• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What is Resolution?

SimplySound

SimplySound

Kent Engineering & Fondry
I found this interesting, from a "6Moons" review... credit given to one "KG". It opens up a lot of discussion points. What does "resolution" mean to you? :scratch2:

"Resolution. What do you mean by it? That depends. The dictionary goes from "motion, proposal" to "intent, resolve, determination" to "solution, working-out". The audiophile obsession is of course with higher magnifying power. To resolve is not a problem though perhaps there is a problem in this approach somewhere. To instead penetrate finer and finer layers of micro-information buried in the noisefloor. Interesting how that particular meaning is quite divorced from the more common usage of the word.


But even as an audiophile term, there are multiple ways of aiming it. Resolution to obtain more data? Resolution to get closer to the live experience? Those are not automatically synonymous. In fact, they can be mutually exclusive. But neither do they have to be, as though cursed into eternally locked confrontation via some stupid definition.


The three-dimensional holography and razor-edged images from maximized data density through digital interpolation are, I hate to remind you, an artifact peculiar to so-called "highly resolved" playback. They're not part of any live event. However. If you're predominantly a visual participant, you may well benefit from such hyper-realistic add-ons. Such data may indeed assist you. In regenerating certain portions of the original's visual dimension that are plainly missing on the audio-only disc. Note how "pinpoint imaging", "soundstage accuracy" and "placement specificity" are visual descriptors. They fill in the sensory blanks created by the microphones. Mics, after all, are blind as bats. The only sensory stimulae they capture are of the forth --the aural -- kind. Imagine attending a concert without your eyes, nose, skin and tongue! An experience so much the poorer for being restricted to only one of our six-or-more senses...


Now what if you're a different type of listener? One who habitually closes his eyes during live music anyway? One who listens with his ears and heart to automatically abandon the eyes in trade? What type of playback resolution do you require, to help recreate the feeling dimension of the concert?


Dynamic resolution? Rhythmic resolution? Emotional resolution?


What if the visual listener felt as though his hyper-realistic rendition brought him closer to the live event? Even if it didn't matter that it didn't sound like it? What if the better-than-real elements created his bridge to suspend disbelief? Spanned the chasm between this-is-fake to this-seems-real? Does it really matter then if measurable (objective) reality and feeling (subjective) conviction didn't coincide?


Let me ask this differently. What's more important - a virtual clone that sounds like the real thing? Or a less precise rendition that feels more like it? And does that make it less or more precise then?


Stop in your eager tracks for a sec. Admit that resolution exists in many different forms. Contemplate what high-resolution means to you. There are no 'rights' or 'wrongs'. You can't fail with the wrong answer. This ain't an exam. There are, however, 'rights' and 'lefts'. Different ways to get to the same -- or different -- destinations. Their validity and appeal are inextricably tied to individuality. To nervous systems and synaptic patterns. To different trigger points. To different expectations about what should be triggered in the first place.


Relaxation? Transport? Intense stimulation? Mental appreciation? Emotional self-forgetfulness? A state of charged excitement, a release of aural n-dolphins? Sonic bubbly that leaves you warm, fuzzy, mellow and happy?"

I would argue, all of the above!!! ;)
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Resolution as a technical term means accuracy and precision at the same time. Think of an instrument that has a digital readout of some quantity that's being measured. The instrument is designed to read out a certain number of digits. This is its precision - the more digits it is capable of outputting by design, the more precise the instrument is. Its accuracy is how well it does its job, or its precision tolerance.

Engineers at the MCC use the term granularity, and they really mean precision. Often, telemetry measurements downlinked from the space station are in a raw form that has to be calibrated on the ground using a polynomial expansion. The higher degree polynomials are more precise and therefore are more capable of high resolution readout (more digits). The downlink processing software is capable of up to 6th-degree polynomials, but most are 1st- or 2nd-degree. Accuracy depends on how well the sensor aboard the ISS measures the quantity. So the resolution of the quantity being output can be thought of as the number of digits in the readout, as long as all the digits can be trusted.
 
SimplySound, while your post may have opened a can of worms of differing opinions, I want to thank you for a great, thought provoking post.

We all filter our perceptions through our experiences and their memories.

This affords all of us the ability to have unique, subjective preferences.

As you mentioned, no correct answer, only possibly different answer for different people.
 
I'll use an illustration I've discussed before. My younger son has two Masters in Music, one in performance. I have listened to countless hours of practice by him and also his brother, who plays french horn. My son with music degrees plays trombone. He worked very hard to develop a very nice tone.

Interestingly enough, if you stand beside him, the tone doesn't sound good. It's edgy, almost nasty. However, if you hear him in a concert hall where you are sitting 10 rows back and there's 30 or 40 feet between you and him, the tone is sublime. Karl is smart enough and talented enough to adjust the tone so it is right for the listener in the correct environment and not pleasing to his ear or someone standing nearby.

That's the problem with some modern recordings. I've got a great recording of Anne Sophie Mutter playing encore pieces. The sound has a lot of "resolution", down to being able to hear the bow on the string in some quiet passages. It's similar to what I hear when I play violin, but not like an audience member would hear. I find the super resolution, probably from her being close miked, distracting and unrealistic. It's worse on my systems that are very accurate and revealing.

The bottom line is a prefer a more "laid back" sound to one that is "super resolving". I listen to enjoy the music, not revel in how my system can resolve gnat farts. There is a happy medium between accurate reproduction (super resolution) and laid back reproduction that lacks some nuance.
 
A lot of 'what ifs' in that article. It really is irrelevant whether information is added or not. I wasn't in the recording studio. The job of the engineer is to produce a rendition as real as he/she is able. This article would apply to them more than us. Regardless, it doesn't matter to us. We belong to the flavor of the month club. What matters to us is the functionality of our gear. The definition of resolution does not extend past the accuracy of the system to us end users.
 
One of the Northern New England vacuum tube hifi gurus - whose listening space and hardware complement are both borderline unbelievable - places very high value on what he memorably referred to as hearing into the music. This is what I think of as resolution. If there are three voices, can I hear them individually or is it just a smear? Massed strings? Can I tell that the sound is being produced by discrete instruments? Details deep in the mix; can I pick 'em out?

To me, this is a very different effect than what's currently dubbed "detail". I associate "detail" in the modern idiom more with peaky high frequency response than 'resolution'.

I ain't got any HF response - but I gots resolution, by my criterion, in spades, with my Duplexes.
 
I look at it as the degree of closeness to the original performance; hence, a system with high resolution is closer to the original performance in all its details. This actually encompasses the entire notion of, what was once called, high fidelity. BTW, audio writers need new words and like to create them by relation to other scientific definitions—In this case optics.
 
JBL GUY said:
SimplySound, while your post may have opened a can of worms of differing opinions, I want to thank you for a great, thought provoking post...
Click to expand...

Thanks JBL, that's what happened to me when I read that review intro. I went; "Wow, what really matters to me?"

I'm think I'm with Hardy, I want the recording or mix to have a level of resolution as to how the instruments/voices sound and through that I'm transported to a place that may not necessarily sound exactly like how the music was laid down in the studio or concert hall... we do after all listen to "reproducers of audio information".

Listening to music is for me an experience and the level of detailed reproduction or accuracy is not as important as how I feel after listening to the recording!!!

My 2 cents!
 
Last edited:
To many Arm-Chair Audiophiles, resolution means the opposite of distortion. They take it to mean the presence of "Audio Clarity". I say this because the term was used extensively when I was in College. i.e.; "My Yamaha has amazing Resolution". I heard statements like that a lot. Most were referring to lack of distortion, audio clarity, sharpness and fine detail of the reproduced sound.

To audio engineers, I am sure they could pontificate on the exact detail of what audio resolution is from their perspective.

Since I never use the term when referring to my audio listening experience, I'll not even venture to jump into that debate arena. :)
 
resolution

There is no scientific way to measure resolution and if that is true then resolution is in the eye(ear) of the beholder.

I know resolution when I hear it but someone else may not agree.

Paul
 
To me it's a technical term and not much else, as in hi-res recordings (SACD, DVD-A, BD Audio). Like HD for image. In that sense it's quite defined and measurable. It's a good word to refer to higher sampling rate, bit depth etc in one word. Using it to replace words like "clarity", "detail", "separation" makes things, well... unclear.
 
In simple terms, and this may have been discussed, one can think about in terms of optics.

There are two very small, closely spaced dots. At some point, as the dot are made smaller and closer together, it becomes impossible to see 2 dots, even though there are in fact 2 dots.

Because I am a hard numbers science guy, this is my take in it.

How an individual responds to the decreasing or increasing ability to do this with acoustic information in subjective. There is no right or wrong.

Of course this in but one of myriad of factors that influence our perception of sound quality.

I share this as my common starting point.
 
You reminded me of a discussion when SACD and DVD-A was new, on whether people can really hear the difference between the same recording in 44 kHz and 96 kHz, or the SACD and DVD-A releases sound better only because they are made from better masters. Some people could hear the difference, some couldn't (on the same system).
Your optics analogy is very good. Hearing is an instrument and it also has resolution, like a microscope.
 
mhardy6647 said:
I did/do "hard numbers" science for a livin'; hi-fi's for fun...
Click to expand...

If you have seen the TV series MONK, that is me with regard to hard science and hard numbers...:yes:.

It is just part of the hobby for me. I still dim the lights, kick back and enjoy the :music::music: for what it is.

I have not measured anything for at least 10 minutes...:D:D:D
 
On a piece of test equipment say a frequency counter, resolution may be to 1Hz but accuracy may be +/- 3 digits. You can increase your resolution but without a stated margin for error it may mean nothing.
That's why a 4 1/2 digit multimeter with 10 times the resolution may not be anywhere near as accurate as a 3 1/2 digit multimeter with a basic 0.1% error.

Resolution does not equal accuracy...
 
Resolution...it's what I make every New Years Eve. :D

For audio, to me it means hearing more details just like in video where 1080p lets you see more details.
 
Poultrygeist said:
I enjoy hearing the drops of spit in Mile's trumpet.

For me it's all about resolving that detail at low levels.
Click to expand...

Well as the article pointed out, Resolution is being able to hear the spit rolling off the note in the mouthpiece of the trumpet at extremely low levels... but it also goes beyond that to how disgusting it may sound when you realize that it is spit!!! ;)
 
The difference between hearing it and resolution: you fart, you hear it. Resolution is being able to tell what you ate for dinner, and in what order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom