Enough detail or too much?

I agree with you on all of this. On the detail front, what I think you're hearing with a live orchestra is a multi source phenomenom. Each instrument (point source) has its own individual dimension of sound (image), mixing all these individual images tends to homogenize the sound to some extent, you don't generally hear individual instruments.

Audio systems compress this multi-dimensional sound into a stereo soundstage, images are much less dimensional than the 'real' thing, thus, there is less of this homogenizing effect. Perhaps this less integrated/holistic sound causes the brain to focus more on detailed information of individual instruments, missing imaging cues might evoke a different listening process.

I would think it has something to do with imaging because there is even greater detail with live music, we just don't hear it as such.

Just curious how others feel.

I am listening to Cat Empire "Live on Earth" at this moment and I don't really share your concerns at all - not even a little, actually not one tiny bit.

"Too much detail" means something is wrong. If it were accurate truthful detail then there would not be such a thing as too much. Room acoustics are a good 50% of what you hear and a good 50% of most problems. There are very few good concert halls and good concert hall seats and the same goes for audio systems with precious few good recordings to boot!

The two qualities that I listen for is timbrel accuracy and if I can hear "all the way back" into the hall or venue. The Orchestra when reproduced should also convey a sense of power and weight,both ends of the spectrum. If all this is conveyed to the listener, congratulations on a fine system.

Nice posts - many audiophiles do indeed go for a system that is "too detailed", to use the OP's phrase. Most orchestral musicians who are also audiophiles tend to have systems that have good soundstaging and imaging and are on the warmer side, so it sounds closer to how it does in the concert hall. They also tend to prefer horns (or electrostats) in the speaker department, and tend to prefer tube amplification to solid-state - tubes generally have more accurate resolution of instrumental and vocal timbres, which is an even more important consideration of many musicians. I have found that these types of systems also reproduce the piano better as well.

The bass issue is a fascinating one to me. As the OP says, bass is often not as defined in the concert hall as it is in many high-end systems, especially those incorporating subwoofers. I personally have yet to hear a system incorporating a subwoofer that actually sounds like live, orchestral music. I think too many people have gotten used to the over-amplified sounds of electronic instruments at rock concerts and the very un-lifelike sounds of many of today's recording mixes, and they expect to hear that same type of sound when they listen to acoustic instruments, having lost touch with what live acoustic music actually sounds like in a good hall.

As Shadorne correctly says, though, much of this also has to do with the individual recording engineers and what they do. Many audiophiles don't really have any idea how great an effect they have. They are attempting what is truly an impossible task, and every one of them does it differently, especially in this digital age. Mixing all those separate microphones into something even remotely resembling the original is almost impossible, and tends to remove much of the ambient noise of the concert hall itself, another reason why the result doesn't sound like live music.

OK, I've typed enough - time to go to bed.

For the most part, Robert Greene has it right, in my experience. In many cases, it is impossible to make the recorded sound like you'd hear it in a live performance, because a seat in the audience seat has a much more distant perspective than a recording microphone.

Air is a great filter of high frequencies, and the more air between you and the instruments, the greater the filtering effect. If you are ever present with the opportunity, it is instructive to listen to some of your favorite instruments from 1~2 meters away and note how different that sound is from what you are accustomed to hearing from an audience seat.

Also keep in mind that many instruments change sound depending on the angle that you listen from. If you listen to a violin from above (which is how many orchestral microphones are placed), it will be clearly more aggressive than what you will hear if you are level with it or below.

IOW, at some level a high-performance system should sound "too detailed" compared to what you'd hear live, because in many cases that's exactly what the microphone hears. If you could experience a concert from the location of the recording microphone (which I have done), you'd probably also think that the sound was "too detailed". OTOH, if a recording was made with the microphones located within the audience seating, the playback should sound like you'd typically hear live.

However, unless you know how the microphones were placed for a given recording, it isn't possible to state with conviction what the playback should sound like.

OTOH, many playback electronics produce distortions which are alien to the sound of live acoustic instruments, regardless of listening distance or angle. My experience has been that the presence of these distortions (particularly if IMD or non-harmonic distortions are involved) are a frequent reason why many systems are regarded as being "too detailed." Conversely, if these electronic distortions can be eliminated or reduced, in most cases you will find that you can tolerate a much higher level of detail and resolution.

My experience has been that an audio system with honest high resolution and low levels of IMD and non-harmonic distortion is tolerant of a much wider range of recordings and music styles than otherwise. If your system is overly picky of recordings, with comparatively few sounding acceptable on it, it is usually a sign that not all is well.

hth