Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

Pick either one, you lose.

There's no strict audiophile vocabulary so people will naturally apply different meanings to terms. In the spirit of the OP where it's either/or I'll take fullness. I've heard too many components that in the name of resolution and detail are presenting the sound as bright, lean, thinner and bleached. Strip away the true fullness and body of instruments and you're left with an artificial, canned, unconvincing replica of the music.

The good news is that both resolution (natural) and realistic fullness/body are certainly achievable with some well implemented components. We can have resolution and fullness simultaneously.
Charles,

Although the subject line of this thread pertains to imaging and soundstaging, I think that the OP and others will find it to be relevant and of interest. My priorities, as listed in that thread in descending order of importance and based on terminology specified by that thread's OP, are:

1. timbre
2. coherence
3. dynamics
4. bass
5. detail
6. openness
7. imaging
8. air

As others have noted above, these kinds of terms will be defined differently by different audiophiles. That is perhaps especially true in the case of "fullness." But however it may be defined, it seems to me that "body," as referenced by Charles and Robsker, is one of it's essential ingredients, while also being an essential ingredient of timbre, which is no. 1 on my list and the lists of several others in the referenced thread.

Regards,
-- Al

The impetuous kid inside me says; I want both!, I want both!

Fullness is a must. Without it I cannot even listen and will quickly turn off the stereo. If resolution lacks, well it is still listenable and good background music. If thin sounding and bright I can't even listen as background music.