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
Newbee, I just re-read what I posted, and that does sound crazy (I really should stop making these posts so late at night). If the whole orchestra is playing, and all of the violins are playing in unison, then no, it should be nearly impossible to distinguish an individual member of the violin section, unless, as you say, there is someone very out of tune or playing a wrong note, or an open E string when they shouldn't be. But if it is a very quiet passage, and say someone is vibrating differently than the rest of the section, or is playing too loudly compared to the rest, this can be audible. This is the type of thing I was thinking of when I wrote that.

Timbre does also refer to the tone of an individual instrument, it is not just a general term, though you would usually use the word "tone" when speaking of it in that way. From the back of the hall, an experienced listener should be able to pick out the timbre of the violins as opposed to the violas, even if they are playing in unison and at the same volume, which certainly does happen often. Picking out the tone of an individual violin within the section, however, would be extremely difficult, as you say, and identifying the make of a specific violin would be quite a feat indeed. If one was a violinist, perhaps this could be done, if the violin section was playing by itself. Being a horn player, I could come reasonably close to identifying the make of instrument if I heard it live. With wind instruments, this is quite a bit easier, as our tones are quite a bit more individual than those of a string instrument. I could certainly identify any of my wind-playing colleagues tones in my orchestra instantly upon hearing them, whereas it would be much more difficult for me to do so with my string-playing colleagues, who I almost never hear playing by themselves, except for the principals.

However, I hope it goes without saying that it would be silly for a concertgoer to even attempt to try to identify individual violinst's tones. Why I went there, I have no idea, re-reading that. I plead guilty, with a side of sleep-deprivation. Even to concentrate on a single section would be detrimental to your overall experience of the music. Only music students need to do this. The main thing one should try to do, besides enjoying the whole texture of the music, is to try to isolate the main melody or thematic components from the accompanying ideas, and follow these things throughout the orchestra. The composer assumes his listeners are trying to do this, and of course helps by carefully balancing the sonorities he creates. There is a great book on the subject actually, written by the famous American composer Aaron Copland, called "What To Listen For In Music." I highly recommend it to all who are interested, which I hope anyone perusing this site would be. He asks two questions - Are you hearing everything that is going on, and are you really being sensitive to it. Whatever sort of music you like to listen to, this book will really deepen your understanding and enjoyment of it. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!
when listening to music there is a a "level" of clarity. unfortunately i think most stereo systems sound clearer than what i would observe at a concert hall.
i do not want to hear the turning of pages, the movement of a chair, as such non musical "data" is distracting. at a distance from the source of the music, i would not hear these non-musical "sounds".

i do not notice an image at a concert hall. it sounds more like mono, than stereo. i don't notice the spacing that some audiophiles talk about when they listen to recordings.

for me, the closer to live, the better.
Hi Mr T, have you ever thought of putting both of your speakers side by side in the middle of the room, IE: just move them close together, as opposed to usual distance spread apart? I would think that that would give you what you are "looking" for.

Any thoughts on this, by youself or anyone else?
Bob
Imaging live is different than imaging from 2 speakers but there is imaging occurring nonetheless in both cases.

I have heard systems morph as Wavetrader describes. I often wonder though how much of it is the system itself changing as opposed to our ears adapting and tuning in to the new sound? I suspect it is some of both in most cases.
>>it sounds more like mono, than stereo<<

How is that surprising? Stereo by definition is 2 separate and distinct sources. Everything you hear emanates from 2 source points.

In a concert hall every instrument is a source point. Your ears cannot process dozens of points as precisely as they process 2.

It's no wonder your preferences are so bizarre.