Ultra high resolution


Hi folks, I suppose this is a question none could answer appropriately. How come that some (there are to my knowledge only two of them) amplifier brands are building such ultra high resolution solid state amplifiers without having a treble that sounds shrill or piercing or artificial? It is of course proprietary info if you ask those manufacturers.
Is it because of very tight selection of matched transistors? Is it because lack of global but high level of local feedback? Is it because of the use of very expensive military grade parts? Is it because of the power supply? Is it because of the application of special circuit design? Is it because all of the above?

Chris
dazzdax
Actually, Mrtennis, if the recording hall and playback system are up to snuff then wouldn't you expect the opera singer to fill the entire soundstage whether live or during reproduction with minimal localization?

As for hearing an entertainer breath, that is almost entirely up to the artist(s) and sound engineer (and quality of the playback system's ability to accurately reproduce).

You seem to be well aware some music is not intended to be closely miked. But you also must know some music is intended for intimate settings.

There's certainly nothing wrong with preferring rear hall seating or not wanting to hear an artist breath, etc. but if these are indeed some of your preferences then it seems illogical to blame a potentially highly resolving playback system by stripping away what little hope of magic it may provide when in fact the system is nothing more than a reproducer (good or bad) of the recording microphones' perspectives (good or bad) of the live performance.

Isn't that kinda' like blaming your ice-maker for poor tasting ice when your water supply is coming from a sewage treatment plant 2 miles down the road?

-IMO
hi stehno:

you make a good point at distinguishing the message from the messenger. consistent with my last post, i don't blame a "relatively" or "virtually" neutral stereo systenm for reproducing what is on the recording. i may not enjoy listening to a recording or do not want to suffer through it. in that case, i will attempt to alter what comes out of the speakers by voicing the other components to minimize the effects of recordings whose sound i don't like. hopefully, i can do this in such a manner so as to restore a "neutral" character when recordings represent the sound of instruments in a natural manner. thus i would have a "chameleon-like" stereo system.

ideally, one might have a way to alter the sound of the stereo system or not alter it, to suit one's taste and/or respond to the nature of recordings.
MrT, it seems to me that you would be a fan of the Westminster label. They had a distant mic perspective. Am I right?
my favorite cd labels for classical recordings include the following:

glossa, opus 111, mirare, accent and harmonia mundi.

there are some older london orchestrals that have a mid to rear hall perspective as well. i don't remember westiminster recordings as having a distant perspective. however, i will consider your statement as fact. i have several westminster cds. i will listen to them. i have some lps as well. thanks for the tip.
Seems to me there is a message vs the messenger thing going on here.

If the message is bad news I don't kill the messenger, in this case, the stereo. The message is the music. IOW I won't fault a system for playing it like it is- that is resolution plain and simple. OTOH resolution is **not** 'detail with added brightness'; I call that 'detail with added brightness' :)

IME a system with a bright or clinical quality is obscuring the musical message. That's not resolution!