Why isn’t more detail always better?

I really appreciate these threads.   So much to learn and listen for.  So much good info for people building systems.  One comment I wanted to share is that we all hear differently, process sound differently, and have different preferences.    

theoretically I think we would want all the detail that naturally exists in the music, but unfortunately many (most) systems do not often handle that very well ... reminds me of the old JG Holt debate about how highly accurate equipment is often not the most musical sounding...

@toddalin I agree.  I've thought about this when considering vacuum tubes or cables that roll off the top end.  Doesn't seem right to do that, but it might be preferable to the harshness, sibilance, etc.

After several upgrades, my system now has the excellent detail, but recordings that I previously felt were overly bright or harsh on the top end aren't as much.  There have been a lot of changes to get there.  Dac, cables, preamp.  

I think it is possible to have both detail and musicality. @ghdprentice once posted or told me it is about keeping everything in the original recording and this hit home. I started with what many would say is a detailed system (benchmark gear) which left me wanting more musicality or emotion. As I upgraded by adding amps with a tube input stage and a preamp with tubes, I don’t think I lost detail. I have test songs that I use to monitor for detail and it all still seems present. But the new gear increased musicality and certainly emotion. IMO, the new gear maintained the details and added (or perhaps did not strip away - I don’t know) the aspects that make the music emotionally engaging. So, detail is great, we love that, but there is more to it than the detail. Maybe detail plus bloom, with the proper ratio of mid range to the treble and bass, perhaps leaning more into the midrange, is when that magic sound is present.

I had a guy visit through a mutual friend in the last year- he was a producer of a major sound track and wanted to hear what some examples from a label interested in taking a master license (with accompanying mechanical license) sounded like. He kept asking me to "turn it up" to hear nits. My system is not tuned for that; to the contrary, it is like a well-worn baseball glove- it "feels right."

I spent plenty of time in the big studios, many in LA, a few in NYC, a few elsewhere back in the day. I tried to explain to him that my system was not designed for "forensic" listening, but more to make music sound real, based on acoustic instruments (largely jazz) that were simply recorded without a lot of post production.

Some of the "produced" records sound great on my system, but I’m chasing a different dragon. I remember the big JBLS, the Westlake monitors and all those big studio set ups that allowed the artist and engineer to hear each "nit." That’s not what I’m after as a consumer of recordings. If I were producing records, and wanted to hear every iota of "detail," I would use a different system.

Can one system do it all? Possible, I grant you-- I’m pretty open minded but I’m not in gear acquisition mode. To the contrary, as a result of improvements in power, turntable isolation, cartridges and sub woofers that can energize the room - I use 4 woofers, I can get tuneful, realistic double bass, very transparent mids (SETs directly to horns w/ no Xover) and enough high frequency information to hear the shimmer of cymbals and the acoustic "envelope" of the original recording, including the harmonic decay of well recorded piano.

To me, that means that "forensic" listening is different than quality replay for enjoyment. Just one view. Could I live with a pair of old JBL monitors with double 15" woofs? I would not be ashamed to add them.