Should We Prioritize Detail In Our Assessment Of Audio Quality?

I beleieve tha in music reproduction there is more than just an abundance of details.Ih fact, I would there to say, that with time, man learns to 'look' (hear) and appreciates the whole picture more than it is the sum of its details.'Hyperrealism' may cause fatigue, more ofthen than not.

Simple example. Listen to jazz music, mostly from 55-65, with all its production limits. Had a DCS Puccini with clock and with many recordings I could hear 'imperfections' of the recording in a way that just bothered me. It made me know who remastered every album that I had.

Than, bought Burmester 089 player. As much as it is resolving, it is not so 'cruel' in flashing out all the 'details', it presents the broader 'picture' without emphasasing on its parts and yet I do not feel or hear that any detail is missing. 

In hi fi terms, I might say that DCS is more 'resolving' (some could say 'clinical', and I know that there is equipment which is even more relentless) but if those 'details' are making me uncomfortable, than what is the point?

Do I really want to hear how 'bad' some production or album is made or do I want to hear how good is the music that was recorded?

I guess that everyone chooses for himself and there is lots of equipment on either side to choose from. 

The question becomes unanswerable when everyone is allowed to define their own meaning of a useful word whose meaning is already perfectly clear simply because it is so useful. It won’t get anywhere. But it will give people a chance to talk about something even if it is already clearly defined so we will see what happens.  The devil is always in the details.   That includes good sound.  Lots of different kinds of details but details none the less.   But if people want to massacre the utility of a killer word like detail so be it.   It’s a free country. 

This article from Stereophile explains it very well IMO. Pace, rhythm and timing. A system can have massive amounts of detail and fundamentally miss the performance. Over the years I have learned how to evaluate equipment upgrades, this article helped me understand this.

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html

Yes that article goes into a lot of details that may factor into what is perceived subjectively as good sound. See what I mean? It supports my point.  Not all details are valued equally. But that is always where push comes to shove. 

@musichead

Excellent article… thank you. It took me decades to really sense rhythm and pace. For the longest time, I had noticed if my foot unconsciously started moving to the music it had something that was missing on many systems. Over time, I was able to sense it and detect it in a system… although my foot is still the easiest indicator. A system with really good rhythm and pace allows you to fall into the music instead of listening to the system. Now I recognize this attribute is far more important than detail or imaging… although it is great to have those as well.