Why isn’t more detail always better?

A Zylon...WTF is it?  Sounds like a polymer pastiche' to this unfortunate non-immortal.....

Mabbe a layer of that Scotchtissue....laminated to the front of the driven surface for obvious 'texture'....

Of Course he'll opine that his OB's are better, Kenobi.....They're like that...*L*

Won't say he's wrong, either.... ;)

Remember Yamaha came out with Beryllium for the tweeter and midrange in the 1970’s. Paradigm followed suite around 2016 with the Persona lineup.

For their new top end speakers, Yamaha did not want to use Beryllium, so they investigated a fibre used to make yachts (if I remember correctly). What’s interesting about this Zylon material, other than the sound and fast properties, is that the tweeter, mid, and the 12-inch woofer are all made with the same material. This makes for a very coherent sound.

I do not need to go and listen since I bought the NS5000 a few years ago. Super detailed, no fatigue, and very coherent. 

@asvjerry 

The level of detail from a modified Heil is amazing.  But the real magic is happening on the backside, and you can't see it in this picture.

+1 @whart -- exactly right.

No, more and more and more detail isn't good. It quickly becomes unnatural.

The test is simple:

1 - Remember a time when you heard unamplified live music in a well designed acoustic space (classical in a really good room is ideal for this): or live amplified music in a good space where it just sounded well balanced, no peaky/shreaky headaches, bass overwhelming other instruments, etc.

2 - Remember the "detail" on that occasion? You probably don't. That's because it was just there, correct and in harmony with other aspects of the sound. If "detail" jumps out in live music experiences, there's something wrong with the room, the board settings if amplified, or maybe you're sitting too close/too far from the music.

In reproduced music, I used those examples as acoustic comparators. If the detail within the music I hear from the audio system is even in the ballpark of those events, I'm OK with it. Then it's on to other things that are even harder for even good audio systems to get really right: dynamics (impossible to match the real thing), tonality/timbre, soundstage, etc.

In my decades in audio appreciation, excessive, "hyped" detail is a constant annoyance that someone is always espousing to me as the best thing. It never is. It never sounds real or anything even close to real music.

@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!