there is no free lunch in audio. "enhanced" resolution implies that one is at the mercy of recording quality.
in addition, "high resolution" does not match the experience of listening to live unamplified music.
solid state amps which are exemplars of this property probably are not fun to audition. i see nothing desirable about owning such a component.
the brain and nervous system have an optimal level of intensity and complexity. too much resolution which exceeds one's limits is a recipe for an unpleasant experience.
beware of what you wish for., for you may achieve it and then sell the component responsible for attaining such a state. less resolution and some veiling may be more pleasant, for long term listening. |
hi chris:
more noise reduces focus and the level of resolution, it may mask low level musical information.
dither is sometimes used as a technique in the design of digital hardware. |
hi dave:
many stereo systems seem more focused and have more clarity than live unamplified music.
consider the concert hall.
unless you sit very near the stage, there is a blending affect occuring with greater distance from the stage.
that is, sitting near the rear of a concert hall, with many bodies in fron of you changes the perception of treble frequencies. one is likely to hear an ensemble of violins rather than be able to pick out or count a number of individual violinists. there will be an attenuation of high frequencies. such a situation is not consistent with "high resolution". i have never heard anyone use the term "high resolution" to describe an orchestral performance.
unless you are performing in an orchestra, the term "high resolution" is not representative of what an audience member experiences at a concert hall.
rather,"medium resolution" is probably more appropriate. |
hi dave:
i have a problem listening to an instrument 5 feet away. when i played in my high school band, as a percussionist, i heard instruments within 10 feet from my performing position. however, an audience member is not in such a proximity to an instrument.
a recording does not represent your "listening" position, nor does it represent mine.
my philosophy is do no harm. if a stereo system is so focused and clear as to sound unpleasant, i don't want to hear it.
it is a matter of preference as to how much or how little focus is acceptable.
since the sound of an instrument is a function of the distance between listener and musicican, what is accurate timbre at 5 feet differs from accurate timbre at 100 feet. i think the issue is distance. we will agree to disagree. case closed. |
music can be therapeutic. there are different reasons for listening to music and many purposes for owning a stereo system.
i sometimes think a stereo system can help relive tension or put someone to sleep, as well as help to lower blood pressure. too much intensity and complexity--all of the stimulation that is generated when listening to music as if you are on stage or in rows one to 5, is not always conducive to satisfying the psychological needs of some listeners. someone's breath and other sonic artifacts are not music. |
hi dave:
as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.
breath is not music.
yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them.
the notion of reality has to take into account where you are sitting in relation to where musicians are playing.
in a concert hall setting, filled with people, a rear hall perspective is accompanied by attenuated treble and some homogenization. while such a listening position may not be preferred, it is real for those of us who sit there. it may be perceived as boring for some or pleasant to others. |
hi dave:
you have misinterpreted my position:
reality is based upon distance between musician and listener, including the perspective of another musician and/or someone sitting in the audience. i respect your desire to hear the breath and note the source of the vocalization of an opera singer. that's fine for you and it is indeed part of reality.
i prefer tnot hear breath, turning of pages or be close to an instrument. it is to jarring and intense. i like music to sound like it is floating. i prefer distance.
having performed with other musicians in the past, i can understand why you prefer that perspective. i have a musician friend who also prefers a "forward" perspective.
live and let live. if i presented myself as dogmatic and a generalist, i apologize. my perspective is very liberal. reality encompasses many experiences. enjoy your stereo system. if you have panel speakers, i would enjoy your stereo system as well. |
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. |
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. |
i don't think it is noble or necessary to suffer withen listening to some cds.
one has two choices, if one finds it unacceptable to tolerate unpleasant sound. one can avoid listening to some recordings or adjust, i.e., voice the stereo system so that what is heard through a pair of speakers is tolerable.
obviously, such a situation implies inaccuracy or coloration. yes, that is what it is.
why object to inaccuracy when a recording is an inaccurate representation of a live performance. consider the microphone, wire, and electronics.
i will leave it to the more philosophically inclined to analyze the principle of trying to accurately reproduce an inaccurate recortding, as compared to editing an inaccurate recording. in both cases, the result is inaccuracy. |
hi dave:
resolution is not the issue. an overly focused unnatural presentation of the sound of instruments is the problem.
as you said in an earlier post, i might enjoy your stereo system and our "positions" may differ to a degree, as based upon my preference for a rear hall location and your preference for rows 1 to 5 ? |
hi shadorne:
you have confronted the dichotomy facing serious listeners, namely: accuracy, as input=output, or musicality, as approaching the sound of live music.
one is not right or wrong.
i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.
i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.
the audio issue is taste and i respect both positions. if your standard is to respect the artist intention, then accuracy of reproduction is the criterion for assessing the merits of stereo systems. if your standard is the natural timbre of instruments, some voicing of a stereo system is logically consistent.
there are two standards and both have merit. live and let live. |
