Why isn’t more detail always better?

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.

**** Is more detail always better if not unnaturally bright or fatiguing? ****

YES!

The problem is that perceived “detail” is often precisely the result of “unusually bright or fatiguing” sound.  In my book that is not more detail. That is a distortion of the natural sound of musical instruments.  The entire frequency spectrum is affected by exaggerated upper frequencies.  More natural detail means more music and not only in the frequency domain.  Excessive (distorted) high frequencies can alter the perceived overall rhythmic relationship of performers.  In my experience more perceived natural detail is achieved by lowered noise floor, tonal refinement and reduction of grunge in the overall presentation (purity of sound).  This does not have to be accompanied by more highs.

As @noromance points out the tricky part is how the information (detail) is presented.  

@lalitk

@whart

+1

As a music lover I am not looking for “ forensic” listening or a microscope to examine the fine details and loose track of the music.

Another thought about highlighted details, they can commandeer your focus of attention. Instead of being emotionally involved or allowing the music to evoke feelings (through immersion) they can grab your attention and put you into the analytical mode of examine the detail. They need to be there to get the gestalt and complexity of the musical experience but if too obvious they can destroy the emotional connection.

There is fidelity and there is the personal 'sounds good to me' but the latter is personal and varies with the listener. Fidelity means reproducing everything that is there. If it's on the source it should be in the listening. If it isn't that's a flaw in reproduction. Hopefully the detail is not accompanied with other problems, other fidelity flaws like brightness, etc. But even if it is loss of detail is a flaw in fidelity. I personally want it all fidelity wise and if the result is not pleasant because the source is poor, so be it. The only way superior sources sound superior is if all the detail is in the listening.