Questions about Resolving Systems

What we need is a system that reveals all the good characteristics of good recordings, but then detects bad recordings and "fixes them up." 

For me a resolving system is a system that lets you know everything about the recording, warts and all - sometimes it's a blessing sometimes it's a PITA.

A resolving system also makes the effect of upgrades or tweaks (cables, power filtering, vibration decoupling, capacitors upgrades etc) very obvious and also highlights phenomenons such as burn-in, variations in AC quality, etc.

@tonywinga - sorry for the delete, had to sort out a silly double emphasis which made my post look etched  😂

here’s how it was supposed to read….actually, from what you’ve written, tony, I believe we are talking about very different things. The details and textures I refer to of the everything in-between do not distract from the music in the least, nor do they create the stress you mention. From the very first impression of a good highly resolving system, all that fine detail that may not have been heard before in a lesser system, adds to the texture of space itself as the profound context of its soundfield, in becoming part of the music. It is a realism that has nothing to do with having to accustomise or get used to - what you describe sounds etched, or hyper-realistic - the very thing I try to avoid as superficial resolution. But of course I would have to have an involved listen of your system to truly know what you mean.

In friendship, kevin

I understand. I’m talking about the other side of resolution, ie. the footfalls, coughs, hum in mic cables and whispers. That all comes through as well. It was distracting at first but I am able to tune it out, mostly. The benefits are hearing the voices of a Chorale spread out across the room vs. just a cloud of sound or the clarity of mid bass. That part is exciting. I mention mid bass a lot because I think that is the hardest thing to get right in a room/system. And unfortunately, I didn’t know it was lacking or missing until I heard a top notch resolving system some years back.

I was talking to a recording engineer at Axpona last year. He can hear where the splices are in the master tapes while playing back a song; but that is his job. That is a level of listening beyond my capabilities for sure.

At Deer Creek Audio we believe high quality, proven audio equipment is the minimum requirement for producing high resolution audio. Next we believe in staying in the digital domain as long as possible before you convert to analog with excellent DACs and powerful low distortion amplifiers.

In our listening studio the ultimate upgrade has proven to be Dirac Live processing which occurs with uncompromising precision in the digital domain.

Dirac Live technology corrects frequency response and also sound timing, meaning each sound wave hits your ears precisely when the artist intended. This delivers phase alignment, speaker driver alignment, room resonance reduction, and early reflection reduction. 

Deer Creek Audio is an authorized miniDSP dealer.

That’s what I have been saying.  Resolution is a two edged sword.  The added detail and clarity can distract from the music- at first.  The little sounds and noises in the background were stressing me at first.  I still hear things that make me think someone has walked into the room at times.  Eventually, I grew accustomed to it all.  In a word, the added detail and clarity is exciting. 

It is not for everyone.  As I said before, I have had people get up and leave the room.  They didn’t much care for the realism.  

@jay73 - jay, to start with, I am one of the belief that different people refer to the term ‘resolution’ to mean different things. There is something that could be called superficial resolution, which only speaks to a greater contrast between sounds in order to create sharpness of definition. But there is a deeper kind of resolution we can reference - a system that is highly resolving is also one that is highly realistic, because resolution does not merely refer to the contrast, or definition, of specific musical notes as suspended objects, but also to every fine point of sound information that recreates the space in-between, the relationships, between the ‘objects’. This includes with it, the minute transients of time that separate those tiny points of sound information. 

A highly resolving system is also a highly realistic and ‘accurate’ one. Its ability to bring greater definition to detail and specifics does not void its ability to fill in all the other details and textures in-between, and in the time domain.

This leads on to our individual perceptions of ever increasing levels of resolution, being one of relativity. Most interpret relativity as choice being personally driven. I rather define relativity with regards to everything each of us has not personally heard, or listened to, in each of our own systems. I would say that for the thousands of audio products out there, it is difficult to say how resolving each of our systems are, due to a typically limited means for conducting comparisons, from time and budget considerations, to finding equipment examples to demo. Unless we are able to find and prepared to test multiple kinds of equipment, of pre amps, amps, cables, servers, DACs, isolation products, and power supplies, over extended periods and in the specific contexts of our particular listening rooms, it is difficult to eliminate that issue of relativity, to know where we each stand in the search for sound resolution that is our amazing hobby.

Very very little, in relation to percentage terms, separates between entry level systems and the most realistic sounding systems in the world. But here’s the thing, each percentage of improvement is huge in cognitive terms, and once heard is difficult to unhear, in returning to what we previously knew. Sometimes, it takes multiple little changes before a positive improvement of one entire percent can be heard, which is one of the primary reasons why our hobby is the most difficult one to quantify and qualify – the very matrix of right combinations that has to be made for a positive improvement upward, is boggling.

This is one of the primary reasons why some audiophiles resort to measurements -–  to avoid the effort and considerable regret of having made decisions over incorrect combination of equipment changes which didn’t give that one or two percent improvement; in forgetting that the measured qualities of a single piece of equipment is the furthest thing from knowing what its contribution is to the totality of an entire system and a single percent change closer to the ceiling of what is attainable.

There is no easy road in our hobby, if a true highly resolving system is the goal, because it is wholly dependent on the very system and room we listen to our music in. Some want to believe it is easy and accessible, either due to their lack of time, patience, or inability to afford more. Others, because of their belief they know all the answers fed to them by dials and digital readouts measured from equipment divorced from its chain. The truth is that the passion of our hobby is one involving the cultivation of listening skills and that huge effort of time, patience, and expenditure it takes, to bring as many pieces of researched equipment of multiple price points into the chain of one’s own system in its specific room, one at a time, and over extended periods of listening and comparison over the years; and not the quick listening that pretenders or number engineers engage. 

A highly resolving system takes tremendous effort because of the complex matrix of equipment combinations that result in different sound outcomes, and the difficulty in identifying differences in sound quality that distinguish what entry level, the most realistic sound systems, and everything else in between, have to offer within the specific contexts of our listening rooms, in reducing the element of relativity.

I hope this all made sense.

In friendship, kevin

@rogerh113… “Resolution is a very nice feature of a good system, while too much takes away from that.”

Absolutely!

Resolution is a very nice feature of a good system, while too much takes away from that.  

could not agree more

too much of anything in life, even good things, is not good...

Resolving is a lot like other audio qualities - a matter of taste.  To my ears, too much 'resolution' and the background effects reduce the musicality and become distracting.  The background noise, or peripheral instruments, actually stand out too much relative to the main theme of the music.  You get to say 'wow, listen to that', but then it only indicates that something that should be in the blend is now standing out too  much.

Important to have a balance in resolution, and take it to the edge and not over the edge.  Like too much treble or bass.  I think it is possible to hear into the music too much if you are actually seeking to listen to the music (musicality).

Resolution is a very nice feature of a good system, while too much takes away from that.  Only a personal opinion, of course.....

@lucmichaud1 

When listening to a full orchestra symphony finale, most systems present a wall of sound that is a bit garbled. In a concert hall, you hear all the instruments together, but not mixed. For me , resolving is the ability of a system to get close to that.

This is a very important point. This is where my system still struggles, but given all it can do with just about everything else -- including letting older, more compressed recordings still speak their truths -- I'm likely to just forgive it. Remember what happened in Hawthorne's "The Birthmark"? We mustn't kill beauty as we seek perfection.

Or you are the conductor

When listening to a full orchestra symphony finale, most systems present a wall of sound that is a bit garbled. In a concert hall, you hear all the instruments together, but not mixed. For me , resolving is the ability of a system to get close to that. To unscramble the signal and make individual instruments unaffected by the others. This also has a lot to do with the recording. Only in the last 10 15 years do you have high res recordings who have this detail. And very good systems will show it. Those systems will also reveal any distortion. This is why resolving is a double edge sword. Finally, the type of music is relevant in this issue also: old rock and pop are highly compressed and the garble cannot be undone. But in recent classical, jazz, ambient, folk, solving the equation with high detail makes music sound closer to the real thing.  Try Mahler symphony no 3 first movement with Michael Tilson Thomas and San Francisco Orchestra, the last 3 minutes. If you can hear each instrument group clearly, you have a resolving system. If you can hear each instrument separately, you are not human. 

@hilde45 

I'm coming around to that realization more and more, that ultimate realism isn't a realistic goal, but there are certain presentations that come across as enjoyable and appropriate, as you say they make me feel at home. I've run in to paradoxes where I can clearly say that one speaker sounds better in most ways than another, but I actually prefer to use the lesser speaker because I can adjust to its faults better. 

Steve, thank you for the educational information.  This sounds a good diy project.

@asctim

I love the example of the muppets because they align with something Steve Guttenberg likes to say — namely, "abandon the quest for perfect realism," or words to that effect. What we want is something that pleases us. We might call that "comfortably real."

Your post made me consider that there are lots of ways a system can be comfortably real, and that involves (as you put it) "alignment with real physics and real human motion." Another way of describing such alignment is "natural" or, more humbly, "the way I move, too."

Your post also made me consider that there are things a system does in obvious and overt ways which also create other non-focal aspects. We could call these the "fringe" or background that makes us feel at home. None of this is unusual for an interior decorator, who understands that colors and placement of objects — however much we’d call them environment or background — are critical to making a house feel like a home.

What we may be making explicit, here with audio, is that same kind of thing. Music that makes us feel "at home."

@hilde45 

Thanks for the links. The uncanny is an interesting topic. The term gets applied to CGI graphics, which can be simultaneously impressive and disappointing. I'll admit I didn't see the connection to my post at first, but the idea that something is so right in some ways but so wrong in others I think is on point. CGI graphics come to mind because they allow portrayals of people and animals that can do thing that no Muppet could ever do, and yet they don't move quite right and so it's really weird - really bad sometimes. I'll take the Muppet because it fails more broadly and evenly and better allows me to suspend my disbelief. The ways it does move are perfectly in alignment with real physics and real human motion of the Muppeteer. 

@lanx0003 - there is no Phase issue with the helix cables

1. due to it’s longer neutral conductor because the neutral is a thicker gauge, which balances the resistance of both neutral and signal conductors to the same level (approximately)

However - If you are of a belief that that the "negative Polarity signal" only travels down the negative conductor you are mistaken

• both +ve cycle and -ve cycle parts of the signal travel ONLY down the signal wire - this can easily be seen using an osciliscope
• the neutral wire is just that - NEUTRAL - , because it is connected to the neutral sides of the connected components, which in both components should be at ZERO volts.
• There is no phase implication between the signal and neutral conductors in any cable

The phase implications that impact sound quality and imaging is between the signal conductors in the cables that convey left and right channels. any phase difference between the L and R channel will alter the image dramatically

• a pair of Helix interconnct or speaker cables will maintain phase accuracy providing a stunning image

Hope that clarifies things - Steve

@cdc - RE: "Okay, I gotta ask what is it???"

Its a yamaha integrated rado/CD/usb/amp unit with seperate speakers

I upgraded the speaker cables and it resolved all of the distortions and improved bass perofrmance coming out of the silly little speakers

I updated the power cable and it again improved the bass depth and accuracy and in the upper frequencies it improved clarity and details, at the same time improved the imaging

I have also upgraded the power cables in all of my Bluesound components with amazing success.

I actually took one of my power cables to the audio store when I bought the bluesound remote speaker and the guy there was amazed at the improvements in sound quality from just a power cables.

• I later returned with power, speaker and interconnects and two guys at the store spent the better part of an hour swapping amps and speakers - totally amazed at the transformation

Even my Bluesound Soundbar improved its imaging significantly with just an upgraded power cable.

Unfortunately, all of my cables are an advanced DIY design, which I readily share with others via the links in my first post of this thread, but I do not make them for others.

At no time were magic mushrooms part of the equation 😁

Regards - Steve

Good, better, best.

Good- a stereo that blends into the room decor and has a good tonal range.  It might even have some strong bass and clarity in the midrange.  Good for dancing, background listening and parties.

Better- a stereo that is incorporated into the room decor.  It stands out in the room but still blends in and often times makes a statement as both tech and art.  It makes some friends just a little envious but most will admire it and be impressed with its performance.  Good for tuning out the world and just listening to the music.  Certainly engaging and fun.

Best- a stereo in a purpose designed/built room.  The stereo is the main object in the room.  The room electrical and acoustics are dedicated to optimum sound.  Large, room filling components and speakers that completely overtake the room offering limited seating for others.  Creates an immersive sound stage with totally engaging music.  Perfect for critical listening and tuning out the world for a few hours.  Escape comparable to a good movie.  Friends and family are no longer jealous, they are concerned.

@asctim 

William James' work on non-focal attention (or "fringe") may be of interest, here. 

Here's an interesting and influential paper on the subject:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810083710081

This is a very promising paper on the "fringe" and the uncanny in experience. https://philarchive.org/archive/MANTUV

@williewonka, I was able to take a "one-time-only" peek at your response (via notification) but nothing was related to my question. This is a fundamental question related to the essense of your Helix design that, I believe, audiophiles desire to experiment this concept if it really works as you have claimed. I really wish you could take this chance to articulate it.

Like @cdc has asked too, I had procured two $300 mini systems (Loxjie A30 + Sony sscs5 / Tannoy Mercury F1) for my kids and they like it. To me, however, these mini systems could only reach 70-80% of performance compared to my 2nd system that costs 10 times more in my (of course) subjective assessment. IF the bottleneck is cabling and utilizing your design could substantially enhance its performance to a "pretty amazing" level, I will consider it a no brainer experiment.

@williewonka

My very affordable $300 mini system also sounds pretty amazing

Okay, I gotta ask what is it???

@lanx0003 - I responded to your question via the Private Message function

Hope that helps - Steve

A system that reveals as much of the recorded information as possible. The trick being leaving the music to sound proportionally correct. Not sure soundstage comes to mind as it is contrived but harmonics, tone of instruments, vocal pitch etc 

I’ve been thinking about the word "resolving" and had a visual experience that inspired me. I was sitting at a stop light with a freight truck in front of me. It had a round tail light composed of an array of little red LEDs in what looked like an even pattern. I peered over my glasses and saw the LED array out of focus and noticed something I could not easily detect when they were in focus - they were not evenly spaced apart, but were grouped into sub arrays that created a flower petal effect. The blurry vision revealed the subtle spacing differences that were harder to see with sharper focus, which just made all the spaces look relatively large compared to the size of each LED element.

I created the attached image to try to demonstrate the effect. I’m not sure how exactly this applies to audio but I suspect it does. Some systems may reveal things that weren’t intended to be revealed while simultaneously obscuring things that should be revealed.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/J7vD8TfarsK8Y3Qs6

By sacrificing the contrast of each individual dot by adding a blurry halo around it I'm simultaneously adding an increased contrast of the distance between the dots.

the answer is, It’s different for different people....To each their own.

There's no overlap? Nothing to share, then? It's all so subjective that there are no common rules of thumb? We wouldn't have a hobby or be able to have a disagreement if that was true. 

The underlying message of "to each his own" is -- why bother? That's an escape hatch to having the conversation, but it's not an answer to the conversation. We are far more similar than we think.

the answer is, It’s different for different people.  I really good friend of mine (best man at my wedding) has a receiver and speakers from the 80’s. Nothing has been updated or changed in any way.  In fact it’s been in his living room for 30 years and he’s as happy a clam.  Me, I’ve been slowly upgrading my system and when I retired, I started building a totally new system.  When he say the speakers, he told me I was nuts for spending “that kind of money “!

To each their own.

Wow, just came back to the question that I posed yesterday.

Thanks for all the feedback, I will need to take some time to to review all this.

excellent thread and some excellent observations and comments

if this board had a 'stickies' function, this is one that would deserve it, so noobs can learn what it is we are shooting for with all this crazy stuff

Of course the sound quality of a stereo system is proportional to the cost of the components.  But is is much more complicated than that.  Factors outside of the speakers, the amp, preamp and source have as much or more impact on the sound than the components.  The room, the floor, and the ambient noise level affect how we perceive the sound.  Electrical noise, EMI and RFI affect the performance of the stereo gear.  Just moving my bass traps around in the room affects the mid bass clarity.

The economics of stereo gear, just like about all products mass produced, is that for every $1 of material cost the selling price will be about $3.50- $4,00.  Once labor, overhead, taxes, insurance, R&D, admin, etc and then the distributor and final sales outlets get their cut that is roughly the cost to purchase.  So you see, we beat up a speaker manufacturer for using cheap capacitors but the reality is if they were to use say $400 worth of caps in their cross overs vs. $50 in caps, the selling price would end up being some $1400 higher which might price their speaker out of the market.  So the savvy audiophile can buy the $400 set of caps and upgrade their speakers saving $1000. 

Like it or not you pay $60k or more for a new car knowing that it has about $15k worth of parts in it.  Thing is, most of us would not know what to do with a pile of auto-parts, sheet metal and 7 gallons of paint.  And while the automaker pays $50 for a fuel pump module (they buy millions of units per year) the dealer will charge you over $500 for the same part.  Maybe you can get a similar unit at the discount parts store for $250.  Point is, you cannot cost effectively build your own car.  The same goes for a stereo system.  

Do everything you can to your room- seek professional help if need be (for the acoustics, I mean) and then do what you can to enhance the performance of your stereo components by using better power cords, power conditioners, cables, isolation and dampening devices.  And then the hard core audiophiles go into their speakers, amps, preamps and sources and replace internal components such as caps, wiring and resistors for even more enhancements.  This hobby really has no end and infinite permutations.  

Still, it’s cool to see these million dollars systems and admire the art of it.  They may or may not sound like a million dollars but I’ll never know.

@tubeguy76 

Actually, it was three but I combined the Technics SU-G700M2 and SL-G700 SACD player. The clincher was the Revival Audio Atalante 3 speakers. I have absolutely no need to fiddle with my system anymore but would upgrade to the larger Atalante 5 if I ever get a bigger space to put them in. 

All the best,
Nonoise

$7K DACs and $6K min on cables...

If you got it, spend it - but I'm sorry but this is not good advice.

You can achieve system synergy that works for you in your environment for a lot less but more importantly, just throwing big bucks at it won't guarantee a good outcome.  

Headphones for 1 is fine for a alternative, but at least $Teens on up Loudspeakers 

to give resolution needs , dac no less then around $5k minimum

a perfect example which is am saving for T+A 200 dac $7k great dac 

amp,preamp or integrated $10kk.  Cables minimum of $6-8k if you count all digital 

I have $2500 alone just in 3- best in class under $1200 $750 each                   Linear Tube Audio Linear Power Supply., 2 high quality Ethernet cables such as Jcat ref , and usb , over $4k , synergistic fuses another $800, plus power cords,

a $2600 Puritan line conditioner , $50k  is roughly minimum for a truly uppermidfi Audiophile Audio System , my brother spent over $150k and is still always looking for ways to better his Audio system ,his latest DCS Rossini was $36k alone .

it’s all about Your budget.I owned a Audio store for 10 years  and nothing is set in stone . I recently sold a $8k integrated and the buyer was just using the stock $15 powercord , some people don’t get it and this same guy spent $20 k on speakers. 
synergy and balance done right you can save roughly 1/3rd in $$ saved.

I am just giving you a average , for myself you need to spend over $10 k minimum

such as say a Pass labs 200 integrated amp o4 separates. High quality does count , myself upgrading the Xovers in Loudspeakers for years  that is very lacking even in many speakers in well known Loudspeakers , I am just speaking on my many years of experiences  and opinion ,nothing more, at the end of the day it’s your money 💰.

@williewonka

Steve, I really appreciate that you brought in the Helix design concept for the speake cable and audiophile diyer who experiments your idea gives a really favorable comments/reviews. I am inspired but wonder / not convinced one aspect of the design concepts. The principle is simple, twist the negative polarity wire around the positive one (preferrably at 90 degree) so they do not run in parallel to create the proclaimed noise / distortion. Usually, the twisted negative wire will run 2-3 times longer to achieve an ideal geometry. I am therefore concerned with the potential adverse effect (e.g. out of phase, etc.) due to the fact that negative polarity signal travels much longer than the positive signal. How legit is that concern? Second, in that regard, would the "mutually" twisted cable that is commonly available in the market (given the copper purity / annealing is in high quality) works better, since now the negative signal will travel the same distance with the negative while preserves the non-parallel property?

Audio components (and the systems they are connect to) can commit errors of "commission" and "ommission". Which is to say they get things "wrong", injecting sounds (distortions, phase anomalies, etc) that trigger our ears & brain to believe that something just isn’t right. Errors of ommission relates to leaving out information, or attenuating it (micro dynamics, trailing vocals, detail, space between the notes, etc). Then there’s the whole balance and coherence thing, and placing things in space where they belong.

When all the stars line up and the "suspension of disbelief" kicks in -- where we reach the point when we "disbelieve" were listening to a mere facsimile of a live performance but rather we’re there WITH the musicians, we have assembled a "resolving system."

@audioman58

A truly Audiophile resolving system ,1st will take $$ on average at least $50 k

minimum , by many standards

We need to talk, I can put one together for $10K or less. If you use a headphone system for $5K. You need to checkout Benchmark:

https://benchmarkmedia.com/collections/digital-to-analog-audio-converter

One thing that made me realize that my newer system were more resolving was the fact that I had listened to Too Old to Rock & Roll by Tull many hundreds of times over the years and really never read all the liner notes. I recently got my 40 year old album back and played it to hear a second voice throughout the track. Maddy Prior is singing along with Ian.

Here’s an example. I listened to Joan Osborne’s ‘Radio Waves’ live album the other day. It’s a compilation of live recordings over her career. In each song, I was able to hear clearly the difference in mics, soundboards, mixing, instrumentation, and in many cases the placement of instruments on stage. It was an interesting experience. Because live bands are mostly recorded from the inputs, not necessarily from the stage or audience, it’s a very different sensation than hearing a studio recording. Qobuz, Roon, iFi Zen Signature, Linn Akurate, AV5125 and Keilidhs.  
 

These three comments really nailed it, I think.

A highly resolving system will allow you to hear everything but not at the cost of anything....It will be done in a relaxed yet rich and full manner....Think of substituting the edgy brightness with a burnished quality. 

A high resolving system starts with a fully acoustically treated room. It is so much more important than the choice of audio equipment imo.

 it's a balance of detail and warmth.  

@nonoise 

You mentioned your last two purchases... what were they if you don't mind sharing?  I'm just curious what finally fixed things for you.

Eric Clayton’s Lady in the Balcony- I hear his shirt sleeve buttons rubbing against the guitar strings down near the base of the guitar in a couple of his songs.  A Led Zepplin song- his drum pedal squeaks.  I forget which song but it is really annoying.  Hum in microphone cords, talking, coughing become very apparent and is distracting at first.  The upside is the black background, the holographic soundstage and the clarity transport me from my listening room to the stage.  Another fun recording is the Carly Simon Live at Grand Central.  The ambience and sounds from the crowd and station are wonderful to hear.

Truly resolving systems are more real than real.  For example being able to pick out individual voices in a Chorle or the individual instruments in an orchestra with breathtaking clarity.  It’s exciting to hear a system that resolving but in real life I cannot stand in front of a live orchestra and pick out each instrument so easily.  Same goes for a choir.  

Clarity and resolution are addictive to me.  I tried to dial it back some by removing isolation on components but once I experienced it I couldn’t go back.  I’m used to it now.  Like in life we learn to filter things out.

A system that can reproduce the finest detail within the separated instruments and vocals and place them in a wide soundstage with pinpoint accuracy.

A truly Audiophile resolving system ,1st will take $$ on average at least $50 k

minimum , by many standards 

OP --- what makes a resolving system?

An audio system sounds the most life like with everything mentioned above. It sounds like this video. https://youtu.be/XaBy9CcGoTE?t=51

Alex/Wavetouch

@kota1   you nailed it!  I had an Esoteric N05XD Streaming DAC and it was resolving in the extreme black backgound.  Frankly it didn't sound realistic. It was too quiet beyond anything I have heard in the real world. 

JH

...and they certainly resolve any issues you've with a bank balance.... ;) 🙄

Forgiving or Resolving?

I tend to agree with the analysis given in the PS Audio website on this topic. Opposite of resolving is forgiving. If your system lean towards forgiving, then everything sounds good, but nothing sounds great. If your system is highly resolving, then the extremes between bad and great are magnified.

https://www.psaudio.com/blogs/pauls-posts/forgiving-resolving

In my case, I had to make some compromises due to limitations in my source materials. I have Thiel 3.6 speakers, considered highly resolving and revealing. So I use tube gear (pre-amp, DAC, phono pre-amp) up stream to tame down the beast at the end of the chain. I believe some of us do this as a compromise so that we can enjoy most of our CDs, LPs, cassettes, etc.