Why isn’t more detail always better?

@snookhaus , that DAC was on my shortlist but I never tried it! Sounds great by your description.  I went LTA Aero. 

Don't blame your system if the music is lacking. The recording/mixing/mastering has something to do with the final product. Too much detail? If it's on the disk, I want to hear it. 

The way I think about midrange bloom is to consider a system that is very devoid of it. Bose used to sell a woofer (which I think it was used in the Best Buy vinyl section) with separate tweeter in a tiny 4" by 3" by 2" box. It sounded just like that, details and no midrange... the opposite of the full sized Bose systems. This illustrates the end point.

If you get a chance to go to the symphony and just listen as if it is a system, this can illustrate the appropriate role of details and help to show where systems can go wrong. If you listen very carefully, for instance before a concert, and then during the quiet sections and the different concert volumes you realize that the details do not stick out, they are there and if you focus your minds eye (ear) on them you hear them you can hear them... but they don’t stick out. When a piano (my seats were 7th row center... so it is a solo instrument) key is struck... you hear a rich warm resonance without the hammer standing out. Most symponic instruments lead with midrange... softly and not by the details of them being produced. Many systems essentially attenuate the midrange and emphasize the treble and bass. You loose the gestalt and it pulls your hearing away from the music and towards the detail. Many multiple hundred thousand dollar systems are like this.

Some tube electronics, particularly old stuff can overdo it in the other way. Overemphasizing the midrange and attenuating the bass and treble. Audio Research carefully walks the line, presenting a balanced gestalt of the music, so the music leads and the details are in proportion... just like they are in the real world... whether symphony, acoustic jazz, etc. Since it gets these right, it is getting other fully electronically reproduced forms a good neutral rendition.

Master Chen to Caine, "We see not what is in front of our eyes, but what is behind them". In other words, we all have preferences as to what we like individually, it's often a matter of personal taste. More bass, more detail, less bass, less detail, more natural, less harsh.... it's all a hodge-podge and no real agreement of what sounds best to all.

Unless we are talking about really bad equipment or extremely lossy formats, there is no difference in the musical detail presented in playback.  Can anyone point out a specific bit of information in a particular place in a recording that cannot at all be heard with one piece of gear versus another?  What differs is the presentation of the information--whether something is more highlighted or is emphasized, or not, whether the tonal balance is such that certain instruments are more clearly heard, etc.  It is rarely a matter of too much or too little detail.  A lot of gear highlight treble information by reducing bass or mid-bass which tends to make it harder to hear such detail; is this good or bad?; it really depends on personal preference.