Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

I think this is the very first time, ever, that I disagree with, or don't understand a comment by Almarg, whose posts are always a model of clarity and sanity. When I read the subject line, imaging and soundstaging were probably the last things I thought of. I also don't understand why many feel that if one has resolution it has to also mean lack of fullness.

While resolution certainly affects soundstaging, I have heard many speakers that have good tonal resolution but poor spatial resolution. I value tonal resolution above all else (except micro-dynamics which is first in my book), and while I love a good soundstage as much as anyone else, I need my system to have good tonal resolution even when I am sitting nowhere near the sweet spot, which is how I do much of my listening.

I think part of the problem, like in the "what is neutrality" discussions, is that fullness is thought of as something that one adds to the sound via choice or tuning of components, and that resolution is the absence of fullness. Music has a lot of natural fullness and is something that should be considered a positive result of good resolution. Good resolution reveals the natural and very rich harmonic information in the sound of musical instruments and that is where natural fullness comes from. You can't have too much resolution. Systems that sound thin and thread bare (as many do) often sound that way because there is harmonic information that is missing, so one gets the impression of high resolution because what is there is highlighted due to the absence of other information in the balance. My Stax F-81's are a case in point. These electrostats have little bass to speak of, yet have the most naturally full midrange and highs that I have ever heard; they have great tonal (harmonic) resolution. Conversely, I have heard speakers that have very full bass and still sound thin and threadbare through the midrange which is where most of the music is.

Hi Frogman,

Thanks for the nice words. I'm not sure if it was clear to you that my reference to the subject line of "this thread" as pertaining to imaging and soundstaging had the words "this thread" hyperlinked. What I was saying is that ALTHOUGH the subject line of that OTHER thread referred to imaging and soundstaging, I felt that much of the discussion it contained had relevance to the subject matter of this thread.

As for the rest of your post just above, I agree 100% with all of it, and you make great points IMO. The upshot of my post was that IMO realistic reproduction of timbre is the no. 1 criterion in quality music reproduction. Per your excellent explanation, that requires BOTH "fullness" and resolution, and good resolution is a necessary ingredient if realistic fullness is to be achieved.

Best regards,
-- Al

Agree with Douglas Schroeder: don't choose between these false alternatives.

Frogman,
You are so correct when you say you can't have "too"much resolution. I've believed for a long time that there's no such thing as too much resolution or transparency. The more the better as it just results in less veiling of what you hear.
When people say too much I think they're referring to pseudo detail and resolution which is a artificial presentation that is bright, thin, edgy and lean and this is mistakenly called transparency ( or even worse referred to as accurate). Natural sound can't be too much(live voice or acoustic instruments) , but artificial certainty can be .
Charles,

Excellent comments and thoughts by all participants. Frogman, you should be an equipment AND music reviewer. Your explanations are always so lucid and clear that even a layman reading these threads in which you are a participant could understand. I'm just so envious of your skills at communicating your thoughts on matters to the written word, you have a true gift for this my friend.