High Performance Audio - The End?

If you’ve already passed that unfortunate point of too much resolution

There is never too much resolution, except if the different pieces of gear are badly paired, if not, there is a problem in the 3 embeddings particularly the electrical and acoustical one....

"Resolution" and details must be also musically presented and "revealed". If not they hurt the ears and some says this is too resolving...But it is a bad use of word...

The recording is resolved by the system+room, but the system +room reveal his own inner working in resolving the source...

Then there is a difference and a balance between "resolving" and "revealing"....Resolving refer to the original acoustic of the recorded initial musical event, revealing refer to his recreation by the system+room...

The ears/brain distinguished the 2 acoustical spaces, and all audio acoustical science is the art of educating the ears to use these 2 acoustical dimensions in the same moment...

Then "passing this point of too much resolution" is only an indication of a problem in the pairing of the gear or in the embeddings or in the 2... There is no objective point of too much resolution at some high price level on the Hi-Fi equipment scale...

My best to you...

Well, here are my thought on the subjetc:

1- The better your system sounds, the more enjoyable the musical experience and the better ALL songs sound, no matter the recording quality.
In fact, at least in my case, bad recordings sounded easier to listen as my system sound quality improved. Of course, the recording's flaws are more evident, but the overall presentation becomes FAR more enhoyable. 

2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.

3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often.
Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us. 
I know, it's VERY rewarding and exciting everytime we get better sound, but IMHO it's not sane to do it constantly. Not to mention the high cost of doing it often. 
My system sometimes moves me deeply with music, but that happens when I'm not judging the sound of my last upgrade and sometimes, when I'm cooking, or doing something else on the house, and my mp3 is playing, I find my self dancing, singing and enjoying music more! 
IMHO, getting this audio nervosa on high-end is a dangerous game and we must be aware of it. It shouldn't overcome our passion for music. 

4- I've heard some multithosand systems (+100k) on dealers and my relatively modest system (about 25k) sounded MUCH MUCH better. 
We don't have to spend three figures to have great sound.
Voicing, positioning and tweaking system and room is crucial!

Happy listening!

Thanks for your very good post...

My best to you.....

@plga,

Yes, excellent post. 4 good points. I think most of us have experienced examples of point 4.

But what about Steve's experience with the Magnepans and mine with the Quads?  [and is it also the same for ATC? I've often read that they do not suffer poor recordings well].

Could it be, just maybe - without offending anyone, maybe those particular designs, although extremely high resolution ones no doubt, are not particularly well balanced for all genres of music?

Or even particularly good with poor recordings, emphasizing weaknesses more than strengths to the point where certain tracks might start to fall apart.


'2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.'

Could that 'something' then be down to a question of balance? Resolution across the board instead of only in particular frequency bands? A little like those headphones which deliberately feature a slightly elevated frequency response in the mids enabling engineers to listen deeper into the mix.

Or maybe even resolution at the expense of timing, tone and dynamics? If such a thing is even possible?


'3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often.
Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us.'

Yes, since many of us like to use 'test discs' to evaluate new equipment it makes sense to use a good variety of recordings for evaluation both in genre and recording quality - rather than just a few familiar well recorded ones.

Instead of too much resolution, maybe we're really considering a question of not enough balance? Or maybe they're the same thing.

Interesting.

Thank you cd318 and mahgister for your kind coments.

I have listened to a pair of Magnepans (I believe 1.7) only once and they didnt convince me much. They sounded a litlle bit harsh even that they were driven by a tube amp (Primaluna integrated EL34 don't remember the model) and in a pretty well treated room. Maybe it was the source (digital directly from the CD player with out any DAC or digital interface whatsoever), but I can perfectly imagine they must be hard on bad recordings.
If I recall it correctly, the soundstage was wide (maybe bigger than it should), but not much deep and with out good layering.

I agree, it must be resolution with balance, but if your speakers and electronics are good, tweaking and voicing properly should do more good than bad to the reproduction of music, any song considered.

Warm regards