Heh, interesting topic and definitely an attention-grabbing title!

I'm not entirely sure if we are getting too much detail, but sometimes I think that the focus on the detail can rob us of some of the pleasure that music can bring us. I'm sure we've all been emotionally moved by some musical passage heard on some very poor quality audio gear - that's not to suggest that lack of detail will enhance our enjoyment, but as you suggest, I think it's possible that we miss some of the "big picture" when we're listening for very specific things.

And it does seem to me that some recordings present much more specific detail than you'd ever experience in a live venue. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but does that enhance the experience? We may very well have situations that are "more real than reality".

Personally, I find that I listen differently depending on what gear I'm listening to. I'm currently at work, listening to a jazz station streaming relatively low bitrate mp3s through some cheap computer speakers, and you know, I enjoy the music too much to worry about what I'm missing/compression artifacts etc.

I'm simply loving the music! Now, I'd never want this as my only audio source, and I love to put high quality recordings on at home and revel in "how real it seems", but there is something liberating about simply listening to the music without focusing on minute details.

I do try to do that on my home system as well sometimes - I just pour myself a single malt, put something on and sit back and let the music carry me away. But it is much easier to focus in on small details because they are are so clearly articulated. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it is thought provoking.

Bill

All good questions. I always thought it was about getting as much from a given recording as possible, and at some level creating a (personally) satisfying illusion of life-like performance. Obviously few recordings even strive to sound "live" so it's mostly about getting the most out of an artist/band/producers vision of a musical experience. I've heard stereo systems that seem artificially bright or edgy in details, but in a balanced, well designed system detail is just a way of saying you are hearing the most the recording has.

I haven't yet heard "too much" although I have seen too much detail in high-def TV and maybe a few movies. The grimy pores of your average baseball pitcher is not a game enhancing addition!

Perhaps I'm way off base here, but I wonder if this isn't to some degree the great "tube versus solid state debate" in disguise?

RG

When I listen to a particular component in a shop, one of the major criteria that I have for evaluating a piece of gear is that it has to "sing" to me. It's not enough to be accurate, it's not enough to be detailed, it's not enough to do all the things right. If the music isn't integrated, if it doesn't pull me in, if I don't FEEL the music, then all of the other things are worthless.

What that means is that detail and harmony and soundstaging and accuracy certainly help bring you closer to that visceral, emotionally involving experience. However, those things alone aren't enough. Sometimes a component is not the most detail, it's not objectively the most detailed, articulate, etc. But if that component sings, then that's all that counts. That's the whole point of hi-fi. You can't be distracted by pine needles and miss the forest.

I don't think there's anything particularly new about the "detail" thing, there have always been products that do that "analytical" detail thing vs. the "musical" approach of others.

However things do seem to be evolving in the upper echelons and I've been blown away by the performance of few SS amplifiers that are immediately recognizable for poise, composure and smoothness (i.e. lack of even the remotest hint of anything approaching nasty); I'm reminded a certain Mark Levinson [and I've heard an earlier generation sample that just don't measure up] and various (big power) McIntosh amps I heard recently.

The qualities of these products, so easily recognized if not easily described, seem not to have migrated down to the lower levels as far as I can tell. I can only hope that that's a situation that will change soon.

Part of this comes down to personal preference, in my opinion. I used to play with a local community orchestra, and once invited my conductor over to hear the new speakers I had just built. They were highly detailed, perhaps partly because they were a little bright and forward, but upon hearing them he pronounced their sound "magnificent," noting that they sounded just like he was on stage in front of the orchestra. Not everyone's cup of tea, I'm sure, but he loved them.

Some people seem to be able to enjoy music regardless of the quality of reproduction. Those who can tolerate the fidelity of a cheap table radio will likely be able to ignore the hyper-detail of these recordings and equipment as well. And I'm sure most of us have become lost in the music while auditioning equipment and forgotten to listen for the details. How fortunate we are to have the choice.

If accuracy, photo, video or audio is a bad thing, then it is because either the original is flawed or somewhere in the reproduction chain something is flawed.

Quote:
If accuracy, photo, video or audio is a bad thing, then it is because either the original is flawed or somewhere in the reproduction chain something is flawed.

I completely agree. From my perspective, the ultimate goal of any playback system, audio or video, should be to accurately render everything the artist(s) put into the recording. If the playback system renders sounds that are edgier or colors more saturated than the artists recorded, the playback system is not accurate. If the artists intended to present the perspective of third row in an intimate hall, the recording system should allow you to hear when the third row violinist turns the page.

Of course, there's also the perfectly valid perspective of desiring playback systems that accentuate aspects of the content to elicit certain experiences. The detail freak audiophile would find nirvana to be able to correctly guess the weight of the paper turned by the third row violinist.]

I understand the debate here, but I think there are a couple of things that keep many from Audiophilia. One is the money thing. Some folks have the available disposible income earmarked for other things. More especially I think that many people have less time/shorter attention spans than what is needed for this level of listening. With limited free time folks aren't always willing to pay attention close enough to appreciate the difference in sound quality. Consequently a Bosebox is more than adequate for a lot of folks. If evenings are spent with mom, dad, and the kids all gathered in the family room doing homework and discussing the affairs of the day it is hard to justify 5 to 10k dollars when 300 will do. I have to think that as many folks get older, and the nest's begin to empty things might pick up again. A lot of 'boomers are about to hit the street in the next 10 years and that has to make a difference also. They have money, time, and the memory of a lot of music that isn't to be heard on radio. At least not in my area.

Quote:
If accuracy, photo, video or audio is a bad thing, then it is because either the original is flawed or somewhere in the reproduction chain something is flawed.

Agreed. But this is a complex concept.

1) The job of the reproduction chain is to accurately present the recording to the listener. We will always argue about what accurate means however. For example, some care about timbre; others, PRAT, etc.

2) Then there is the "accuracy" of the original; that is of the recording itself.

As a musician, I like things to sound like they do when I perform. I know what the soft plopping of oboe pads sound like when the player a couple of charis down plays. This is "accurate".

However, for the audience, a pair of spaced omnis back in the hall is more "accurate" as it captures the orchestra as an ensemble playing in real space. Hearing the details I hear would distract this listener who might complain that they make the recording appear unreal.

I think balance and proportion are the key; there's nothing wrong with lots of detail, as long as it is in scale with everything else. My thinking is the better resolved everything is, the less the brain has to work to be convinced something sounds natural and realistic. In everyday life, you can shift your focus and pick out things if you concentrate, it just depends on where your attention happens to lie at that moment--you might see a garden one day, and on another, notice the bee buzzing because you focused on a flower.

Well put, Jeff. Interesting perspective.

If the recording chain has captured something like the turn of a page, intentionally or unintentionally, what characteristic of the playback chain could obscure it without damaging the music? The recording engineer's monitoring equipment needs enough resolution to say "I don't want that, move the microphone."

Has Hi Fi evolved from "romantic pursuit" to "gynecology?"
And what is the relationship between "romantic pursuit", "gynecology" and "pornography"?

Quote:
Has Hi Fi evolved from "romantic pursuit" to "gynecology?"
And what is the relationship between "romantic pursuit", "gynecology" and "pornography"?

Romantic pursuit = Love hi-fi

Gynecology = make money by examining hi-fi

Pornography = Looking at pictures in Stereophile

Good one.