resolution and imaging


As my system has evolved over the years, I've noticed a change in how I perceive resolution. Resolution and imaging now seem inextricably linked to me, in other words, maximized imaging is absolutely necessary to maximizing resolution.

Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.

With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.

And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.

I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.

IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
sns

Showing 10 responses by wavetrader

Some of my favorite recordings are live...

Diana Krall live in Paris
Don Ellis Orch. live Monterey Jazz Fest.
Keith Jarret standards live
Hollywood Bowl live movie music
Judy Garland at Carnegie hall DCC....to name a few

I guess the spatial cues just draw me in....along with the interaction of the crowd...There is just so much more...picked up by the mic.
Imaging,resolution,transparency at the highest level go hand in hand. In my experience the amplifier has a lot to do with all three. Not to leave out the speakers either. This is what makes me continue to upgrade my system. I look at it this way....does it sound like a recording? If it does(majority) I have room for improvement....if the sound has high levels of the three characteristics mentioned it doesn't sound like a recording. It might not sound live...but in the best reproduction....all that a microphone can absorb I can hear. You can't ask much more than that.
Sns...seems like your endeavers into tweaking equipment with capacitor voicing has paid dividends. I too have become a beleiver in capacitor performance making a impact on lower THD leading to sonic improvement. The most significant gains have been in transparency,3d holographics,and tonal realism. I realise only good quality and designed equipment will deliver the greatest improvements....but these gains are very real.
Newbee said...."Now I'm sure that if I was on the podium I would hear it differently." Interesting....In the recording were hearing what the mic gathers....so the info must be there...I would think. Now the issue is can the electronics and speakers reproduce it.
"accuracy of timbre is much more significant as a cue to recognizing realism in musical reproduction than any other factor."

If I understand the point of Sns...with a increase of imaging and resolution come accuracy of timbre and other things. Atleast that's my experience....A good way for me to explain it....walking into a art gallery from 20ft away is a large Jackson Pollock painting....only from 2ft can you really see the detail and realise his method of painting.

In fact that is a good analogy....music has many nuances..and that is where the beauty is. Not in a analytical way just the whole spectrum of what I hear from the instruments...individualy,as a composite,the room,and voice or choral. The whole interacting together..the performance that is what I like.

I agree with mic placement...on a whole the classical labels have always done a better job. I listened to a Korngold recording last night...done on the Marco Polo label...everything I'm looking for was there...simply
beautiful.

Now in regards to the level of realism or accuracy. When I started down the road of voicing capacitors I was looking for tonal purity. It just happens that the purest tonal quality I have acheived so far....resolution,transparency,and 3D holographic imaging were all increased to a very high level... all these attributes are tied together with tonal purity among others.
Oh and let me throw in PRAT as well....so the bottom line is...for me... is a very low THD amplifier either voiced by the manufactuer or by me (modding) effects every aspect of the reproduction I hear...the enjoyment level has gone up significantly.
To hear a recording that represents everything mentioned in this thread...I suggest the Living Stereo Copland "Billy the Kid"/Groffe "Grand Canyon Suite" Morton Gould....if there is a better recording that conveys the genius of these American composers I haven't heard it....A work of art of stunning beauty.
Does it matter at the back of the hall...I would think only the sound level would be affected. Reproducing the accuracy of the tonal qualities may be like looking through a 4x optical but I really like the portrayl from my listening seat.
I agree that some CD's thought lacking...are now listenable. The increase in overall resolution has given new insight for me into the engineering of the recording. As example...Ampex 300 3 channel recordings are obvious as are most or all recordings where Ampex electonics were used. Interesingly they are among ones I like best....along with Studer 800 series.
I'll add some observations about what takes place(my system)when very good imaging,resoltion and transparency are present. Everything has been constant for a while....speakers,cables,preamps..but I have had maybe six different amplifiers pass thru my system. Now when cables break in they morph...I use NBS. The NBS cables when new produce a directional sound from my speakers. Very left..right and vocals are on the same plane as the midrange driver...so there is some soundstage & imaging but limited. When they "come up" the sound is for the most part dispersed much more openly and vocals are center stage with a lifelike precision. I charachterise this sound as "open" and the L&R sound as "closed".

As I listened to each amplifier...I noticed differences in the imaging and soundstage...with verying degrees of openess. I use two amplifiers...one is SS and the other is tube....that is down from six(the others are in various systems(not main). Luckily both exhibit wonderful 3D qualities,resolution and transparency.

These amps morph in the same way as the cables...the tube does when I breakin new tubes and the SS when I recap with new or different capacitors. The amps at first are LR directional as they "come up" the sound is omni directional with the sound eminating with what my father observed as "Is the sound coming from the speakers??...the sound is coming from behind them..." good observation...as now the majority of recordings no longer sound LR or closed..but often are 3D holographic extending beyond the speakers and in fact beyond the room boundries.

What actually happens here is that the speakers work in a extremely coherent and efficent manner...depending on the amplifier(everything else is constant)and I think it goes well beyond just to say there is a synergy. Resolution increases...transparency goe up in magnitudes...and imaging takes on the ability to produce space and volume of the original venue. I am not a engineer so technically I cannot explain what is taking place....but I know that distortion levels must be at low levels to acheive this quality of sound. I think distortion... lack of has more of a impact than anything else. I have come to this conclusion because of the differences I hear between capacitors when I mod my equipment. FWIW