Ultra high resolution

hi stehno:

you make a good point at distinguishing the message from the messenger. consistent with my last post, i don't blame a "relatively" or "virtually" neutral stereo systenm for reproducing what is on the recording. i may not enjoy listening to a recording or do not want to suffer through it. in that case, i will attempt to alter what comes out of the speakers by voicing the other components to minimize the effects of recordings whose sound i don't like. hopefully, i can do this in such a manner so as to restore a "neutral" character when recordings represent the sound of instruments in a natural manner. thus i would have a "chameleon-like" stereo system.

ideally, one might have a way to alter the sound of the stereo system or not alter it, to suit one's taste and/or respond to the nature of recordings.

MrT, it seems to me that you would be a fan of the Westminster label. They had a distant mic perspective. Am I right?

my favorite cd labels for classical recordings include the following:

glossa, opus 111, mirare, accent and harmonia mundi.

there are some older london orchestrals that have a mid to rear hall perspective as well. i don't remember westiminster recordings as having a distant perspective. however, i will consider your statement as fact. i have several westminster cds. i will listen to them. i have some lps as well. thanks for the tip.

Seems to me there is a message vs the messenger thing going on here.

If the message is bad news I don't kill the messenger, in this case, the stereo. The message is the music. IOW I won't fault a system for playing it like it is- that is resolution plain and simple. OTOH resolution is **not** 'detail with added brightness'; I call that 'detail with added brightness' :)

IME a system with a bright or clinical quality is obscuring the musical message. That's not resolution!

Actually, Atmasphere, it is resolution and in certain cases some might even consider it ultra high resolution. It just may not be refined or beautiful sounding resolution.

But when you mentioned detail with added brightness, you neglected to include negative sibilance, harshness, glare, hash, grain and perhaps a few other negatives. All of which is also revealed and all of which can be either absolutely minimized or possibly eliminated altogether while maintaining the highest resolution imaginable.

As you probably know a truly resolving playback system should reproduce everything with tremendous accuracy.

Whether it be beautiful music, AC grunge coming from the wall, digital noise coming from the CDP/DAC, time-smearing ics, or a combination of a small host of other shortcomings (pick your poison) a truly revealing system is going to reveal every last shortcoming along with the music.

That is resolution. Albeit, unrefined.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi, Mrtennis. I've enjoyed your posts so please don't take this the wrong way. I couldn't disagree more with your strategy because based on your logic in your posting above and the direction you're heading, you're likely to end up with an expensive transistor radio.

In a similar thread about a month ago I responded with the following comment:

"So if some potential detail rears its ugly head out of sequence or too prematurely in the evolutionary process, then the first thing we want to do is call it evil and squash it rather than nurture it."

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

-IMO