Why isn’t more detail always better?

So from that it sounds like bloom and detail are both of benefit and it’s a personal preference thing how much of each,  but detail enhances bloom and bloom can obscure detail.   As usual, YMMV. 

My new amp definitely has very good detail and  attack and decay consistent with the review of similar older model. But it’s brand new so see how this plays out over time.  No tubes.   Also running from a newly acquired Schitt Freya S as in all solid state, so not expecting any “artificial” bloom. 

Looks like you're having a conversation with yourself. 

More detail is the Holy Grail. How that information is presented is where things get tricky. 

@ghdprentice I know you are an Audio Research fan. I am as well and owned a sp16 pre amp for a number of years. I like ARC because it tends to have very good detail and minimal if any artificial “tube bloom” compared to a many others.

I am going with the SS Schit Freya S for now. Freya + adds a front panel switchable tube input stage to Freya S three non tube options including passive. Very nice features and sound for the price. I can see why there are many Schit fans out there. If I decide I need more bloom, I could upgrade to Freya + for just a few hundred bucks more. We will see.

So far, my standing position is that more detail done well (not inherently bright or fatiguing) is usually a good thing, but more bloom not as often. You have achieve the right amount of bloom to suit personal preference. Also I think recordings of acoustic instruments as mentioned above is where more bloom may be better for more. I listen to all genres including pop/rock and electronic. I want detail but no extra “bloom there”.

but that’s just me. Interested to hear what others think and why