Ultra high resolution

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.

Rodman99999, that is very good position to be in- exposed to live music on a regular basis as compared 'typical' audiophile who goes to live event once in a while- to make some kind of statement reg the def of resolution.

Could you post some of the titles that you think are accurate- available on CD or Vinyl? Thanks.

Mrtennis has a problem with hearing how instruments actually sound. For some reason this makes him uncomfortable, but I can understand that. What I find disturbing is his insinuation that striving to hear those details results in an inferior system.

I sit right next to the tuba and double basses in orchestra and the woodwinds are just a spit ball's distance away. I like hearing them on recordings like they sound in real life. Yes, I have a few homogenized orchestral recordings that sound distant and smeared all together, but I prefer those where I hear the brrr of the brass, ring of the cymbals and every nuance of the woodwinds and strings.

If someone wants a recording made from the perspective of the back of the hall, then buy recordings made from a distant perspective, OR sit further away from you speakers. I think that's a better alternative to building a system that defaults to that sound, no matter how high the quality (resolution) of the source material.

Dave

Details are definitely good to have and absolutely essential. It is the exaggerated details and thin, ill defined and scratchy 'tonal balance' of this details that I don't appreciate. Same goes w/ harmonics. Proper ' tonal' balance of these details and harmonics is the key ingredient of music to sound life like.