2. digital
  3. 173212-1294

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?

goofyfoot
goofyfoot's avatar
goofyfoot OP
1,403 posts
 

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.

nonoise's avatar
nonoise
11,162 posts
 

@charles1dad 

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

All the best,
Nonoise

hilde45's avatar
hilde45
5,318 posts
 

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.

alexatpos
1,240 posts
 

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. 

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,793 posts
 

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. 

More to discover