Why isn’t more detail always better?

I have different setups in different rooms. One smaller room has KEF ls50 meta speakers set up near field. That setup is revelatory when it comes to delivering every last morsel of detail in a recording. The better recordings simply bring the room to life! Totally enthralling! That’s a word I do not toss around very often.  
 

Give near field a chance!

Something to consider...

When you hear sounds, music, birds, etc. in the real world, it is typically much further from you than listening to your speakers.

Sound attenuates with distance, and there are two types of attenuation. There is the typical "spreading loss" (e.g., 6 dB per doubling of the distance for a point source), but their is also "atmospheric attenuation" due to the energy being absorbed by the ambient atmosphere. In this case, the higher the frequency, the faster it attenuates.

So listening to music in your living room at 10 feet away from your speakers, or hanging a microphone in front of an amplifier's speaker, is not the same as sitting 40 feet away where you would experience a different frequency balance, not so heavy on the highs, unless the recording was made 40 feet away.

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. 

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

@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

@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. 

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.

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).

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

@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!

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.

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

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).

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.

“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.

@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).

Lots of Good responses so far!

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

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

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?

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.

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.

@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.

**** 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.  

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.

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.

@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.  

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...

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.    

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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! 

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. :-)

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🍾!

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

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.

@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.   

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

@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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.