Ultra high resolution

hi dave:

resolution is not the issue. an overly focused unnatural presentation of the sound of instruments is the problem.

as you said in an earlier post, i might enjoy your stereo system and our "positions" may differ to a degree, as based upon my preference for a rear hall location and your preference for rows 1 to 5 ?

04-30-08: Mrtennis said:
"hi dave:

resolution is not the issue. an overly focused unnatural presentation of the sound of instruments is the problem."

I think we totally agree here. There's nothing "high resolution" about "overly focused unnatural presentation" and I think we agree that this is all too common and often passed off as "high resolution."

Dave

hi shadorne:

you have confronted the dichotomy facing serious listeners, namely: accuracy, as input=output, or musicality, as approaching the sound of live music.

one is not right or wrong.

i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.

i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.

the audio issue is taste and i respect both positions. if your standard is to respect the artist intention, then accuracy of reproduction is the criterion for assessing the merits of stereo systems. if your standard is the natural timbre of instruments, some voicing of a stereo system is logically consistent.

there are two standards and both have merit. live and let live.

Well, the last Shadornes' insightful post high light the gist of audiophile dilemma and indicate that indeed there are no absolutes in high end audio. There is wide range of sound between 'accurate' to recording and life like sound reproduction.

It is easier to discern what sounds like life- like as compared to ' accurate' ( unless you happen to be recording/mastering engineer). Even after recognizing that not too many audiophiles go to live acoustic performances on a regular basis.

Hence it is easier to tune the system that sounds close to life -like ( both you are there vs they are here perspective) v/s neutral, transparent or accurate. High rez equipment help achieve this goal certainly to a great degree but not necessarily.

i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.

i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.

MrT, with a concert hall preference that you have, it is no wonder that that you find difficulty with the perspective that the recording industry presents!! Most label give you somewhere in the neighborhood of front row center. Usually the perspective is higher than the seats would be though.

At any rate this is not a resolution issue. You simply don't like most recordings because you prefer a distant perspective, about as far away as you can get while still in the same room, from what I can make out.

Had you considered getting a digital delay or the like to lend a sense of distance to your recordings?