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
wavetrader
260 posts
 
"accuracy of timbre is much more significant as a cue to recognizing realism in musical reproduction than any other factor."

If I understand the point of Sns...with a increase of imaging and resolution come accuracy of timbre and other things. Atleast that's my experience....A good way for me to explain it....walking into a art gallery from 20ft away is a large Jackson Pollock painting....only from 2ft can you really see the detail and realise his method of painting.

In fact that is a good analogy....music has many nuances..and that is where the beauty is. Not in a analytical way just the whole spectrum of what I hear from the instruments...individualy,as a composite,the room,and voice or choral. The whole interacting together..the performance that is what I like.

I agree with mic placement...on a whole the classical labels have always done a better job. I listened to a Korngold recording last night...done on the Marco Polo label...everything I'm looking for was there...simply
beautiful.

Now in regards to the level of realism or accuracy. When I started down the road of voicing capacitors I was looking for tonal purity. It just happens that the purest tonal quality I have acheived so far....resolution,transparency,and 3D holographic imaging were all increased to a very high level... all these attributes are tied together with tonal purity among others.
wavetrader
260 posts
 
Oh and let me throw in PRAT as well....so the bottom line is...for me... is a very low THD amplifier either voiced by the manufactuer or by me (modding) effects every aspect of the reproduction I hear...the enjoyment level has gone up significantly.
newbee
4,768 posts
 
Wavetrader, I love your analogy. It works! But, in the long run is it valuable to look at the painting up close, when/if it detracts from the picture the artist entended?
The old 'failing to see the forrest for the trees' works as aptly, I think. No real answer to this question. Its all so personal.

Re the accuracy of timbre both in general and as emphasized by Mr T..... On a recording the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of timbre would be effected more by mic placement than clarity of detail I think, or attributibe to one or several instruments together which are out of tune and because there are closely mic'd and become very vivid in the mix become noticible in the overall performance.

FWIW, I remain unconvinced that Mr T can hear instrument timbre in the back of the hall. In that location the sound is so infused with hall sounds such specificity is impossible. Now if the Concertmaster is half tone deaf and can't tune the orchestra, that is another matter.

Horses for courses. Some like a fast track, others like (or at least perform better than others in) mud! :-)
wavetrader
260 posts
 
Does it matter at the back of the hall...I would think only the sound level would be affected. Reproducing the accuracy of the tonal qualities may be like looking through a 4x optical but I really like the portrayl from my listening seat.
dgarretson
2,599 posts
 
Regardless of how an original performance is miked(whether live or in the studio, mikes front or back or high or low, close-miked or at a distance from instruments), it is a highly questionable goal to strive to assemble an audiophile system that propagates a particular perspective analogous to any one of these types of original "live" venues. If one ascribes a feeling of fatigue to resolution and thinks that the answer is to defocus detail & run for the "back row," then there is something wrong with that system other than high rez. To paraphrase several posters, a true component upgrade moves the system forward in multiple vectors. Any increase in resolving power brings with it other good qualities-- there can be no such thing as too much resolution.

On a separate point, compression in the production process detracts significantly from proper imaging. Recordings made without any compression(the CIMP jazz label is consistently a good example), are reminders that the depth/layering of a soundstage is communicated through nuances of fine detail at low volume levels. Instruments at the back of the performance space are perceived to be so, only if their subtleties of timbre are preserved at lower relative volume. Only a really quiet & high resolution playback system can reveal this convincingly.
More to discover