Imaging and Detail.

Why does everyone put such emphasis on all this detail?

By “detail,” I take it the OP means resolution, or perhaps accuracy, both of which have been discussed in the posts above. Although I am an audiophile who values both resolution and accuracy, I believe that there is such a thing as too much resolution or too much accuracy. Or, more precisely, I believe that there is such a thing as…

(1) Too much system resolution relative to the resolution of the software.
(2) Too much system accuracy relative to the quality of the recording.

Re: (1). If a system has too much resolution relative to the resolution of the software, then the limits of the software’s resolution can be apparent, sometimes painfully so. A system with less resolution might conceal those same limits, by not being able to resolve them. In that case, the absence of information in the less resolving system is an asset, rather than a liability. In other words, the absence of information can be more tolerable than information about absence.

Re: (2). If a system has too much accuracy relative to the quality of the recording, then the flaws of the recording can be apparent, sometimes painfully so. A system with less accuracy might conceal those same flaws, by distorting them, perhaps euphonically so. In that case, the distortion of information in the less accurate system is an asset, rather than a liability. In other words, the flawed presentation of flawed information can be more tolerable than the accurate presentation of flawed information.

If the majority of the software played back on a system is low resolution or if the majority of the recordings played back on a system are significantly flawed, then it makes sense to me to choose a less resolving or less accurate system. I myself have not deliberately chosen to assemble a system that way, but it seems to me to be perfectly rational, under some conditions.

Having said that, assembling a less resolving or less accurate system may reduce listening satisfaction for high resolution sources or excellent recordings. I guess the moral of the story is that, if you listen predominantly to one type of music, then choose a system that makes that type of music sound great, even if that means less resolution or less accuracy. For those who listen to a broad range of music whose resolution and recording quality varies widely, then the choice is not so simple, and inherently involves more compromises.

...a system that distorts the distortion in recordings that include distortions (like fuzz guitar for example or certain synthesized sounds) may not sound very good. There is nothing worse and perhaps even harder to detect than distorted distortion.

Mapman – I agree that the compounding of distortions can easily result in terrible sound, particularly if the distortions in question are “dysphonic,” like intermodulation distortion. In my post, when I said that, under some conditions, the distortion of information can be an asset, rather than a liability, I had in mind what might be considered euphonic distortions, such as certain kinds of harmonic distortion or non-flat frequency response. Perhaps a better word than ‘distortion’ would be ‘inaccuracy,’ since the word ‘distortion’ conjures up associations of lousy sound. With that in mind, when I said that...

the flawed presentation of flawed information can be more tolerable than the accurate presentation of flawed information

...the words “flawed presentation” could be substituted with “euphonically inaccurate presentation.” And while I'm clarifying what I meant, I should mention that the words “flawed information” in the quote above were not intended to refer to the kinds of guitar or synthesizer effects you mentioned (which are of course deliberate “distortions” created by the artists) but rather things like compressed dynamic range, objectionable equalization, etched high frequencies, and so on.