear from some systems, but not others. Expand that and you get nuance. Resolution covers this, but it goes beyond to convey things like proportion and scale and location and tone. If those things aren’t conveyed accurately based on the information embedded on the recording, then I would say the system is not very resolving.

The table top radio or car stereo is not as resolving as our better home systems not because of detail retrieval, but because of the whole experience. The information isn’t conveyed in its entirety. To me that his resolution.

Natural resolution is all about how convincing it is relative to one’s reference of live music. Our system can be resolving, but not sound convincing.

 

[Argonaut]

To me adding the qualifier “natural” simply means that the resolution or information is presented in a way that reminds me of the experience of listening to a live performance. Some systems or components make ALL presentations sound the same or like you are up on stage inches or feet from the instrument for example. This is too much detail and not like the experience of live music. The perspective is wrong. Scale, impact, weight, timber, details - they must all be convincing and in the right proportion to each other.

And yet you constantly champion transducers that imho commit a number of the sins of which you speak , in particular scale of the performer , they were of course designed in the main part to project such an audio signal into a large space Viz a theatre , I am of course referring to Karmeli’s Bioner theatre transducers .

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, very strange personal attack from the moderator who is supposed to be enforcing terms of service.

It (the comment) is on Ron

 

[Elliot G.]

To me, details, whether you hear one of the musicians breathing or a tiny tiny tap on the cymbals that you can hear from some systems, but not others. Expand that and you get nuance. Resolution covers this, but it goes beyond to convey things like proportion and scale and location and tone. If those things aren’t conveyed accurately based on the information embedded on the recording, then I would say the system is not very resolving.

The table top radio or car stereo is not as resolving as our better home systems not because of detail retrieval, but because of the whole experience. The information isn’t conveyed in its entirety. To me that his resolution.

Natural resolution is all about how convincing it is relative to one’s reference of live music. Our system can be resolving, but not sound convincing.

While I agree with some of what you said your definitions and word choices describing it don’t .
I find the term natural or musical
Meaningless since they mean something different to everyone and they have become audiophile code. We can add organic to that as well.