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?

128x128goofyfoot

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.”

A photo is a stagnant image, music is moving and changing with timing, attack, decay, sustain. There is the interaction between instruments. A good system needs to get those elements correct first, added detail if not properly balanced can ruin the performance. Its alot more complicated than just detail.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : extended treatment of or attention to particular items explaining without going into detail giving careful attention to detail. 2 : a part of a whole: such as. a : a small and subordinate part : particular planned the wedding down to the smallest detail also : a reproduction of such a part of a work of art.

Sounds like it means all the parts and aspects of what we can hear, when speaking of detail in regards to audio. Somewhere along the line, some got the notion that it means just the tiny clues like sparkle, decay, ambience and sometimes the emotional intent of the artist (when the stars align).

For me, if any detail is missing, the event is incomplete and lacking. That's not saying it has to be shrill, etched or made to stand out, out of proportion to everything else. It's just info, musical info that's missing, which is just another detail of the event. Not having all the details renders the event incomplete and unconvincing.

A great example of what I'm saying can be seen in the thread of the Pro-Ject CD transport. By all accounts, there's more there, there. All descriptions portray a more convincing musical event. It can be hard to pinpoint but suffice to say, that transport is extracting more info (detail) than what traditionally has been done, making for a more convincing presentation.

All the best,
Nonoise

 

 

@nonoise 

+1 , excellent example with the Pro-Ject RS2 Transport.  You hit the nail on the head.👍

Charles