[sonitus mirus]

   
To my ears there's a slight difference in tonal balance between these streams, particularly noticeable with female vocals, which sound a tad darker on the lower bitrate stream. Subjectively, perceived resolution is indeed a little higher with the flac stream, but I'd think that's mostly due to more treble presence. I don't have a real-time spectrum analyzer to verify these impressions, but if you open both streams in VLC player and EQ down everything but the 16KHz band, the difference in treble presence becomes pretty obvious imo.
 

 
Tonal balance?  Seriously?  Ok.  Has anyone verified that the sources are identical?

 

[StanD]

   
To my ears there's a slight difference in tonal balance between these streams, particularly noticeable with female vocals, which sound a tad darker on the lower bitrate stream. Subjectively, perceived resolution is indeed a little higher with the flac stream, but I'd think that's mostly due to more treble presence. I don't have a real-time spectrum analyzer to verify these impressions, but if you open both streams in VLC player and EQ down everything but the 16KHz band, the difference in treble presence becomes pretty obvious imo.
 
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

Again, you have no validation as to the quality differences in the steamed sources and their processing at transmission.

 

[Ancipital]

   
I was just trying to give you an idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned "resolution".  Like I said, it's hard to describe but easy to hear.  I don't want to fight over the words used to describe "resolution" as long as you know what I'm talking about. 
 
Some amps have more resolution than others and so do some headphones.  Can we agree on this?

 
It almost sounds like you're reaching for something related to the mystic "resolving power"- something to do with frequency response meets impulse response, with a soupcon of slew rate to taste? Maybe. Perhaps.

 

[upstateguy]

   
You seem to be talking about the difference between compression settings, which are not the kind of differences I hear among amps or headphones. That's our disconnect.

 
I'm only using the compression differences to illustrate what I hear in some amps and headphones.  If you need a more concrete example, my M^3 amp has less resolution than my GS-1 amp and my T-1s are more resolving than my 650s or 880s.
 

  Comparing unknown sources is not a proper test. One has to know the exact makeup. Take an original hirez sample and convert it your self using the proper tools and then to a proper abx test. Anything else is not a valid test.

 
Not speaking to compression algorithms, just using it as an illustration.  What I'm talking about are amps and headphones... some being capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.
 
 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

It's difficult to understand the definition of an ambiguous term like "resolution" when it's described as the sum of two other ambiguous terms like clarity and detail.

Resolution is the smallest delta or interval between two values that a device is capable of producing a measurably different output for.

In frequency:
Start with some nominal CW... Say 1KHz. If there is no measurable difference in the output spectrum until you step to 1001Hz, then your device has a 1Hz resolution.

In amplitude:
Amplitude is even easier, it's usually defined by the bit resolution and full scale voltage of the DAC. If the DAC rail to rail is 5V and uses 12 bits, then the resolution is ~1.22mV.

In time:
Maybe clock rate (i.e. Fs for the DAC) combined with jitter measurements for the clock source to provide worst case delta time between samples?

The point is all of these are based on hardware measurements. So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[upstateguy]

<snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?
 

 
As you know from following what I've written, I'm not talking about source material at all except to use it as an illustration. 
 
What I'm referring to is that some amps and some headphones are capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.  Would you agree with this?
 
Cheers
 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

<snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?
 

 
As you know from following what I've written, I'm not talking about source material at all except to use it as an illustration. 
 
What I'm referring to is that some amps and some headphones are capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.  Would you agree with this?
 
Cheers
 

I've been following very little of it. I was just confused about the vague definition and use of differences in source material to try to clarify something that is inextricably hardware related.

For my clarification, what are you defining as resolution? Please try avoid using other general and equally ambiguous terms in your definition. I ask because I need to know what you're actually asking before I can answer your question.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[upstateguy]

 

 

<snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?
 

 
As you know from following what I've written, I'm not talking about source material at all except to use it as an illustration. 
 
What I'm referring to is that some amps and some headphones are capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.  Would you agree with this?
 
Cheers
 

I've been following very little of it. I was just confused about the vague definition and use of differences in source material to try to clarify something that is inextricably hardware related.

For my clarification, what are you defining as resolution? Please try avoid using other general and equally ambiguous terms in your definition. I ask because I need to know what you're actually asking before I can answer your question.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
You have nothing in your profile.  What amps and headphones do you have?  I'll be able to focus you in once I know what equipment you have.

 

[Argyris]

Resolution is one of those things that always mystifies me when it comes up in audio discussions. My gut tells me it's just another subjective term, since I've never once heard a headphone I felt was noticeably more resolving (i.e. picked up details I could not hear on other headphones) than any other. I've heard headphones that tend to smooth over detail (e.g. Koss PortaPro and SP330), and I've heard headphones that seem to highlight it (e.g. DT880, NAD HP50), but careful listening reveals that the same amount of information is there in every case.
 
My feeling is that what people consider highly resolving performance comes from a combination of good extension and tonal balance (i.e. not rolled off or peaky in the treble, reasonably neutral), along with low distortion and lack of driver ringing. My feeling is also that, since this is such a nebulous term, it's become a byword of audio subjectivists to justify the high price of their gear. I've often seen claims that two headphones sound similar, but that the (often much) more expensive one is "more resolving." It's an easy claim to make and a very difficult one to test.
 
Maybe in some cases, though, there's actually something to this. A common example is the HD 598 vs the HD 600. I've often read that these two have similar tonal balance, but that the former is more "lo-fi" than the latter, and this difference is usually attributed to driver resolution. My suspicion is that it's likely a combination of all the factors I mentioned earlier that contributes to this impression, rather than any intrinsic ability of the HD 600 driver to "resolve better" than the HD 598 one. 
 
I realize that this whole discussion might seem pedantic, but I'm trying to get to the root of the issue, and the audio world is a minefield of purported fine distinctions. I guess the question that needs to be asked is, if resolution as audiophiles claim to hear it is indeed a function of the factors I listed, is this word such a bad description of what they're hearing? Granted, attributing it to some mystical driver capability isn't doing us any favors if indeed there is no appreciable/audible difference between drivers' raw ability to reproduce minute detail, but if other aspects of the presentation get in the way of perceiving that detail, one could possibly argue that the end result is the same even if the stated cause is wrong.
 
Just thinking out loud and stirring the pot a bit.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

 

 

<snip>....So what type of resolution are you talking about and what does source material have to do with the "resolution" of an amplifier?
 

 
As you know from following what I've written, I'm not talking about source material at all except to use it as an illustration. 
 
What I'm referring to is that some amps and some headphones are capable of rendering a higher resolution than others.  Would you agree with this?
 
Cheers
 

I've been following very little of it. I was just confused about the vague definition and use of differences in source material to try to clarify something that is inextricably hardware related.

For my clarification, what are you defining as resolution? Please try avoid using other general and equally ambiguous terms in your definition. I ask because I need to know what you're actually asking before I can answer your question.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
You have nothing in your profile.  What amps and headphones do you have?  I'll be able to focus you in once I know what equipment you have.

What? If the definition changes based on the HW, then it's not a very good definition.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

Resolution is one of those things that always mystifies me when it comes up in audio discussions. My gut tells me it's just another subjective term, since I've never once heard a headphone I felt was noticeably more resolving (i.e. picked up details I could not hear on other headphones) than any other. I've heard headphones that tend to smooth over detail (e.g. Koss PortaPro and SP330), and I've heard headphones that seem to highlight it (e.g. DT880, NAD HP50), but careful listening reveals that the same amount of information is there in every case.
 
My feeling is that what people consider highly resolving performance comes from a combination of good extension and tonal balance (i.e. not rolled off or peaky in the treble, reasonably neutral), along with low distortion and lack of driver ringing. My feeling is also that, since this is such a nebulous term, it's become a byword of audio subjectivists to justify the high price of their gear. I've often seen claims that two headphones sound similar, but that the (often much) more expensive one is "more resolving." It's an easy claim to make and a very difficult one to test.
 
Maybe in some cases, though, there's actually something to this. A common example is the HD 598 vs the HD 600. I've often read that these two have similar tonal balance, but that the former is more "lo-fi" than the latter, and this difference is usually attributed to driver resolution. My suspicion is that it's likely a combination of all the factors I mentioned earlier that contributes to this impression, rather than any intrinsic ability of the HD 600 driver to "resolve better" than the HD 598 one. 
 
I realize that this whole discussion might seem pedantic, but I'm trying to get to the root of the issue, and the audio world is a minefield of purported fine distinctions. I guess the question that needs to be asked is, if resolution as audiophiles claim to hear it is indeed a function of the factors I listed, is this word such a bad description of what they're hearing? Granted, attributing it to some mystical driver capability isn't doing us any favors if indeed there is no appreciable/audible difference between drivers' raw ability to reproduce minute detail, but if other aspects of the presentation get in the way of perceiving that detail, one could possibly argue that the end result is the same even if the stated cause is wrong.
 
Just thinking out loud and stirring the pot a bit.

You might be right, but I'd rather not speculate and instead challenge someone who uses the term to define it in an appropriate manner. That is, I want to understand the measurable qualities that contribute to this otherwise ambiguous term.

I also want to find out why people use ambiguous terms when we have well defined measurements to describe whatever behavior is being discussed... But that's another story, and one I suspect I will never get to the bottom of.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[upstateguy]

<snip>
What? If the definition changes based on the HW, then it's not a very good definition.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
I don't know why you won't list some of your gear?  I might be able to relate it to you better through your own gear if I knew what it was.
 
Perhaps you could think of defining "resolution" like you would think of defining a color.  Easy to see, but not so easy to describe.  In a similar way, resolution is easy to hear but as you see in this thread, it is apparently to describe. 
 
Maybe you could think of it as a form of audio clarity.  We all can recognize someone's voice over a cell phone.  The better the phone, or perhaps the better the speakers in the phone, the greater the resolution, and more real the voice sounds. 
 
How about your laptop speakers?  Not much resolution there.  Laptop speakers are good enough to identify the voice of a singer and hear every instrument, drum beat and cymbal strike, but plug in a pair of headphones and the resolution increases by an order of magnitude.
 
So now you tell me, what's your definition of the difference between the sound coming from laptop speakers and headphones plugged into the same computer? 
 
A difference that is easy to hear but hard to assign a definition to.  I'd like to call that difference "resolution".
 

 

[Ruben123]

If you mean that by resolution, it's as easy as how big the frequency response is. Phone and laptop speakers often have a fr starting at 1khz to around 4-6k.

 

[Argyris]

You might be right, but I'd rather not speculate and instead challenge someone who uses the term to define it in an appropriate manner. That is, I want to understand the measurable qualities that contribute to this otherwise ambiguous term.

I also want to find out why people use ambiguous terms when we have well defined measurements to describe whatever behavior is being discussed... But that's another story, and one I suspect I will never get to the bottom of.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
So would I. Unfortunately, it's a highly antagonistic relationship between the subjectivist and objectivist perspectives. The fact that this forum has essentially been cordoned off behind radioactive yellow DO NOT CROSS tape is one indication of this, and the skirmishes that occur when one side ruffles the other's feathers are another. And before somebody comes in here and complains about the ridicule and bashing that sometimes happen when threads run through their initial topic (I'm as guilty of it as anyone), keep in mind that on greater Head-Fi this place is regularly referred to as the Science Fiction forum, with the ever-present undertone that the people who frequent it are some kind of quacks in denial. It goes both ways, people. It's the classic "Us vs Them", and while both sides are at times guilty here, to the effect that I'm not going to pick one and say they're "worse" with it, that isn't really my point. My point is that this attitude exists and that it complicates any efforts we can make into investigating what (if any) empirical basis plays into the phenomena attested to in the audio world.
 
So all we can do is speculate about these things, unless somebody from Team Subjective wants to elucidate us without pigeonholing or lecturing us, and without us dogpiling.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

<snip>
What? If the definition changes based on the HW, then it's not a very good definition.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 
I don't know why you won't list some of your gear?  I might be able to relate it to you better through your own gear if I knew what it was.
 
Perhaps you could think of defining "resolution" like you would think of defining a color.  Easy to see, but not so easy to describe.  In a similar way, resolution is easy to hear but as you see in this thread, it is apparently to describe. 
 
Maybe you could think of it as a form of audio clarity.  We all can recognize someone's voice over a cell phone.  The better the phone, or perhaps the better the speakers in the phone, the greater the resolution, and more real the voice sounds. 
 
How about your laptop speakers?  Not much resolution there.  Laptop speakers are good enough to identify the voice of a singer and hear every instrument, drum beat and cymbal strike, but plug in a pair of headphones and the resolution increases by an order of magnitude.
 
So now you tell me, what's your definition of the difference between the sound coming from laptop speakers and headphones plugged into the same computer? 
 
A difference that is easy to hear but hard to assign a definition to.  I'd like to call that difference "resolution".
 

Because what I own shouldn't change the definition of an ostensibly measurable quality of all amplifiers.

Color, clarity... You're using vague, ambiguous terms again. Please tell me what measurable qualities you are talking about.

Why are you comparing two different devices or pieces of hardware? Surely any measurable quality would stand on it's own and not need some arbitrary and subjective comparison??

The difference between laptop speakers and headphones is quantized using a large array of measurements. Frequency response, sensitivity, distortion, impedance are just a few of these measurements.

It sounds to me like you have no idea what you mean when you use the term resolution... You're using it as a catch-all term to describe anything and everything which you have no idea how to describe in objective terms. I always like to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon