Why isn’t more detail always better?

Detail has to be defined first.  Detail to me is Resolution.  Nothing wrong with seeking higher resolution in music.  The most important factor in music is rhythm, pace, timing of sound.  Without it, there is no music.  Next one can choose from an assortment of preferences, tonal balance, warmth/body, openness/3 dimensional sound, transient response (leading/trailing edge speed), frequency response, etc. etc.  

I prefer a reproduction of sound which is emotionally connecting me to the music.  So, detail/resolution is by it's nature potentially exploring the minutiae of a performance, the subtleties of the performance which engage both my emotion and intellect.  The purpose of listening to music for me is to connect to it emotionally first though, so resolution is a byproduct of better music reproduction.  I listen to much acoustically recorded music (pre-1925) and often connect to the performance despite the rudimentary recording quality.  I just heard a Suzanne Adams 1902 recording on the Marston CD label that blew me away in it's sound quality.  Almost sounded like she was in the room singing to me (I do have excellent high end gear).  

@cdc +1

I find cymbles and bells are good examples for illustration.

When a cymbal becomes a solo instrument and the leading edge is amplified. What is happening is not just the presence of the instrument is turned up but also the forwardness of minute detail is exaggerated. So when detail gets out of control it is as if there is an equalizer set on each instrument and then again on each frequency segment of that instrument… so turning up the cymbles and then turning up the leading edge of the sound of them is often what “hyper-detailed systems” sound like to me. An inexpensive system this is fatiguing and expensive not fatiguing… but kind of a sound spectacular, but very wrong.

When I got the cymbles right on my system I was shocked how much of the sound was brassy midrange (like the real thing)… suddenly, after the very brief tick of the drumstick they sounded rich and deeply brassy. A big bell so unbelievably rich and complex and not treble but midrange (I have never calibrated by terms to actual frequencies… but I think I am getting the point across).

When I got the cymbles right on my system I was shocked how much of the sound was brassy midrange (like the real thing)…

@ghdprentice I got the same thing when switch from SS to McIntosh 240 amp. I could hear the burnished brass. I know you are not supposed to hear a color but I could. "Brassy" is not a detail but it is a something.

I get a similar experience switching from delta sigma DAC to NOS. D-S is dynamic and more full range but has a kind of "bleached out" sound quality. When I switch to NOS the color comes back into the music.

The way you describe your original system sounds like a "cerebral cortex system". But now is limbic. Which is right depends on the person. but IME I am dissatisfied withe the cerebral system because I keep hearing all the technical faults. As Detlof said something about hearing the music through all the audiophile smog.

atmasphere explains it here

When most people think of hi-end they imagine a "Cerebral cortex system." because that is how recording engineers listen. And that is what impresses when you listen to hi-end for the first time. Maybe you never go beyond that stage and that is okay if you find satisfaction in it.

One problem with detail is when recording, they put the mic right up to the instrument and then add that track to the mix. Of course there is more detail than if you listen in a normal way from 10-20 feet away.

What is being said at exactly 4:41? This was asked on another forum and no one could answer until I did, at which point many agreed.

Does your system have the detail so that you can understand this?

https://youtu.be/_dbYxAr697w