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?

128x128goofyfoot

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.

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? 
 

 

Admittedly, the above post isn’t spot on but I wanted to point out that a recording, like a photo, is merely a representation. I come back to the John Cage quote, “a recording of Beethoven’s fifth ain’t Beethoven’s fifth.”