My perspective is that there are there are two general design directions for audio equipment at higher price points. One direction focused on more detail and resolution. The other direction is oriented towards more musicality and conveying the emotion of music. Historically, I’ve found that among equipment manufacturers focused on the ultra high end, American brand tended toward the former philosophy while British and French (also Italian?) brands tended toward the latter philosophy. To me, some audio systems sound "right" from a clinical, "objective" standpoint, but leave me cold from the simple perspective of enjoying music listening.
I will say that my personal opinion (which aligns with Steve Guttenberg’s opinion posted here) is that too much focus on detail and resolution seems to detract from musicality for me. Some of the ultra high end systems I’ve heard (notably Wilson and Krell) have such good resolution that they sound larger than life (meaning live music) and as a result, the excessive amount of detail becomes the focus rather than the interaction of voices/instruments and the tonal quality of the music. For my own listening preferences, the sounding larger-than-life aspect is detrimental for my listening enjoyment. I will say that I grew up playing the violin and my audio touchstone is the experience and emotion of live performances that I remember (for jazz, classical, rock, acoustic music) such as sitting 8 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie in a small jazz club seating 50 people in 1989, the speed and deftness of Alicia De Larrocha’s playing at Carnegie Hall in 1998, the power of Mudhoney at Irving Plaza in 1994, the sweetness of Norah Jones’ voice in 2017.
My definition of musicality isn’t necessarily a low bar as some low priced audio systems sound highly musical to me while some ultra expensive systems (over $150k) have not sounded musical at all. I do find that it is easier to produce a musical sounding audio system if the design philosophy allows for "errors of omission" while avoiding "errors of commission". I define errors of omission meaning some aspect of music reproduction or sound quality being not at good as it ideally might be. I find that ultra high end equipment in the process of trying to chase an ideal can end up overemphasizing specific aspects of music reproduction or sound quality at the expense of having music sound coherent and satisfying. I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right, but I also think that the cost to do so is far beyond my budget and willingness to spend time to do so. I like the experience of having good sounding recorded music available when I want it, but perhaps don't have the need or desire to continually tweak my systems to make "improvements" unless I am in the market to buy new equipment. I have systems that play back highly enjoyable music for the locations in which I typically have time to listen and that is more than good enough for me.
I will say that my personal opinion (which aligns with Steve Guttenberg’s opinion posted here) is that too much focus on detail and resolution seems to detract from musicality for me. Some of the ultra high end systems I’ve heard (notably Wilson and Krell) have such good resolution that they sound larger than life (meaning live music) and as a result, the excessive amount of detail becomes the focus rather than the interaction of voices/instruments and the tonal quality of the music. For my own listening preferences, the sounding larger-than-life aspect is detrimental for my listening enjoyment. I will say that I grew up playing the violin and my audio touchstone is the experience and emotion of live performances that I remember (for jazz, classical, rock, acoustic music) such as sitting 8 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie in a small jazz club seating 50 people in 1989, the speed and deftness of Alicia De Larrocha’s playing at Carnegie Hall in 1998, the power of Mudhoney at Irving Plaza in 1994, the sweetness of Norah Jones’ voice in 2017.
My definition of musicality isn’t necessarily a low bar as some low priced audio systems sound highly musical to me while some ultra expensive systems (over $150k) have not sounded musical at all. I do find that it is easier to produce a musical sounding audio system if the design philosophy allows for "errors of omission" while avoiding "errors of commission". I define errors of omission meaning some aspect of music reproduction or sound quality being not at good as it ideally might be. I find that ultra high end equipment in the process of trying to chase an ideal can end up overemphasizing specific aspects of music reproduction or sound quality at the expense of having music sound coherent and satisfying. I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right, but I also think that the cost to do so is far beyond my budget and willingness to spend time to do so. I like the experience of having good sounding recorded music available when I want it, but perhaps don't have the need or desire to continually tweak my systems to make "improvements" unless I am in the market to buy new equipment. I have systems that play back highly enjoyable music for the locations in which I typically have time to listen and that is more than good enough for me.