Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

fullness of sound could mean a lot of things

I have often wondered if a system has perfect dynamic range (impossible I know) would that not mean it would have to also have perfect resolution because you need those absolute tiny bits of information to achieve the lower dynamic range.

In other words dynamic range is important to me and more important than either fullness or resolution.

I did not mean to steal the post OP...

I want the speaker to sound as close as possible to what I hear in live jazz concerts and symphony halls. This means natural warmth (not bloat) quick transients, but no brightness and as transparent from top to bottom as possible with great inner detail. You should be able to get all this at low or high volumes. Pin point imaging, depth, width all fall into play when you get all the other parameters, unless of course you are using omnidirectional speakers, which never seem to have precisely focused images. I also don't want the speaker to be a one guy or gals speaker were the sound is only good sitting in the middle. The speaker should be efficient and easy to drive and have beautiful WAF.

Pick either one, you lose.

There's no strict audiophile vocabulary so people will naturally apply different meanings to terms. In the spirit of the OP where it's either/or I'll take fullness. I've heard too many components that in the name of resolution and detail are presenting the sound as bright, lean, thinner and bleached. Strip away the true fullness and body of instruments and you're left with an artificial, canned, unconvincing replica of the music.

The good news is that both resolution (natural) and realistic fullness/body are certainly achievable with some well implemented components. We can have resolution and fullness simultaneously.
Charles,

Although the subject line of this thread pertains to imaging and soundstaging, I think that the OP and others will find it to be relevant and of interest. My priorities, as listed in that thread in descending order of importance and based on terminology specified by that thread's OP, are:

1. timbre
2. coherence
3. dynamics
4. bass
5. detail
6. openness
7. imaging
8. air

As others have noted above, these kinds of terms will be defined differently by different audiophiles. That is perhaps especially true in the case of "fullness." But however it may be defined, it seems to me that "body," as referenced by Charles and Robsker, is one of it's essential ingredients, while also being an essential ingredient of timbre, which is no. 1 on my list and the lists of several others in the referenced thread.

Regards,
-- Al