Κώστας Φ.
Truth hurts. Here's a teddy bear.
- Μηνύματα
- 8.978
- Reaction score
- 895
"Accuracy is widely accepted as the pinnacle of sound quality. Although the preferred criterion for evaluating stereo systems, it is highly problematic to apply this concept, as all components are inaccurate.One connotation of accuracy is resolution. It may be substituted for accuracy when components and stereo systems are compared. Increasing and decreasing levels of resolution are noticeable, while accuracy cannot be determined, as the “sound” of recordings is always unknown. Some consider resolution equivalent to accuracy, which would explain why it is so highly valued. I intend to prove that accuracy and resolution are not equivalent.
Why do so many audiophiles seek the highest level of resolution they can afford? There are many reasons. Consider these:1) A desire to hear all information on a recording. 2) A belief that high levels of resolution create the illusion of a live performance. 3) A belief that resolution is equivalent to accuracy or that one approaches the ideal of accuracy by maximizing resolution. 4) A belief that the quality of a stereo system is directly proportional to its level of resolution. 5) A desire to own a “high end” stereo system based upon the belief that some threshold level of resolution is necessary to achieve this objective. 6) Competition among “audiophile” acquaintances. [Never! - Ed] 7) A trait of personality, such as need for achievement.
The quest for resolution is not always sensible, as it brings to mind the adage “beware of what you wish, for you may get it”. A result of this maxim is illustrated by the following anecdotal evidence: A cable designer recommended a silver cable, with the caveat “you’ll hear everything”. A customer bought the cable and reported his experience. He said, “I enjoyed the cable for about an hour. Then, it was too much. I had to go out and mow the lawn to get away from my stereo.” He then requested a refund. Before listening, the customer thought he got what he wanted. After a brief audition, he didn’t want what he got. Apparently, some consumers are unprepared for the effects of their equipment selections.
The above anecdote may be indicative of a conflict between the attraction of high resolution components and the consequences of owning them. For some, this approach—avoidance conflict, i.e., buy (approach) – listen – sell (avoid) creates frustration which may be alleviated when there is insight and understanding of the causes of the conflict.
It is easy to show that resolution does not imply accuracy. Suppose one accepts the premise:
A If accuracy then (high) resolution.
The inverse of A above is:
B If (high) resolution then accuracy
A is not equivalent to B. Rather, A is equivalent to:
C If not (high) resolution then not accuracy
Resolving what is on the recording is one part of high fidelity. The other part is presenting information exactly as recorded, i.e., balance, staging, etc. must be presented exactly as recorded. If the SPL of an instrument sounds louder than what was recorded, the result is inaccuracy even though the instrument and all its aspects may be fully articulated.
What are the consequences of chasing resolution? As stereo systems become more and more revealing of source material, it is likely that stimulus intensity and complexity will increase, possibly taxing one’s brain and nervous system. Each person is capable of processing a quantity of information at some rate of transmission. However the magnitude is expressed, when the capacity of the nervous system to process information is exceeded, the result is not pleasant. Adaptation level theory is applicable to this situation. As one is continually exposed to similar stimuli, at given levels of intensity and complexity, after some period of time, neural discharge reaches a peak. Thereafter, it declines and one’s ability to discriminate or notice subtle changes decreases. The nervous system becomes inefficient and one may no longer perceive low-level musical and non-musical information. The greater the resolution, the sooner the adaptation level is reached; thus, one’s ability to appreciate one’s stereo system is adversely affected.
Conclusion
While an accurate stereo system must be capable of retrieving all information from a recording, increasing levels of resolution is not a guarantee of reducing inaccuracy. The pursuit of resolution to achieve accuracy may be futile. It is not possible to quantify resolution and accuracy/inaccuracy. Further, the reference, the sound of the recording, is unknowable. Thus, a consequence of the quest for resolution may or may not be a reduction of inaccuracy. Too much resolution along with a lack of insight into one’s sonic preferences may be responsible for a propensity to constantly buy and sell components. Maximizing resolution may at some point tax one’s nervous system beyond its capacity to process incoming stimuli. It is difficult to anticipate when this will occur. Attending to more and more detail hastens the point at which the rate of firing of nerve cells declines and one no longer perceives all of the subtle information in the sound field. As a consequence one may fail to notice differences between the sound of components and the level of resolution that one so greatly desires will not be appreciated.
The preference for resolution, stimulus complexity and stimulus intensity generally follows the shape of a parabola. This phenomenon is supported by articles in psychology journals. There are levels of each which are most satisfying. Unfortunately, it is not possible to precisely measure resolution, intensity and complexity. One can only approximate optimality after many hours of listening. Manufacturers might consider incorporating a focus/resolution control as part of the design of a preamp, analogous to a camera lens. Such a control is not equalization. This feature would contribute to the physical, psychological and financial health of all audio consumers." -- Roy Harris
Πηγή: Audiophilia.com
