Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

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.

While the majority of posters claim to favor fullness over resolution (for the most part)then why are there so many complaints of harsh systems and posts about how to tame a bright or forward sound? Unfortunately, people are seduced by systems that are highly resolving (in the negative sense)in that they can "hear things they haven't heard before in the recording" and end up with a system that eventually sounds too annoying.

As in relationships with people, as one matures they (hopefully) learn that everyone and everything has faults and you have to know the faults you can live with and those you can't.

Charyo? Your post also suggests you favor fullness.