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 sns

sns
3,601 posts
 

I don't often use detail in my descriptions of equipment sq, rather I use resolution. Resolution is perhaps the most important criteria of what creates sense of live performers in room. Resolution takes into account things like imaging, sound stage and detail. Resolution is holistic term under which detail falls under. Superior imaging, sound staging is in fact low level detail being resolved. And yes, added detail also heard as formerly burried performer within mix being more clearly heard.

 

Resolution and detail can also be perceived as a negative if tonality, timbre not attended to in high resolution equipment.

 

Resolution and/or detail is a qualitative estimate of equipment's worth, reviewers always going to mention this in evaluations.

 

More to discover