Why isn’t more detail always better?

One aspect of "detail" that shows up in some systems to me is an unnatural separation of sounds. For instance, in my quest for new speakers I listened to a few very highly recommended models that made a cymbal sound like separate instruments (being struck and the resulting shimmer) and fingerpicked guitar where some string squeaking was front and center and completely separate from the guitar notes. I settled on speakers that (in my system) gave up a little "detail" but, to my ears, kept a smooth and natural transition of sound from each instrument being connected and continuous.

Most observation of details is a bad sign...

Why?

Because in a real experience of natural sound our attention is immersed in a natural way and not alerted by "something" out of balance from the tonal physionomy.

In front of beauty we dont ask for details and we dont focus on details...

We dont set a speakers/room for more "details" but for more naturalness and balance...

In my opinion this vocabulary insisting about "details" in reviewers articles follows from their focus on the gear design for itself not from acoustic concrete understanding in a specific speakers/room...

It is there in their discourse, not only to express their variable impressions about gear but to sell it...

I dont buy gear i try to implement it acoustically in the right way...

Customers want a reason to buy something new : "more details way more" is a winner slogan, true or not , thats does not matter...

If instead of a closed speakers/room i was designing an open amphitheater space, details perception will be a priority instead of balance, as in ancient Greek theater where a whisper is heard with "details" of the voice tone as a goal...

 When i modified my speakers port design, tweeter design and acoustic space i was looking for balance because balance reestablish naturalness with details which are not higher frequencies deceptive accentuation.

Anyway we must work with the frequency range specs of our speakers to begin with  and help them  to reach well balance impression  with and in the room...

Natural detail is always something to strive for.  Unnatural highlighting of a certain group of frequencies that are pushed in your face is not detail - it's highlighting.  If you're listening to a live unamplified performance, you hear all the detail meant to be heard (from a relatively nominal distance).  If you suddenly rush the stage and wrap yourself with one of the performers in a shroud, sure you'll hear primarily that person and their breathing, etc.  But if you step back to hear the whole group, what you will hear is the natural presentation as it was meant to be heard.  Natural detail and transparency is not brightness, nor any other annoying artifact of reproduced sound.  To hear a system that does this correctly is a wonderful experience.  I've had a number of these experiences this past year.

Accurate detail means as close to live or the recording studio, in the bass, midrange and treble.  If you cannot separate the bass guitar from the kick drum, it lacks detail. If it is fatiguing, it lacks accurate detail. Accurate details are always better. You, however, may not enjoy a completely flat frequency response. 

Detail is never the "last word" in accurate retrieval but one of many criteria in the overall reproduction of sound.Its always about synergy; the balance of all factors that creates an illusion of a live performance.

I found having "quiet" incoming AC first, allows me to tune these balances much more easily.

It seems to me that what is desired is a mostly flat response without favoring any specific frequency or any frequency band that is a subset of the 20-20k band. That said, I am sure many of you have seen the so called idealized response curve that Harmon corporation suggests for a natural reproduction of music. While I hesitate to throw rocks at Harmon for arriving at this conclusion that a downward sloping curve from the bass end towards the treble end of the spectrum is ’ideal’ I maintain that instrumental balance in an orchestra varies according to who called in sick on the day of the concert. :) One time it might be top-heavy another time more neutral or flat and yet another more like the Harmon curve. I suspect the real ideal is a version that splits the difference between the Harmon curve and totally dead flat. Trained human ears are deceptively discerning when it comes to loudness differences and other aspects of listening to recorded music. It comes as no surprise to me that aspects of some equipment combinations just light some folks up with delight and totally turn off others. A little bass heavy as presented and apparently preferred by Harmon probably plays better than something that is too bright. Im hoping that as I choose new gear I end up with something that is satisfying on todays streaming content and also on what few CDs I have left. If I get back to pre-fire parity, I will consider myself incredibly fortunate. Detail when not in balance with the rest of the content is pointless. I seek accuracy. I want the system to produce what the production engineers burned to the disc without adding or taking away anything. If the listening experience to that disc is not good, I want to be able to blame the engineers who produced the disc for the unpleasant rendering rather than my own system.