Should We Prioritize Detail In Our Assessment Of Audio Quality?

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.

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. 

This article from Stereophile explains it very well IMO. Pace, rhythm and timing. A system can have massive amounts of detail and fundamentally miss the performance. Over the years I have learned how to evaluate equipment upgrades, this article helped me understand this.

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html

Yes that article goes into a lot of details that may factor into what is perceived subjectively as good sound. See what I mean? It supports my point.  Not all details are valued equally. But that is always where push comes to shove.