2. misc-audio
  3. 1226673073

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
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,476 posts
 
I also agree the more resolution, the less it sounds like a recording

Disagree. The more resolution usually the more obvious it is a recording - you become aware of things like the choice of microphones and the unnatural compressed sound of percussion and overly forward sound of lead guitar and vocalist (most recorded music lacks balance as band members fight to have the engineer drown eachother out - usually they all fight against the drummer to make sure drums can be barely heard). Of course, the all too rare but excellent recordings can certainly fool you into thinking it is real - but not the majority.
dgarretson
2,597 posts
 
Sns, I completely agree with your notion that with progressive refinements to electronics, precise imaging comes together with density and dimensionality. Higher resolution reveals some types of fast transients as pin-points (say plucked strings or spitting at a reed of a wind instrument), while also preserving spacial cues around instruments that make instruments sound denser, rounder, larger and more organic in space. I'm not completely sure whether this effect is additive or substractive-- a really transparent system has the ability to clear the smog around instruments so that fine detail is revealed. Increased resolution is also critical to communicating depth and width of soundstage. People say "the room's the thing", but IMO superior electronics contribute more.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,476 posts
 
while also preserving spacial cues around instruments that make instruments sound denser, rounder, larger and more organic in space

That would be retrieving ambient detail on the recording - a good system will retrieve it and it will not be masked by distortion from the energy of the pprimary sounds (high S/N, low distortion and great dynamic range necessary to get the ambient stuff). This means you hear the "room" around the artists or the "virtual room" that the recording engineer created (through added reverb in teh mix stage and through real effects like voice plates, mike distance to floor, or a concert hall in the case of a live recording etc.)

If you have ever had the odd impression someone moved up to stand close behind you (you did not see them) but were rewarded when you turn around... that is ambient sound - just a person standing in the doorway may be enough to clue your brain that someone is there. We use it all the time. Some people feel sick in an anechoic chamber due to the lack of spatial cues. Without it a recording sounds terrible and anemic.
wavetrader
260 posts
 
Some of my favorite recordings are live...

Diana Krall live in Paris
Don Ellis Orch. live Monterey Jazz Fest.
Keith Jarret standards live
Hollywood Bowl live movie music
Judy Garland at Carnegie hall DCC....to name a few

I guess the spatial cues just draw me in....along with the interaction of the crowd...There is just so much more...picked up by the mic.
sns OP
3,158 posts
 
And now you guys have me thinking about live music. I ask, should live music really be the holy grail of audio experience? Based on my live concert experiences, I would more often choose to hear my audio system over live music. I point to poor sound reinforcement, less than favorable venue acoustics, even poor performance as reasons to favor the in home experience. While I can accept live music as the ultimate musical experience, it more often doesn't live up to it's promise.
More to discover