Why isn’t more detail always better?

I’m confused; are you looking for meaningful responses to this post (not mine).

Detail is definitely not always better. Lots of "high end" systems excel at transparency and detail and completely miss at the music. 

The detail must be there, but it should be represented in proportion to the overall presentation. If the detail gets highlighted then the venue and mastering is disproportionalely highlighted. This can make all but the best recordings sound bad, in the worst case fatiguing. 

An important aspect of overly detailed systems is lack of midrange bloom... this makes the details stand out from the basic instruments and vocals. In all but the very best it also dries up the presentation and makes the music soulless. 

@ghdprentice what does “bloom” mean? How do you know it when you hear it? Is that something other than attack and decay? Doesn’t more detail help with that as well? Is detail not relevant for “bloom”? Eq can help adjust midrange tonality. I’m thinking it’s an artifact of tubes. Does detail with tube gear not matter?

I’m truly having trouble understanding how detail done well can be a bad thing.    Done wrong…I get that. 

Here’s a summary of what I can find regarding bloom in hifi sound.   But what is the relationship to detail?   I don’t see how detail done right (low distortion?) can negatively influence bloom.   I’ve read reviews of SS gear as well as tube gear that reviewers rate highly on attack and decay.  Not sure about bloom.  

In the context of high fidelity sound, "bloom" refers to a specific auditory phenomenon that enhances the listening experience. It is often described in relation to musical instruments, particularly pianos, but can also apply to audio equipment and recordings. Here are some key points about what bloom means in high fidelity sound:

1. **Definition**: Bloom is characterized by a temporary increase in volume or richness of sound that occurs shortly after a note is struck. This effect can make the music feel more vibrant and engaging.

2. **Natural Occurrence**: In acoustic instruments, bloom is a natural result of how sound waves develop after the initial strike. For example, when a piano key is pressed, the sound may initially decay but then swell slightly before fading away, creating a sense of fullness and depth in the tone [[3]](https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2453646/bloom-exactly-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-achieved.html).

3. **Emotional Impact**: The experience of bloom can evoke strong emotional responses in listeners. It allows certain musical passages to resonate more deeply, making the music feel more immersive and lifelike [[2]](https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=60257.0).

4. **Influence of Equipment**: In high fidelity audio systems, the quality of the equipment can significantly affect the perception of bloom. Well-designed audio gear can reproduce this effect more accurately, enhancing the overall listening experience [[1]](https://oeksound.com/manuals/bloom/).

5. **Variability**: The presence and quality of bloom can vary between different instruments and recordings. Some pianos, for instance, are noted for their ability to produce a pronounced bloom, while others may not exhibit this characteristic as clearly [[3]](https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2453646/bloom-exactly-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-achieved.html).

In summary, bloom in high fidelity sound refers to a desirable auditory effect that enhances the richness and emotional impact of music, influenced by both the instrument and the audio equipment used.

---
Learn more:
1. [bloom user manual - Oeksound](https://oeksound.com/manuals/bloom/)
2. [What Exactly Is " Tube Bloom" ?](https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=60257.0)
3. ["Bloom"...exactly what is it and how is it achieved? - Piano World Piano & Digital Piano Forums](https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2453646/bloom-exactly-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-achieved.html)

Accuracy is cited as a factor in how gear produces “bloom”. Accuracy to me has similar meaning as “low distortion”. So it seems that low distortion would help produce accurate “bloom”.

I’m thinking since bloom (and/or attack and decay) is generally considered to be favorable, some might prefer gear that adds an “extra dose”. Like a little added sweetness to the tea. That’s where I think tube gear comes in. Extra bloom would seem to not necessarily mean less detail. Two different but related things.

@sgordon1 yes, I am in fact looking for meaningful responses. 

Here is an example of an amp that was rated very good in many categories including attack and decay. I like ETM reviews that rate gear in all these different areas.

https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0724/ClassD_Audio_Mini_GaN3_Amplifier_Review.htm

Guess what? I just bought and am trying out the latest just released model and it’s making me think about these things. This review of an older model helped to convince me to give the latest and greatest a try.

More to consider regarding the relationship between bloom and detail:  

In high-fidelity (hi-fi) audio systems, detail and bloom can interact in ways that enhance the overall listening experience, but they represent distinct qualities. Here's how they relate:

### Relationship Between Detail and Bloom

1. **Complementary Qualities**:
   - **Detail can Enhance Bloom**: When a system reproduces detail well, it can provide a clearer context for the bloom. For instance, if individual instruments and vocals are well-defined, the warmth and richness of the sound (bloom) can be more appreciated without becoming muddy or indistinct.
   - **Bloom Can Mask Detail**: Conversely, if a sound system has excessive bloom—perhaps due to overly warm or colored components—it can sometimes mask finer details in the music. This can lead to a less precise listening experience where subtleties are lost in the richness.

2. **Balanced Presentation**:
   - The best hi-fi systems aim for a balance between detail and bloom. A system that excels in both areas allows listeners to enjoy the warmth and fullness of sound while still being able to pick out individual elements.

3. **Personal Preference**:
   - Some listeners may prefer a warmer, bloom-heavy sound that emphasizes musicality, while others might prioritize clarity and detail for a more analytical experience. The interplay between the two can greatly influence personal taste in audio gear.

### Conclusion
While detail does not directly create bloom, a system that reproduces detail effectively can support and enhance the perception of bloom, leading to a richer and more immersive listening experience. Balancing both qualities is key to achieving high fidelity in audio reproduction.

So from that it sounds like bloom and detail are both of benefit and it’s a personal preference thing how much of each,  but detail enhances bloom and bloom can obscure detail.   As usual, YMMV. 

My new amp definitely has very good detail and  attack and decay consistent with the review of similar older model. But it’s brand new so see how this plays out over time.  No tubes.   Also running from a newly acquired Schitt Freya S as in all solid state, so not expecting any “artificial” bloom. 

Looks like you're having a conversation with yourself. 

More detail is the Holy Grail. How that information is presented is where things get tricky. 

@ghdprentice I know you are an Audio Research fan. I am as well and owned a sp16 pre amp for a number of years. I like ARC because it tends to have very good detail and minimal if any artificial “tube bloom” compared to a many others.

I am going with the SS Schit Freya S for now. Freya + adds a front panel switchable tube input stage to Freya S three non tube options including passive. Very nice features and sound for the price. I can see why there are many Schit fans out there. If I decide I need more bloom, I could upgrade to Freya + for just a few hundred bucks more. We will see.

So far, my standing position is that more detail done well (not inherently bright or fatiguing) is usually a good thing, but more bloom not as often. You have achieve the right amount of bloom to suit personal preference. Also I think recordings of acoustic instruments as mentioned above is where more bloom may be better for more. I listen to all genres including pop/rock and electronic. I want detail but no extra “bloom there”.

but that’s just me. Interested to hear what others think and why

@noromance that’s everything for now. @ghdprentice mentioned bloom which is an interesting and related topic.

Interested in what others have to say about these things.   

More detail is the Holy Grail. How that information is presented is where things get tricky.

I agree. The new amp is a second generation Class D design that uses GaN transistor technology. Seeing what the latest and greatest technology can (cost effectively) do with the sound I hear is always of interest to me. Done well, technical innovations can yield better results than was possible prior. The amp it replaces use a Hypex NCore Class D module that is now several years old and not GaN. That replaced an amp with older Icepower Class D technology done very well at the time by Bel Canto. None of these amps are slouches but each sounds much different for sure.

Too much detail can be very distracting I discovered that with a fantastic pushpull 45 amp in my system it was just too much.

Too much detail can be very distracting I discovered that with a fantastic pushpull 45 amp in my system it was just too much.

I get that.

Myself, since a kid I’ve always had the goal of being able to hear all the details in a recording and have the sound keep drawing me in for extended periods of listening. I’ve been good with getting drawn in for long listening sessions for a number of years but experience told me I was not getting everything recordings may have to offer. So still working on that part hopefully moving forward without taking any steps backwards.

Fun🍾Fun🍾Fun🍾!

Just so you don’t have a conversation with yourself. :P I am experiencing this right now on a smaller level. I have switched from a Chord 2Qute to a Holo Cyan 2 DAC and the "bloom" on Cyan 2 is much more emotional and has that sense of naturalness. While detailed, it’s not as clear or resolving as the 2Qute. I use an LTA MZ3 as a preamp and headphone amp both. For 2 channel, the 2Qute, MZ3, Orchard Audio GaN amp, and Neat Petite speakers has amazing synergy. When I add in the Cyan 2 it goes away, but is amazing with my headphone setup.

I am listening more with headphones these days due to my space and work scheduling. I was listening to an album(Peter Gabriel: I’ll Scratch Your Back) the other night and it nearly brought me to tears with the Cyan 2. While not as detailed as the 2 Qute the instruments and his voice were so emotional and had that "bloom".

I want it all: Detail and bloom. :-)

Detail is important to me but I don’t chase it or look to keep getting more of it per se. 
 

I really prioritize the ability to scale.  I often describe this as the difference between a hyper resolving thumbnail view of the music that borders on precise VERSUS another that is less detailed but has size and body. 
 

every year at AXPONA I hear some hyper detailed system and enjoy looking into the picture for a short while, then I miss hearing a less detailed presentation. 
 

Whatever floats your boat! 

@snookhaus , that DAC was on my shortlist but I never tried it! Sounds great by your description.  I went LTA Aero. 

Don't blame your system if the music is lacking. The recording/mixing/mastering has something to do with the final product. Too much detail? If it's on the disk, I want to hear it. 

The way I think about midrange bloom is to consider a system that is very devoid of it. Bose used to sell a woofer (which I think it was used in the Best Buy vinyl section) with separate tweeter in a tiny 4" by 3" by 2" box. It sounded just like that, details and no midrange... the opposite of the full sized Bose systems. This illustrates the end point.

If you get a chance to go to the symphony and just listen as if it is a system, this can illustrate the appropriate role of details and help to show where systems can go wrong. If you listen very carefully, for instance before a concert, and then during the quiet sections and the different concert volumes you realize that the details do not stick out, they are there and if you focus your minds eye (ear) on them you hear them you can hear them... but they don’t stick out. When a piano (my seats were 7th row center... so it is a solo instrument) key is struck... you hear a rich warm resonance without the hammer standing out. Most symponic instruments lead with midrange... softly and not by the details of them being produced. Many systems essentially attenuate the midrange and emphasize the treble and bass. You loose the gestalt and it pulls your hearing away from the music and towards the detail. Many multiple hundred thousand dollar systems are like this.

Some tube electronics, particularly old stuff can overdo it in the other way. Overemphasizing the midrange and attenuating the bass and treble. Audio Research carefully walks the line, presenting a balanced gestalt of the music, so the music leads and the details are in proportion... just like they are in the real world... whether symphony, acoustic jazz, etc. Since it gets these right, it is getting other fully electronically reproduced forms a good neutral rendition.

Master Chen to Caine, "We see not what is in front of our eyes, but what is behind them". In other words, we all have preferences as to what we like individually, it's often a matter of personal taste. More bass, more detail, less bass, less detail, more natural, less harsh.... it's all a hodge-podge and no real agreement of what sounds best to all.

Unless we are talking about really bad equipment or extremely lossy formats, there is no difference in the musical detail presented in playback.  Can anyone point out a specific bit of information in a particular place in a recording that cannot at all be heard with one piece of gear versus another?  What differs is the presentation of the information--whether something is more highlighted or is emphasized, or not, whether the tonal balance is such that certain instruments are more clearly heard, etc.  It is rarely a matter of too much or too little detail.  A lot of gear highlight treble information by reducing bass or mid-bass which tends to make it harder to hear such detail; is this good or bad?; it really depends on personal preference.

More detail isn’t always better because excessive detail can disrupt the natural balance and emotional engagement of music. I can think of few reasons why, 

1. Overemphasis on Microdetail - Hyper-detailed systems can highlight aspects of a recording that were never meant to stand out, such as tape hiss, microphone noise, or mixing imperfections. This can detract from the musicality and cohesiveness of the performance.

2. Listener Fatigue - Excessive detail, especially when combined with brightness or analytical sound, can lead to listener fatigue over time. The music may feel harsh or clinical, reducing enjoyment during long listening sessions.

3. Loss of Naturalness - Overly detailed systems may sacrifice warmth, body, or tonal richness, making instruments and voices sound less lifelike. Real music often has a balance of detail and harmonic texture that conveys its emotional essence.

4. Revealing Poor Recordings - A highly detailed system can expose flaws in poorly recorded or mastered tracks, making them less enjoyable. This can limit the range of music that sounds good on your system.

5. Imbalance in System Tuning - Detail is just one aspect of sound reproduction. Prioritizing it over other factors like tonal balance, dynamics, and spatial presentation can result in a system that feels unbalanced and unsatisfying.

When putting together a well-tuned system, the key is to strike a balance and synergy, revealing enough detail to immerse the listener in the music without drawing attention to itself or overwhelming the emotional connection.

I always believed that musicality should come from the music itself—not from a hyper-analytical presentation.

Listening fatigue +1, detail systems tend to sound thinner. It’s hard to mix highly detail and proper tonal balance .

I believe that we should strive for all the detail we can get. If it’s there, we should hear it!

HOWEVER, the area of the band that includes much of the detail also includes much of the "hash/noise/distortion" present in all recordings, to some extent, and a minor loss of detail in this area can make the listening experience more pleasant even at the expense of some detail.

I really appreciate these threads.   So much to learn and listen for.  So much good info for people building systems.  One comment I wanted to share is that we all hear differently, process sound differently, and have different preferences.    

theoretically I think we would want all the detail that naturally exists in the music, but unfortunately many (most) systems do not often handle that very well ... reminds me of the old JG Holt debate about how highly accurate equipment is often not the most musical sounding...

@toddalin I agree.  I've thought about this when considering vacuum tubes or cables that roll off the top end.  Doesn't seem right to do that, but it might be preferable to the harshness, sibilance, etc.

After several upgrades, my system now has the excellent detail, but recordings that I previously felt were overly bright or harsh on the top end aren't as much.  There have been a lot of changes to get there.  Dac, cables, preamp.  

I think it is possible to have both detail and musicality. @ghdprentice once posted or told me it is about keeping everything in the original recording and this hit home. I started with what many would say is a detailed system (benchmark gear) which left me wanting more musicality or emotion. As I upgraded by adding amps with a tube input stage and a preamp with tubes, I don’t think I lost detail. I have test songs that I use to monitor for detail and it all still seems present. But the new gear increased musicality and certainly emotion. IMO, the new gear maintained the details and added (or perhaps did not strip away - I don’t know) the aspects that make the music emotionally engaging. So, detail is great, we love that, but there is more to it than the detail. Maybe detail plus bloom, with the proper ratio of mid range to the treble and bass, perhaps leaning more into the midrange, is when that magic sound is present.

I had a guy visit through a mutual friend in the last year- he was a producer of a major sound track and wanted to hear what some examples from a label interested in taking a master license (with accompanying mechanical license) sounded like. He kept asking me to "turn it up" to hear nits. My system is not tuned for that; to the contrary, it is like a well-worn baseball glove- it "feels right."

I spent plenty of time in the big studios, many in LA, a few in NYC, a few elsewhere back in the day. I tried to explain to him that my system was not designed for "forensic" listening, but more to make music sound real, based on acoustic instruments (largely jazz) that were simply recorded without a lot of post production.

Some of the "produced" records sound great on my system, but I’m chasing a different dragon. I remember the big JBLS, the Westlake monitors and all those big studio set ups that allowed the artist and engineer to hear each "nit." That’s not what I’m after as a consumer of recordings. If I were producing records, and wanted to hear every iota of "detail," I would use a different system.

Can one system do it all? Possible, I grant you-- I’m pretty open minded but I’m not in gear acquisition mode. To the contrary, as a result of improvements in power, turntable isolation, cartridges and sub woofers that can energize the room - I use 4 woofers, I can get tuneful, realistic double bass, very transparent mids (SETs directly to horns w/ no Xover) and enough high frequency information to hear the shimmer of cymbals and the acoustic "envelope" of the original recording, including the harmonic decay of well recorded piano.

To me, that means that "forensic" listening is different than quality replay for enjoyment. Just one view. Could I live with a pair of old JBL monitors with double 15" woofs? I would not be ashamed to add them.

**** Is more detail always better if not unnaturally bright or fatiguing? ****

YES!

The problem is that perceived “detail” is often precisely the result of “unusually bright or fatiguing” sound.  In my book that is not more detail. That is a distortion of the natural sound of musical instruments.  The entire frequency spectrum is affected by exaggerated upper frequencies.  More natural detail means more music and not only in the frequency domain.  Excessive (distorted) high frequencies can alter the perceived overall rhythmic relationship of performers.  In my experience more perceived natural detail is achieved by lowered noise floor, tonal refinement and reduction of grunge in the overall presentation (purity of sound).  This does not have to be accompanied by more highs.

As @noromance points out the tricky part is how the information (detail) is presented.  

@lalitk

@whart

+1

As a music lover I am not looking for “ forensic” listening or a microscope to examine the fine details and loose track of the music.

Another thought about highlighted details, they can commandeer your focus of attention. Instead of being emotionally involved or allowing the music to evoke feelings (through immersion) they can grab your attention and put you into the analytical mode of examine the detail. They need to be there to get the gestalt and complexity of the musical experience but if too obvious they can destroy the emotional connection.

There is fidelity and there is the personal 'sounds good to me' but the latter is personal and varies with the listener. Fidelity means reproducing everything that is there. If it's on the source it should be in the listening. If it isn't that's a flaw in reproduction. Hopefully the detail is not accompanied with other problems, other fidelity flaws like brightness, etc. But even if it is loss of detail is a flaw in fidelity. I personally want it all fidelity wise and if the result is not pleasant because the source is poor, so be it. The only way superior sources sound superior is if all the detail is in the listening.

More detail being retrieved  is due to lower noise floor, my position is this is an inherently good thing. My take is why would one want to obscure music with higher noise floor, noise floors are comprised of electronic artifacts, resonances in equipment, room modes, environmental noise. I don't want to hear noise, I want to hear the lowest level mix in recordings, that being performers and their instruments, recording venue info.

And so its presentation that is the problem, that may be an issue with one's system or the recording, one you can fix, the other you can't.

Interested in what others have to say about these things.  

It seems to me you are more interested in what you want to hear yourself tell us about these things.

Seriously, you answered your own question in the OP.

Why isn’t more detail always better?

Because it can be 

Is more detail always better  if not unnaturally bright or  and fatiguing?

Too much bloom can result in a die-off leading to mold.

@sns @dynamiclinearity @frogman  I think we are on the same page.

Lots of Good responses so far!

@lalitk

 

@whart

 

+1

 

As a music lover I am not looking for “ forensic” listening or a microscope to examine the fine details and loose track of the music.

Another thought about highlighted details, they can commandeer your focus of attention. Instead of being emotionally involved or allowing the music to evoke feelings (through immersion) they can grab your attention and put you into the analytical mode of examine the detail. They need to be there to get the gestalt and complexity of the musical experience but if too obvious they can destroy the emotional connection

Translation: Your room is not cut out for handling detail. ( Clueless it began, clueless it ended).

“In my experience more perceived natural detail is achieved by lowered noise floor, tonal refinement and reduction of grunge in the overall presentation (purity of sound)”
+1 @frogman @sns

I completely agree with your perspective. Lowering the noise floor and refining tonal qualities allow the music to flow effortlessly. A good understanding of these fundamentals begs the next question…Is my system and room acoustics capable of conveying these fundamentals? If yes, then to what degree.

Bringing up the room is a good point. I probably would not even be having this discussion before I started using DSP and room correction. I find It’s a whole new ballgame in regards to detail once your room acoustics have been accounted for.

It helps to understand the effect different frequencies have on the listening experience. There are charts out there that can be used for reference. I have one hanging on the wall in my main listening room.

You are initially at the mercy of your room in regards to how those listening experience determining frequencies pan out. DSP is the tool that best enables one to address that fact.

I’ve applied dsp to get a handle on how things sound in multiple rooms at home. Now I am at a much better place to be nitpicking the details (no pun intended).

Technology surpasses its ideal relationship with humans, after that its advancement only alienates.

Lowering the noise floor certainly increases perceptible detail.

But you can’t lower the noise floor on poorly recorded material where the noise is part of that material, and in some cases maybe it is better just to "reduce" it a hair to make that noise a bit less objectionable.

I designed my crossovers so that I can easily reduce the "noisy" portion of the band with the flip of a switch/twist of a knob. A bit of detail is lost, but the music becomes more listenable.

@larryi

"there is no difference in the musical detail presented in playback.  Can anyone point out a specific bit of information in a particular place in a recording that cannot at all be heard with one piece of gear versus another?"

Yes, I can.  The specific recording is Shostakovich Piano Concerto number 2, slow movement.  Hyperion SACD with Marc-Andre Hamelin as the soloist. This is a very quiet piece of music, apparently very simple (though I suspect this is deceptive).  On a highly resolving system, the piano notes seem to hang in the air.  (Quad electrostatic speakers, Krell class A amplification).

When I switched from a Marantz universal player to a Reavon, I immediately knew something was wrong.  The detail and the musicality just weren't there. A bit of research showed that the Reavon's Burr-Brown DACs did not support native DSD. Reavon's technical team confirmed that DSD was down-converted to CD quality both for multichannel playback, and for 2-channel playback through their more resolving 2-channel DAC.  CD quality is poorest on very quiet passages.

Switch to DSD through HDMI output into my pre-processor's AKM DACs and all the musical magic qualities reappeared.  There are 8 DACs each supporting 2-channel DSD natively.

So here is an example where the identical equipment (in fact the same pieces of gear) sounded very obviously different with exactly the same DSD source.

As a side note, this performance has just been released on vinyl and I look forward to comparing it to SACD. On Presto Music, the SACD is no longer listed!

...paying more attention to the gear v. the music?  Does seem a distraction at the end of the day....just sayin'.... ;) *S*

In describing a new album, jazz guitarist John Abercrombie said he was “getting back to the music instead of how the music sounds.”  This distinction, like many other ideas on this post, do not necessarily reflect enlightenment (as opposed to confused thinking).