Ultra high resolution

I think it is all of the above and talent and experience of the designer. It helps a lot if he has extensive live music listening experience. Every parts is and should be 'costed' not soley parts quality/price but how it works in his current design as a whole.

I don't think there are only two amplifier brands out there w/ UHR. There are several or could be many (Small brands are sometime overlooked)

Once you have UHR amp, it comes down to how good is your source and preamp. Otherwise, garbage in UHRed garbage out!

With that said I agree w/ Mr Tennis's take on UHR. I like my music to sound natural and 'simple' (no exaggerated harmonics and details- which many well touted UHR system produces). Live music is not complicated- sound characteristics wise)

I have another stupid question: do some amplifier designers introduce deliberately some kind of noise (some kind of analog dither) so there is an apparent enhanced resolution?

Chris

hi chris:

more noise reduces focus and the level of resolution, it may mask low level musical information.

dither is sometimes used as a technique in the design of digital hardware.

hi dave:

many stereo systems seem more focused and have more clarity than live unamplified music.

consider the concert hall.

unless you sit very near the stage, there is a blending affect occuring with greater distance from the stage.

that is, sitting near the rear of a concert hall, with many bodies in fron of you changes the perception of treble frequencies. one is likely to hear an ensemble of violins rather than be able to pick out or count a number of individual violinists. there will be an attenuation of high frequencies. such a situation is not consistent with "high resolution". i have never heard anyone use the term "high resolution" to describe an orchestral performance.

unless you are performing in an orchestra, the term "high resolution" is not representative of what an audience member experiences at a concert hall.

rather,"medium resolution" is probably more appropriate.

I believe everyone in here will probably have a different idea/perspective/angle/semantic use for the term, "resolution". I get to hear live music twice a week, both amplified and acoustic as a sound tech. That requires me to hear the instruments/room/system from every listening point in the venue. What I'm hearing in my listening room(IF I'm not recording at home) is at the mercy of the engineer that recorded the performance, and the one that duplicated it at the CD plant. In MY perfect world all the genres of music I enjoy would be engineered by Doug Sax, direct to disc(vinyl). BUT- To quote Tom Jung(Digital Music Products), "You can't just send a master tape to a CD plant and expect to get back what you sent them", and he deals with some of the best in the industry. I have some personal recordings that I can use for reference to determine if what I'm hearing at home is accurate, but that's not my point here. My idea of "resolution" is getting whatever information(instrumental timbre and separation, full frequency response, venue ambience, etc.) that's recorded, from my source device to my ears, with the greatest possible degree of faithfulness. I'm big on truth, whether it's comfortable to me or not, and- I greatly appreciate transparency, whether in the people around me or from my sound system. I'm VERY greatful that this goal IS largely attainable.