Why isn’t more detail always better?

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.

@desktopguy -thanks. I've been around the block more than a few times, which means almost nothing, but I've heard a lot of systems over the 50+ years I've been playing in this field. I learned to listen using a pair of Quad Loudspeakers (which I still have and use- I bought them in 1974 and had them sympathetically restored for my vintage system by Kent McCollum at Electrostatic Solutions). The Quads (original 57s) are severely compromised by today's standards but had an eerie midrange. The reality is that they seem to filter out a lot of garbage compared to the main horn system, which at 104db efficiency, are very unforgiving if there is anything amiss- whether it is inter-component grounding, noise on the line, or any other source of noise or distortion.

Getting that horn system tuned to what I believe is a close approximation of what real instruments sound like like took time- when I moved from NY to Texas, I got the benefit of a bigger room, cleaner power (though the grid in Texas is a whole other issue) and was familiar enough with the system, having lived with it for a decade that it was fairly easy to get it dialed in with a little effort (and some muscle from a friend's grandkids to move some of the really heavy equipment). 

I'll accept that I'm a subjectivist in that I listen for what sounds real to my ears. I don't have the high frequency capability that I did when I was young (I'm gonna be 71 years old soon) but since most of the action is in the mids, that's where I start. 

I've heard some of the legendary systems of the various eras, from double KLH 9s with Marantz tubes, through IRS V's, to the original Wilson WAMM to the big Apogees, the original oversized Martin Logan (Monolith?) to Duntech Sovereigns, the rare Dayton-Wright. (Never got to hear the original Hill Plasmatronic, though I knew somebody who had owned that speaker).

The art of reproduction is different than "monitoring" and requires some effort in set up, placement and some deliberation in choosing components that "synergize" to create an effective illusion. Because that is what we are doing in home hi-fi-- attempting to create a convincing illusion of real instruments playing in our room. I use minimal room treatment, mainly bass traps, and very few "tweaks" though I spent real money on power, turntable isolation and cheated by using DSP on the additional 15 inch subs that run independently of the main speaker system.

I used to have some full sized concert grands in a few previous homes. I know what a real piano sounds like. Very few recordings effectively capture the growl of the low registers or the ethereal quality of a well voiced piano in the upper registers. (I had a vintage Bosendorfer at one point, thing was gorgeous for about two weeks after it got voiced then soured).

To me, it is horses for courses- if you play loud rock, you aren't going to want the original Quad (well, maybe stacked with ribbons plus woofers, something I experimented with back in the day) along with faux multichannel before home theatre made that a reality.  

I do enjoy listening  other people's systems. I've heard some great ones in people's homes over the years. When people ask what to buy on the audio forums, I usually encourage them to get as much seat time as possible, though comparisons of cartridges and turntables/tone arms is far more difficult.  Much of improvement I've enjoyed in this current system is the time spent in set up and voicing in my estimation (I'm a tube guy, so changing one tube can throw the whole system off).

Have a great holiday-everybody!