Your Preference: Resolution or Fullness?

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.

Precision, accuracy, quality, innovation of recording art, sound effects captured and emphisized, sound recording art specific to certain music, band, performer or orchestra... That what I would look from the original source. From the playback I don't want to miss any of above, but very often it's not possible. Many vintage records would describe methods of recording and placement of the mikes. It's interesting to read off its jackets, great to hear and compare with maximum precision.

Fullness is like foolness that either present or not on the original source. For this I join those who supports an authentic tone of reproduction.

After going through several systems in my life time. Modern and vintage, I prefer the tone and fullness of a vintage system. It took me a lot of equipment and money to figure that out......