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
One sign of a good system I think is that few if any recordings sound bad. Few if any are perfect but most have something to offer.

I've heard a lot of original vinyl and remastered CDs of material from the 50s and earlier that sound very good, if not lifelike, in their own way.
There have been some odd comments in this thread today - one can't hear instrumental timbre from the back of the hall??? No localization??? You should be able to hear where an instrument is located on the stage from any seat in the hall. Many composers rely very much on the audience's ability to localize sound, on and off the stage, most obviously Henry Brant and other composers of "spatial" music. This is what many audiophiles mean by "imaging", the ability to pinpoint the location of an instrument. And granting we are trained to blend our sounds together as much as possible, you should be able to distinguish different instrumental timbres from each other!!

And yes, there is an equivalent of what audiophiles call soundstaging in any hall - the sound of a great concert hall is very specifically designed by acousticians (with greatly varying levels of success, of course), and the recreation of this in a recording is an important part of "soundstaging." The best recordings do give you a sense of what the specific hall they were recorded in sounds like, though of course it can never be the same as hearing it live. Carnegie Hall presents a very different "soundstage" to Avery Fisher, for example (and a far better one, too), and this has a HUGE effect on what the music sounds like. If an orchestra goes on tour and plays in several different halls over the course of a few weeks, sometimes very big adjustments must be made to account for the different sound, or "soundstage" if you will, of each hall. Another example of how the "soundstage" can change in the same hall is if the orchestra changes their set-up, as they often do. Placing sections on different levels of risers or keeping everyone on the floor makes a very big difference to the sound out in the hall. Or moving a shell backwards or forwards so that there is more or less room on the stage (thus making the distance between players change). Or having movable side panels. All of these things will greatly affect the "soundstage" that is presented to the audience in the hall, and many modern halls are designed with many such features, so that the hall can sound different from week to week.

And for a trained musician, it is indeed possible to pick out an individual member of a violin section, even from the last row, though certainly most concertgoers would not be able to do this. It is easier to pick out individual players of the brass or woodwind sections, especially if you attend concerts by the same orchestra on a regular basis. And speaking of seating location, I hope, Mr. Tennis, that your favored last row is not under an overhang of any kind. If it is, this might indeed interfere with your ability to perceive the music as the performers are intending, for various acoustical reasons, and I would suggest that you change your seat if this is the case.

I did not mean to suggest that soundstaging and imaging are more important than accurate realization of instrumental timbre, of course, just that as Sns originally posted, these things do matter in the attempt to reproduce live music as much as can be done via recording. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!
To hear a recording that represents everything mentioned in this thread...I suggest the Living Stereo Copland "Billy the Kid"/Groffe "Grand Canyon Suite" Morton Gould....if there is a better recording that conveys the genius of these American composers I haven't heard it....A work of art of stunning beauty.
hi tvad:

in order to decrease resolution, i either turn off the stereo or disconnect the tweeter, depending upon my mood.
Wavetrader,

Thanks for the tip.

I've acquired a greater appreciation of many of the older RCA recordings in the last few years.