I agree with everything you say. Detail, though, might be the easiest thing for somebody to analyze and judge a system by. It lends an aura of science and objectivity. It's so much more objective than discussing orchestral tone or what Frank Sinatra really did sound like. I must say, too, that it's also just plain fun to be able to hear the Second Clarinetist blowing his nose.
Should We Prioritize Detail In Our Assessment Of Audio Quality?
So many times I’ve read posts, measuring the audio quality of components and recordings, by how much detail they offer. Especially where it pertains to DAC’s and streaming devices. Whenever there’s a thread comparing Qobuz with Tidal, etc… I find multiple posts attempting to win an argument, based on the claim that one streaming service offers more detail than the other.
I like detail but to me, it’s just one characteristic among many. If I sit in different parts of a concert hall, I may hear more detail in one place over another but it doesn’t make or break my desire to sit in one location over another. So many Audiogoners have stated their preference of analogue over digital but in my experience, digital playback usually reveals the most detail. How do others interpret the emphasis of detail when evaluating the level of audio quality in their listening experiences?
44 responses Add your response
You have hit on something it took me a few decades to put in perspective. Detail is good… but it is only one of many important sound characteristics. I have gone running from a number of high end systems that emphasized detail over other aspects… like noice, distortion and lack of rhythm and pace. Highlighted details can destroy the musical connection with the music. It is one of the easiest parameters to detect… along with slam. Build a system on those two parameters alone and you have a sterile and uninvolving system… that may cause fatigue. I remember being so happy hearing the drummer slide his foot… I can hear that on my current system, but it is not in the spotlight, and I probably will not notice it because I am lost in the music. |
| Post removed |
The problem with emphasizing detail, no one agrees on what it means. Far as I can tell a lot confuse detail with presence, HF extension, air, etc. Detail is detail, the finest most subtle distinctions of sound. Nothing about detail has to mean high frequency or anything like that. If you are going to focus on anything, imaging is much better. In order to image well everything has to be just right. There must be a wealth of extremely fine detail. If timing is off, there goes the image. If frequency response, timbre or presence are off the sound source loses lifelike character and there goes the image. Anything at all coming from the speaker and this will be heard as a source, the speaker no longer disappears, and there goes the imaging. I could go on and on. One of the easiest ways to differentiate between components is the challenging aspect of imaging in creating a sound field layered, deep and wide. Why? Because this requires a tremendous amount of detail. Right smack in the middle, if that is rock solid and palpably present you can be sure you're getting a ton of detail. Sad to say, lots of audiophiles think of imaging as some kind of parlor trick, or irrelevant. Mark my words, someone will say it doesn't mater because you only hear it in the sweet spot. Well, so what? You can't hear detail from behind a speaker or in the next room either. Nutty objection. Maybe one problem with this is so many have been conned into thinking like the violinist that digital has more detail. Wrong. Digital has more edge. Grain. As if the most detailed photograph is the one you can see each pixel. Play any record. You will see. As Michael Fremer famously said, "There's more there there." |
millercarbon, I agree with your assessment that imaging is a prioritizing factor. I disagree however with the your comment stating that digital sources don't in general have more detail. Personally, I have heard digitally remastered recordings where noises, coughs , etc.. are heard from the gallery. Those coughs are not noticeable within the original analogue sources. This doesn't make detail bad, mind you, because there are other aspects to the nature of digital versus analogue that in most circumstances makes digital preferable. I'd venture to say that very few analogue rereleases are free from digital remastering and details within those recordings are considerable versus there analogue originals. I'm listening through Quad ESL's and they can be a little forward and revealing. Hearing detail isn't an objection of mine, otherwise I wouldn't own Quads. But I generally think about revealing details as being extraneous. Imaging however is central to lifelike sound, IMO. |
In the glory days of LP we used to speak well of those components that provided low level information. That was the air, the imaging, the detail. For classical music especially I want the detail for the music can be especially complicated. An orchestra of 100; a chorus of 100. I’ve been listening recently to the new Pappano Aida. Yes in a concert hall you will hear more detail in row C than in row P. But it was Harry Pearson who suggested that detail on a record is more important on records than in person for with the record you have no visual clues. Today you can find it all: detail, imaging, soundstage, fulness and body in the sound. And you can find it at a reasonable price. Which is to say that detail does not have to come at the price of giving up other desirable qualities. |
i don’t feel a complete, enlightened, well rounded discussion about sound quality of hifi gear would focus heavily (much less exclusively) on the notion of presented 'detail' in the music ... relative noobs tend to go for that, but if they stick with it and learn what’s important over time, experience real music, they start to include many other sonic qualities in their criteria for what's good music and sound |
+1 MC on deffinition of detail. Perseptions differ. +1 jjss49. i still have much to learn regarding criterion. There is much that is left out in what some consider detail. For each note an articulate attact is a start, the harmonic overtones provide the finish. There is so much detail in the latter that is overlooked. |
This is an article from Stereophile many years ago that changed how I looked at equipment. The summation of detail doesn’t always give you the same musical performance. Its about music and performance for me not about sound. Some equipment heightens or highlights details in distracting ways that makes them seem better initially. My trick when I’m evaluating equipment is to not directly listen, I see if it subconsciously draws me into the performance. Well reproduced music will do that, I can’t ignore it. If it can’t draw me, or I’m distracted by a specific detail then its just a wall of sound. |
a number of potentially useful and valuable perspective (some more some less so, but all worth a read) https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/09/12/hi-fi-how-do-we-listen/ https://www.audioadvice.com/videos-reviews/training-ear-learn-listen-like-audiophile/ https://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DEVELOPINGCRITICALLISTENINGSKILLS-.pdf.pdf https://hub.yamaha.com/audio/a-how-to/how-to-develop-critical-listening-skills/ https://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/teaching-myself-to-listen/ |
Ok, very funny… (first article) how did Dave get his wife or girlfriend to pose with him, as if she spent all that time listening to his system with him… don’t believe it, unless just married or starting a relationship. I remember my partner listening with me… 35 years ago… once every five or ten years since. |
I can relate to musichead. Above a certain level, the sound becomes a performance that rivets the listener to the chair and rearranges his/her schedule for the rest of the day. I think reviewers, who are usually charged with the task of writing about individual pieces of equipment, have a tough job coming up with ways to explain what they hear. |
+2 @jjss49 well put! This has began as a good and thoughtful thread. I hope it doesn't devolve into yet another analogue versus digital debate (Enough of that tired exercise). Reasonable and experienced listeners can acknowledge both have demonstrated the capacity to sound sublime if effort and thought are applied to the endeavor. Charles
|
I don't often use detail in my descriptions of equipment sq, rather I use resolution. Resolution is perhaps the most important criteria of what creates sense of live performers in room. Resolution takes into account things like imaging, sound stage and detail. Resolution is holistic term under which detail falls under. Superior imaging, sound staging is in fact low level detail being resolved. And yes, added detail also heard as formerly burried performer within mix being more clearly heard.
Resolution and detail can also be perceived as a negative if tonality, timbre not attended to in high resolution equipment.
Resolution and/or detail is a qualitative estimate of equipment's worth, reviewers always going to mention this in evaluations.
|
+1 to @millercarbon @jjss49 and others. QUESTION: It would seem that "detail" would vary with what one wants to pay close attention to, no? Or is listening to the pace or the bass or something not in the upper mids and treble not considered 'detail' by most. Toe-tapping, nimbleness of dynamics, are so crucial. Give me the beat boys, to free my soul... |
What does high end mean exactly if not more detail? More and better….detail. If the music is good and the recording is and the system is your toe will tap more as the detail goes up. I know few things mean what they used to anymore but detail is not one of them. It is always good. Even more detail of Medusa. Let’s ditch hi res video detail too while we are at it. Medusa might not look as horrifying and maybe not turn us to stone eh? 😱. Audiophiles come up with the strangest ideas sometimes. Sweat every detail to the point of going into denial. It’s true! |
I don't 'know' what is considered detail by 'most'. The reason I don't know is there is a sometimes vast chasm between what most say and what most do. A lot talk a good talk but then when you see what they do, oy vey! Detail is simply the finest smallest most subtly perceptible aspect of a thing. Let me give you an example from watches as a metaphor for audio. Show a Breitling and a Grand Seiko to the average person, or even the average watch person, the vast majority will say the Breitling is the more detailed of the two. What they mean is there are more sharp edges, more obvious tiny little decorations. A more sophisticated view is the Grand Seiko is the more detailed by far. Details such as the way the case curves into the bracelet, the ineffable look and feel of the zaratsu polishing, the way the inside edge of the date window is that same zaratsu polishing, and more, are all there for the discerning eye. They just don't jump out at you. Most see what jumps out at them. Most see the obvious details. Missing the deeper more captivating ones. Another one, when you detail a car, detailing is not just polish and wax. It is getting into every little nook and cranny, all the little things so hard to see most will never even notice. Sometimes even when they go looking for them. I have judged concours competitions and seen this first hand. Wheels look good. Really? See there and there? Little bit of grime where the lug nut bolts to the wheel? Shoulda removed the wheel, cleaned everything, then put it together. While you're at it clean the inside of the wheel, the brake calipers and hydraulic lines, inside the wheel well. That kind of detail. It is all detail. Just in audio some are so incredibly finely detailed they are more felt than heard. So yes of course what one calls detail will vary a lot, not only from person to person but even the same person depending on what they happen to focus on. |
An analogy to perceiving detail in a recording while being played by a stereo system; Looking at two nearly identical photos of a 1927 Bulova watch. The only difference between the two photos is that one image is sharper and clearer but the other is less sharp and less clear. Which photo is most likely to present more detail in the watch than the other? Is the image that reveals more detail than not, considered a better photo and/or a truer representation?
|
A photo is a stagnant image, music is moving and changing with timing, attack, decay, sustain. There is the interaction between instruments. A good system needs to get those elements correct first, added detail if not properly balanced can ruin the performance. Its alot more complicated than just detail. |
Sounds like it means all the parts and aspects of what we can hear, when speaking of detail in regards to audio. Somewhere along the line, some got the notion that it means just the tiny clues like sparkle, decay, ambience and sometimes the emotional intent of the artist (when the stars align). For me, if any detail is missing, the event is incomplete and lacking. That's not saying it has to be shrill, etched or made to stand out, out of proportion to everything else. It's just info, musical info that's missing, which is just another detail of the event. Not having all the details renders the event incomplete and unconvincing. A great example of what I'm saying can be seen in the thread of the Pro-Ject CD transport. By all accounts, there's more there, there. All descriptions portray a more convincing musical event. It can be hard to pinpoint but suffice to say, that transport is extracting more info (detail) than what traditionally has been done, making for a more convincing presentation. All the best,
|
musichead, a CD is stagnant just as a photo itself is stagnant. The object a photo portrays is not stagnant. The physics of light and the spectrum of color are reproduced to realistic perception. Form and space are arranged to depict a living breathing organism, such as a tree or a lightning strike. Contrast, shadow, three dimensionality. etc... The discipline of aesthetics applies to a multitude of art forms. |
If that was true, we'd all know that, and there would not be a discussion happening here. So, no. Dictionaries report how words are used. People use the same word in different senses, and sometimes those senses are in conflict. You might consider, instead, that there are at least three levels of meaning. The first level of meaning about a concept is an unreflective grasp of it, in everyday experience. I grasp "gravity" by knowing how to keep myself stable while walking. The second level of meaning is to be able to give a definition of the concept. This will be general, apart from any particular experience. A dictionary reports the various definitions people come up with. They are often at odds with one another. There is a third level of meaning, which is what this thread is working on. It aims to understand all the possible practical implications -- experiences, sensations, even measurements (where appropriate). Once all those possible, practical bearings have been explored, we have a full conception of what we’re talking about. |
I beleieve tha in music reproduction there is more than just an abundance of details.Ih fact, I would there to say, that with time, man learns to 'look' (hear) and appreciates the whole picture more than it is the sum of its details.'Hyperrealism' may cause fatigue, more ofthen than not. Simple example. Listen to jazz music, mostly from 55-65, with all its production limits. Had a DCS Puccini with clock and with many recordings I could hear 'imperfections' of the recording in a way that just bothered me. It made me know who remastered every album that I had. Than, bought Burmester 089 player. As much as it is resolving, it is not so 'cruel' in flashing out all the 'details', it presents the broader 'picture' without emphasasing on its parts and yet I do not feel or hear that any detail is missing. In hi fi terms, I might say that DCS is more 'resolving' (some could say 'clinical', and I know that there is equipment which is even more relentless) but if those 'details' are making me uncomfortable, than what is the point? Do I really want to hear how 'bad' some production or album is made or do I want to hear how good is the music that was recorded? I guess that everyone chooses for himself and there is lots of equipment on either side to choose from. |
The question becomes unanswerable when everyone is allowed to define their own meaning of a useful word whose meaning is already perfectly clear simply because it is so useful. It won’t get anywhere. But it will give people a chance to talk about something even if it is already clearly defined so we will see what happens. The devil is always in the details. That includes good sound. Lots of different kinds of details but details none the less. But if people want to massacre the utility of a killer word like detail so be it. It’s a free country. |
Excellent article… thank you. It took me decades to really sense rhythm and pace. For the longest time, I had noticed if my foot unconsciously started moving to the music it had something that was missing on many systems. Over time, I was able to sense it and detect it in a system… although my foot is still the easiest indicator. A system with really good rhythm and pace allows you to fall into the music instead of listening to the system. Now I recognize this attribute is far more important than detail or imaging… although it is great to have those as well. |
Absolutely true and well stated. This is the good live venue effect where you immediately/spontaneously "fall into the music".
Charles
|
@charles1dad Yes digital has come a long way but has equally taken an interesting turn back to the R2R designs for good reason. The R2R designs in general are more musical, some not as detailed but they underpin the music better. |
To answer the OP question: we should prioritize whatever we like. And if you don’t know what you like, sorry, you have to figure it out for yourself. It’s not an overnight process. You know when you know. There is no “formula”, no magic number, regardless of what the “measurmentalists” preach. We are human beings, and cannot possibly ALL like the same thing, the same “measurement”.
Best regards, Captain Obvious |
