resolution and imaging


As my system has evolved over the years, I've noticed a change in how I perceive resolution. Resolution and imaging now seem inextricably linked to me, in other words, maximized imaging is absolutely necessary to maximizing resolution.

Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.

With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.

And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.

I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.

IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
sns
I think some are missing one of my points, imaging and lifelike sound are only one point at issue. I'm also saying that resoution is heard and/or at least somewhat defined by how well your system images and soundstages. A more palpable, dimensional image allows more detail to be hear. I contend a sytem that doesn't image and soundstage well is not maximally resolute, ie. the very spaciousness of the image and soundstage allows you to hear things that were formerly bunched up within less dimensional images and soundstaging.
Resolution and imaging are both good things.

Just think of you room as your own private concert hall that is unique and distinct from any other and don't worry about what the music sounds like elsewhere because it ain't the same so it really doesn't matter.
I'll add some observations about what takes place(my system)when very good imaging,resoltion and transparency are present. Everything has been constant for a while....speakers,cables,preamps..but I have had maybe six different amplifiers pass thru my system. Now when cables break in they morph...I use NBS. The NBS cables when new produce a directional sound from my speakers. Very left..right and vocals are on the same plane as the midrange driver...so there is some soundstage & imaging but limited. When they "come up" the sound is for the most part dispersed much more openly and vocals are center stage with a lifelike precision. I charachterise this sound as "open" and the L&R sound as "closed".

As I listened to each amplifier...I noticed differences in the imaging and soundstage...with verying degrees of openess. I use two amplifiers...one is SS and the other is tube....that is down from six(the others are in various systems(not main). Luckily both exhibit wonderful 3D qualities,resolution and transparency.

These amps morph in the same way as the cables...the tube does when I breakin new tubes and the SS when I recap with new or different capacitors. The amps at first are LR directional as they "come up" the sound is omni directional with the sound eminating with what my father observed as "Is the sound coming from the speakers??...the sound is coming from behind them..." good observation...as now the majority of recordings no longer sound LR or closed..but often are 3D holographic extending beyond the speakers and in fact beyond the room boundries.

What actually happens here is that the speakers work in a extremely coherent and efficent manner...depending on the amplifier(everything else is constant)and I think it goes well beyond just to say there is a synergy. Resolution increases...transparency goe up in magnitudes...and imaging takes on the ability to produce space and volume of the original venue. I am not a engineer so technically I cannot explain what is taking place....but I know that distortion levels must be at low levels to acheive this quality of sound. I think distortion... lack of has more of a impact than anything else. I have come to this conclusion because of the differences I hear between capacitors when I mod my equipment. FWIW
Newbee, I just re-read what I posted, and that does sound crazy (I really should stop making these posts so late at night). If the whole orchestra is playing, and all of the violins are playing in unison, then no, it should be nearly impossible to distinguish an individual member of the violin section, unless, as you say, there is someone very out of tune or playing a wrong note, or an open E string when they shouldn't be. But if it is a very quiet passage, and say someone is vibrating differently than the rest of the section, or is playing too loudly compared to the rest, this can be audible. This is the type of thing I was thinking of when I wrote that.

Timbre does also refer to the tone of an individual instrument, it is not just a general term, though you would usually use the word "tone" when speaking of it in that way. From the back of the hall, an experienced listener should be able to pick out the timbre of the violins as opposed to the violas, even if they are playing in unison and at the same volume, which certainly does happen often. Picking out the tone of an individual violin within the section, however, would be extremely difficult, as you say, and identifying the make of a specific violin would be quite a feat indeed. If one was a violinist, perhaps this could be done, if the violin section was playing by itself. Being a horn player, I could come reasonably close to identifying the make of instrument if I heard it live. With wind instruments, this is quite a bit easier, as our tones are quite a bit more individual than those of a string instrument. I could certainly identify any of my wind-playing colleagues tones in my orchestra instantly upon hearing them, whereas it would be much more difficult for me to do so with my string-playing colleagues, who I almost never hear playing by themselves, except for the principals.

However, I hope it goes without saying that it would be silly for a concertgoer to even attempt to try to identify individual violinst's tones. Why I went there, I have no idea, re-reading that. I plead guilty, with a side of sleep-deprivation. Even to concentrate on a single section would be detrimental to your overall experience of the music. Only music students need to do this. The main thing one should try to do, besides enjoying the whole texture of the music, is to try to isolate the main melody or thematic components from the accompanying ideas, and follow these things throughout the orchestra. The composer assumes his listeners are trying to do this, and of course helps by carefully balancing the sonorities he creates. There is a great book on the subject actually, written by the famous American composer Aaron Copland, called "What To Listen For In Music." I highly recommend it to all who are interested, which I hope anyone perusing this site would be. He asks two questions - Are you hearing everything that is going on, and are you really being sensitive to it. Whatever sort of music you like to listen to, this book will really deepen your understanding and enjoyment of it. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!
when listening to music there is a a "level" of clarity. unfortunately i think most stereo systems sound clearer than what i would observe at a concert hall.
i do not want to hear the turning of pages, the movement of a chair, as such non musical "data" is distracting. at a distance from the source of the music, i would not hear these non-musical "sounds".

i do not notice an image at a concert hall. it sounds more like mono, than stereo. i don't notice the spacing that some audiophiles talk about when they listen to recordings.

for me, the closer to live, the better.