1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 1226673073

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
dgarretson
2,394 posts
 
Regardless of how an original performance is miked(whether live or in the studio, mikes front or back or high or low, close-miked or at a distance from instruments), it is a highly questionable goal to strive to assemble an audiophile system that propagates a particular perspective analogous to any one of these types of original "live" venues. If one ascribes a feeling of fatigue to resolution and thinks that the answer is to defocus detail & run for the "back row," then there is something wrong with that system other than high rez. To paraphrase several posters, a true component upgrade moves the system forward in multiple vectors. Any increase in resolving power brings with it other good qualities-- there can be no such thing as too much resolution.

On a separate point, compression in the production process detracts significantly from proper imaging. Recordings made without any compression(the CIMP jazz label is consistently a good example), are reminders that the depth/layering of a soundstage is communicated through nuances of fine detail at low volume levels. Instruments at the back of the performance space are perceived to be so, only if their subtleties of timbre are preserved at lower relative volume. Only a really quiet & high resolution playback system can reveal this convincingly.
mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
I want it all.
sns OP
653 posts
 
Hmm. I agree with all of you. MrTennis, yes, timbre and tonality are critical, but as Shadorne mentioned, why settle for just that. There is absolutely no inherent reason why a system can't excell in tonality, timbre, PRAT, dynamics, imaging, soundstaging, and every other aspect of sonic performance all at the same time, why limit yourself to optimizing only one or two aspects of sonic performance. My goal is to have a good balance of all of the above, I'm not even sure I can place a priority on any one aspect, it seems I prioritize based on needs. For instance, a new analog setup has been doing many things correctly, but dynamics were sorely lacking, ie. I prioritized improving dynamics, job done, now something else will become the priority.

I agree that maximizing resolution is the key to upgrading all parameters of sonic performance. Each step up in resolution may expose a flaw that was previously hidden, and so you 'fix' that flaw and take a further step up in resolution, and so on.... And so, Dave is correct, "there can be no such thing as too much resolution." The worst case scenario is a bad recording sounds worse than before, that is the fault of the software.
sns OP
653 posts
 
My last statement about bad recordings sounding worse may in fact be wrong. My view on higher resolution and sonically challenged recordings has evolved over the years. I'm finding that high resolution may in fact improve the sound of many lesser recordings if that higher resolution is accompanied by a coincident improvement in the other sonic parameters. Lesser recordings can actually sound better than before.

If the higher resolution you're extracting results in a more palpable, organic sound, its all to the good for the lesser recording. I can't think of a single cd or album I've tossed in the past couple of years, I tossed perhaps 10% of my recordings prior. I've returned a number of times to these previously trashed recordings and found new life and interest in them. Perhaps there is no downside to properly balanced high resolution.
newbee
4,093 posts
 
Sns, I agree totally with your last post. This has been my personal experience as well. I won't bore with details, but I have so many CD's of great performances (thats why I bought them) that are quite listenable now than I did just a few years ago and this is all related to an honest re-assessment of my real goals and expectaions. I keep digging out these old remastered analog and early digital recordings. Like having a gold mine of new unexpected treasures in the closet. :-) I have not found any that sound worse, or even as bad, as before and the ultimate resolution qualities of my system have made a major leap since I put them away.
More to discover