Is It Ironic?

"The question though, is more resolution always a good thing?"

It's a good question. Some might say "no". I would say yes.

If you have it, there are many ways to control it to one's tastes via tweaks, etc.

If you don't have it, you do not know what you are missing, so one cannot be in a position to judge.

That's just how I look at it practically.

Here's an interesting scenario to consider. Say one has resolution but results are unpleasant. Is resolution the cause or is this a case of shooting the messenger? How can one pin the blame on resolution conclusively?

Medusa is still ugly, even in HD. A lot goes into production to make it look good on HD TV. But I'd bet few who care would give up their HD TVs and go back to something less resolving. Not to say they might not play with filter/picture control tweaks at their disposal.

HD TV and modern digital audio are pretty much analogous in terms of what works best, what does not, and how to maximize utility to consumers.

OR, is there anyone out there if given the choice would choose to have less than 20/20 vision? How about hearing problems that limit what one might hear otherwise? Food for thought....

I would rather focus in conjunction on effectively minimizing noise and distortion and maximizing resolution in order to achieve best results possible. Nothing too radical there, I think?

Yes, too much resolution sometimes can be a bad thing - when listening to some horrible recordings from 50 years ago. They sounded OK on less resolving system.

Today's so called innovations are, more often than not, about better margins or a marketing gimmick to goose sales. For the most part, American corporations are not about the product at all. No reason to expect them to compare favorably to the old union made stuff. I'm not interested in what Rush says.

"Yes, too much resolution sometimes can be a bad thing - when listening to some horrible recordings from 50 years ago. They sounded OK on less resolving system."

I have some old 78 RPM records that I converted to digital and listen to along with all the rest.

THey sound like...78 RPM records. Mostly midrange, limited dynamics, lots of surface noise.

They are what they are...but I do like to listen to them, warts exposed and all.

Of course I did play them back to record on a 70s vintage Admiral ceramic cart turntable I picked up for $10 at a yard sale specifically for playing 78s. Not to shabby compared to the quality of the format itself. But I guess its possible that the Admiral was the weak link... :^)

I have some CDs with remastered tracks from the 20's and 30's. I have no problem with resolution when listening to these as well.

"08-21-14: Jmcgrogan2

08-20-14: Zd542
Look at it from another angle. If you took a well produced 50 year old record and played it on high quality equipment from that period, and then put the same record on modern equipment of the same quality, chances are you'll hear a lot more of what's on the record.

That may be true, more modern gear does offer more resolution. The question though, is more resolution always a good thing? Using Onhwy61's analogy of looking at the Mona Lisa under a 20X magnification seems apt. Should the art work simply be looked at and/or listened to and enjoyed, or must it be dissected and studied?"

I don't see where having newer, more revealing equipment available to us, is anything other that a very good thing. Why? Because we have choices. You don't have to buy anything you don't want to. Some people like vintage gear, while others like state of the art. Nothing wrong with that. Just buy whatever you prefer.