Should We Prioritize Detail In Our Assessment Of Audio Quality?


So many times I’ve read posts, measuring the audio quality of components and recordings, by how much detail they offer. Especially where it pertains to DAC’s and streaming devices. Whenever there’s a thread comparing Qobuz with Tidal, etc… I find multiple posts attempting to win an argument, based on the claim that one streaming service offers more detail than the other.

I like detail but to me, it’s just one characteristic among many. If I sit in different parts of a concert hall, I may hear more detail in one place over another but it doesn’t make or break my desire to sit in one location over another. So many Audiogoners have stated their preference of analogue over digital but in my experience, digital playback usually reveals the most detail. How do others interpret the emphasis of detail when evaluating the level of audio quality in their listening experiences?

goofyfoot

Showing 5 responses by goofyfoot

This topic first crossed my mind many years ago when I heard a quote from the violinist Julia Fischer stating that; digital recordings over emphasis detail while compromising musicality. I’m paraphrasing but she did have an objection.

millercarbon, I agree with your assessment that imaging is a prioritizing factor. I disagree however with the your comment stating that digital sources don't in general have more detail. Personally, I have heard digitally remastered recordings where noises, coughs , etc.. are heard from the gallery. Those coughs are not noticeable within the original analogue sources. This doesn't make detail bad, mind you, because there are other aspects to the nature of digital versus analogue that in most circumstances makes digital preferable. I'd venture to say that very few analogue rereleases are free from digital remastering and details within those recordings are considerable versus there analogue originals. 

I'm listening through Quad ESL's and they can be a little forward and revealing. Hearing detail isn't an objection of mine, otherwise I wouldn't own Quads. But I generally think about revealing details as being extraneous. Imaging however is central to lifelike sound, IMO.

An analogy to perceiving detail in a recording while being played by a stereo system;

Looking at two nearly identical photos of a 1927 Bulova watch. The only difference between the two photos is that one image is sharper and clearer but the other is less sharp and less clear. Which photo is most likely to present more detail in the watch than the other? Is the image that reveals more detail than not, considered a better photo and/or a truer representation? 
 

 

Admittedly, the above post isn’t spot on but I wanted to point out that a recording, like a photo, is merely a representation. I come back to the John Cage quote, “a recording of Beethoven’s fifth ain’t Beethoven’s fifth.”

musichead, a CD is stagnant just as a photo itself is stagnant. The object a photo portrays is not stagnant. The physics of light and the spectrum of color are reproduced to realistic perception. Form and space are arranged to depict a living breathing organism, such as a tree or a lightning strike. Contrast, shadow, three dimensionality. etc... The discipline of aesthetics applies to a multitude of art forms.