2. digital
  3. 173212-1294

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 1 response by melm

melm
1,085 posts
 

In the glory days of LP we used to speak well of those components that provided low level information. That was the air, the imaging, the detail. For classical music especially I want the detail for the music can be especially complicated. An orchestra of 100; a chorus of 100. I’ve been listening recently to the new Pappano Aida. Yes in a concert hall you will hear more detail in row C than in row P.

But it was Harry Pearson who suggested that detail on a record is more important on records than in person for with the record you have no visual clues.

Today you can find it all: detail, imaging, soundstage, fulness and body in the sound. And you can find it at a reasonable price. Which is to say that detail does not have to come at the price of giving up other desirable qualities. 

More to discover