Why isn’t more detail always better?

Last night's listening session with this thread in mind. So I did the usual and let Roon shuffle auto play my library, so this means all manner of musical genres and recording quality played back to back.

Deficient recording sound recordings fell into these categories.

1. Opaque recordings, just sort of blah, indistinct. Likely recordings taken from who knows what generation masters. Greater resolution/detail simply makes them less blah, opaque, they become somewhat more involving.

2. Weird sound staging, like fake stereo or excess of information hard panned to one side or the other. Greater detail means more expansive sound stage so the hard panned info bleeds more into center image, and you hear more of the recessed info on the other channel. Its all good.

3. Compressed center images, especially on some 40's, 50's mono recordings. More expansive sound stage coming from greater detail makes these more highly compressed sound stages far more involving since you know hear more highly individualized images within that sound stage.

4. Recordings with somewhat compressed dynamics, not the loudness wars recordings, these are recorded at normal levels, likely fault is with recording equipment not being up to par, sounds like early generation masters since transparency is nice. Not all of these recording fit in with overall compression, some compress certain performers/instruments while allowing full dynamic expression of others. Generally I'll find this with instrumental parts being at least somewhat compressed while vocals allowed full expression, I believe the intent is to bring attention to the vocalist, wrongheaded to my way of thinking.  If one considers dynamics as being part and parcel of detail, these somewhat compressed recordings potential can be more fully realized. They become somewhat more alive in that you get to hear more of the limited micro and macro dynamics their capable of.

5. Recordings with timbre issues, Last night I heard this with some massed trumpets and or violins on some recordings. Actually, in some cases I don't believe this was timbre issue as much as exceeding peak levels of recording equipment, in other words recorded too hot, distortion creeping in at high decibel levels. Other times it may be inherent to recording due to recording equipment or technique. Perhaps this isn't solely a detail issue, goes into presentation issue. In any case take greater detail with what is hopefully a system capable of producing natural timbre and these recordings become much more palatable. Nice to have the increased detail as rest of most of these recordings can be very involving. Actually brings some Count Basie, Duke Ellington late 40's, 50's to mind, some very early stereo. A Mantovani recording with massed violins was pretty bad.

6. Volume war recordings. The worst offenders are recorded at such high levels peaks have to severely cut off, absolute butchers. I can hear this crap even on low level systems. Others may be recorded a slightly lower levels, rather than butchers these guys are barbers, just a bit off the top please. Whatever the case, these guys shouldn't be allowed in a recording studio and the artists should know better. Can't respect the artists who allow this.

May have neglected some other recording issues here. In any case, with the exception of the butchers and barbers I want all the detail I can possibly get. Continually amazed how much info with 16/44, and to think they believed it to be severely compromised at one point, same with streaming.

@asvjerry

When listening to live music, I’m only focused on sonics if they are distractingly poor -- such as painfully loud or bright. Where I want my focus to be is on emotional engagement, with my left brain, like my cell phone, switched off !

I can't imagine listening to live music as if listening to a home system-- checking for soundstage depth, resolution, etc. OK, if you're the sound guy at the the venue it makes sense but as an audience member, why pollute the listening experience by bringing along the analytical function?  Lock him in the car and leave him behind in the parking lot. After the show, you can always let back him out. 

@mapman 

 - I’ve found that anything that sounds unnaturally bright or fatiguing is not detail, it’s distortion. Systems that do that are not detailed, they just haven’t reduced degradation of the original signal sufficiently to pass muster. A truly detailed and accurate system is a joy to behold, because it lets through so much of the original signal, we gradually come to realise, with the increasing nuance that cleaner and more accurate delivery of the signal brings, that there are very few truly bad recordings in existence. Due to the depth of nuance to the soundfield for each recorded venue, good recordings are the easiest in the world to identify, not so the bad.

I’ve also found that the discussion of sound ‘preference’ in our hobby is a silly one - who wouldn’t want live music to be their base reference for every live recording they hear? Live music is not a preference, it’s actual sound quality, and through inference we subsequently gauge all studio recordings, mixed or otherwise. Even in the most atrociously sound engineered recordings, there is an authenticity to some instrument being played, analogue or electronic, which the original recording was intended to be heard with exactly as presented, as is commonly gauged by other live recordings we use for the simulation of accuracy - preference is, in fact, one of the most mind numbing paradigms many audiophiles live under, in excuse to avoid the huge effort of learning and expenditure it takes to find sound realism - preference has never had anything to do with the closest approximation to sound realism our amazing hobby is. Preference is actually the furthest thing to do with the sound realism.

That deep bass hit on an eagles recording sound too deep? Find a live acoustic recording of a double bass or the lower to lowest notes of an organ, then compare that to a live performance at a church, jazz bar or an orchestra. Identify it all with the same equipment in the signal chain, and that deep bass may actually be reasonably accurate, by inference. Shrill cymbal strikes don’t need much comparison - the highest frequencies that unsettle or don’t sound natural to one’s ears are not natural, they’re the result of distortion. In any case, most all the high frequencies heard on any recording can be compared with acoustic highs directly, on the same instruments. However, all frequencies, artificially manipulated, can only be compared by inference, to actual instruments over the same frequencies.

And, I know this will diverge from the original post by quite a bit, and also stir a bit of trouble, but for the sake of the discussion on realism, here we go - after I had done my rounds listening to some amazing systems in both analogue and digital realms, I’ve finally found a way to describe the differences I hear in the most refined fully analogue systems and their equivalents in digital: each present very different views of the audio universe - the very best vinyl/fully tubed system with horns will give you the James Webb view, a fully heightened and incredibly dense forward view of that universe, so beautiful and bold in presentation, you cannot pull your eye/ear away from it, seductive and unimaginably palpable. The very best fully digital/solid state systems will present the entire heavens through the healthy eyes of a twelve year old child on a clear Montana night with everything in perspective and the entire midnight sky to behold, nothing calling out for attention, but there when perceived. This is where preference may play a part.

Many of us mix tube preamps with solid state amps for the best of both worlds. Some say that’s silly, and mix solid state preamps with valved amps to keep the signal more accurate during the initial amplification phase, to the same end - getting the best of both views. Others swear by the beautiful glow of tubes from start to end, while others cannot bear what they see as their inconvenience of maintenance - you see the element of preference in all this.

For myself, I would only ever want to see the universe through the unaided clear eyes of a twelve year old - it is what to me best represents realism, the way my eyes/ears were built to see/hear it. I listen to the fourth movement of berlioz’s symphonie fantastique on vinyl/tubes/horns and I know no orchestra actually sounds that way in reality in any concert hall in the world, while everything gives me an actual seat at the venue with my transistors. I also believe the best balance for the budget conscious is a mixed system and, as fellow audiophile david sen once said, with the valves only at the end of the signal chain with the amp, sans horns. My own belief on this is so as to preserve as much signal accuracy for the soundfield as possible - we often sacrifice so much of the absolutely vital soundfield which solid state distinguishes so well and vinyl/tubes/horns tend to muddy, for beautiful timbre/texture/dynamics which tubes and horns, and the dynamics of vinyl so excels at. Fully digital systems on a budget already begin with so much distortion affecting soundfield at the source equipment, that all the tubes do in between that and the speakers is to create better texture and timbre to compensate. The best tubed equipment will reduce inaccuracy to the soundfield, but not as much as ‘good’ solid state will. And then again, one will require the best solid state to allow timbre, texture, and dynamics through realistically - so therein lies the audiophile’s conundrum - that eternal struggle between the preferenced and the unbiased, between the detail and the timbre, and between the soundfield and the dynamics. I realise these distinctions and polarities may not be exclusive to each other, and there will be other views on the issue, and as so, let the discussion begin ; )

In any case, thanks for your weighted question, mapman, and I wish you and everyone else well on your journeys and your year end : )

In friendship - kevin

@kevn thanks for that very comprehensive and insightful response. Enjoy the music!

Feel like we are talking about 3 different things. 

1. Bloom

2. Overly bright systems

3. Overly detailed

IMHO, they are totally separate, but can also be part of the same issue. My vintage system sounded great to me, my TT was the standout performer, much better overall sound over streaming or radio. Was impressed with my system. 

Then I did a full rebuild on my speaker XO. This was almost a night and day difference. Top to bottom, everything was better. Much more bass, more mid, more high. Everything was cleaner, crisp, more detail. 

After letting everything break in, started to notice more surface noise on certain records, some didn't sound as good, but others sounded so much better. streaming was much better, started to turn down both my bass and treble when streaming. 

After a bit, did a full recap on my pre-amp and amp, along with replacing a ton of ut of spec parts. 

Just like the speakers, while it still had the same sonic signature as before, everything was better. So much more detail, much deeper bigger bass, highs were fatiguing. Good recordings sounded so good! But bad ones were now unlistenable. Some of my old blues records sounded like poo. Now streaming is king, with so much detail that just was not there before. Tone controls are set to +2 bass, and 0 or -1 on treble. Installed a L-pad on my tweeters.

Went through all 3 of these things over about 3 months. Some of it was for the good but some was for the bad. While good recordings sound so much better, with all this added detail, much lower noise floor, so much soundstage, clarity. Lesser recordings are just not listenable anymore. My old setup masked so much, now it just passes everything, the good with the bad. 

My $.02

More detail is a two sided problem. It will bring out all the good of the source material, but will also now overly highlight all the bad in any recording.

Overly bright systems will just give you listening fatigue.  You will miss most of the lower and midrange due to it. Weirdly, after installing my l-pads, there was more bass. Think it was due to the tweeters overpowering the bass, that was there, it was hiding behind all the highs.

Bloom, not sure I totally understand it. I get the "ripple" after hitting a note, but think that is also decay? Never really paid much attention to it, but I do know, piano, and acoustic guitar sound amazing on my system. When there is a quite part of the music, then it hammer in, I've jumped out of my seat a few times.