Why isn’t more detail always better?

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.

More detail being retrieved  is due to lower noise floor, my position is this is an inherently good thing. My take is why would one want to obscure music with higher noise floor, noise floors are comprised of electronic artifacts, resonances in equipment, room modes, environmental noise. I don't want to hear noise, I want to hear the lowest level mix in recordings, that being performers and their instruments, recording venue info.

And so its presentation that is the problem, that may be an issue with one's system or the recording, one you can fix, the other you can't.

Interested in what others have to say about these things.  

It seems to me you are more interested in what you want to hear yourself tell us about these things.

Seriously, you answered your own question in the OP.

Why isn’t more detail always better?

Because it can be 

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

Too much bloom can result in a die-off leading to mold.

@sns @dynamiclinearity @frogman  I think we are on the same page.