Should We Prioritize Detail In Our Assessment Of Audio Quality?

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : extended treatment of or attention to particular items explaining without going into detail giving careful attention to detail. 2 : a part of a whole: such as. a : a small and subordinate part : particular planned the wedding down to the smallest detail also : a reproduction of such a part of a work of art.

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,
Nonoise

@nonoise 

+1 , excellent example with the Pro-Ject RS2 Transport.  You hit the nail on the head.👍

Charles 

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.

@charles1dad 

Once in a while things make sense to me.
Then, they elude me.
Then, I rediscover them. 😀

All the best,
Nonoise

Everyone know what detail means. You can look it up in the dictionary.

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.