The Devil is in the Detail

[tima]

Well, IMO you define detail in an non natural way, as an artificial thing - so you reduce the discussion to a semantics affair.

John Gordon Holt addressed it, it is summarized in his glossary :

Detail
Good: accurate, crisp, delicate, focus, resolution, snap
Not Good:
Excess: accurate (misused), analytical, clinical, etched
Deficiency: closed-in, congestion, diffuse, hangover, haze, opaque, smearing, veiling, velvet fog

This is what Holt actually wrote:



J. Gordon Holt "The Audio Glossary", First Edition, ISBN 0-9624191-4-1.

 

[tima]

Is there a threshold of missing detail beyond which you can no longer enjoy listening to music?

 

[denimhunter]

Thank you Dcathro for initiating a thought provocative thread. How and what audiophile listen for is diverse topic.

As PeterA pointed out, resolution and detail are different. I have been avoiding the use of the term ‘detail’ in favour of resolution for sometime in evaluating sound system.
Detail is a subset of Resolution. I know some audiophiles listen for particular sound in a piece of music such as sound of cymbal, snare of a drum Etc. I like to think of it as ‘chasing the gong’. Detail can sometimes highlight segment of a piece of music.

The notion of resolution is more encompassing. A high resolution system should be able to portray the full harmonics of a piece of music, inc. the under and over tones, decay etc.

Detail does not equate to Texture…
if a system can portray Texture, it weaves Melodies and complex harmonies together in music. Performances are given 3D form, tactile palpable quality. Eg. Sonny Rollin’s sax have a burnished quality, one not only can hear the but the column of air that flows through his sax and permeate the performance. Texture is easily lost in a system with lesser resolution.

 

[Robh3606]

Is there a threshold of missing detail beyond which you can no longer enjoy listening to music?

Good question???

But if it's missing how are you going to know what's missing????

For me it has to be really badly recorded like some bootlegs other than that??

I can happily listen to 320 MP3 but that's loss of detail using perceptual coding so I wouldn't say it's the same thing.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

This is what Holt actually wrote:

View attachment 118122

J. Gordon Holt "The Audio Glossary", First Edition, ISBN 0-9624191-4-1.

I quoted from his section on Reverse Glossary, thanks for confirming my points. In fact he addresses many subjects related to detail, such as inner detail, low level detail, as well as different qualities of sound related to detail, either in absence or excess. The point is that some of the anti detail and anti imaging people present detail and imaging as negative aspects and IMO proper detail has mostly been associated to good sound quality and enjoyment of stereo sound reproduction by most audio writers, manufacturers and audiophiles.

 

[denimhunter]

I Believe most music lovers appreciate a piece of music not because how well it ‘image’ nor how much ‘detail’ is present but perhaps focus more on how coherent is the music or how deeply nuance of the performance.

Detail and imaging are important in music reproduction. But they can be over emphasised in ‘audiophile listening‘. This thread I believe prompt a wider discussion into the question of how and what we can be listening for.

 

[Robh3606]

I Believe most music lovers appreciate a piece of music not because how well it ‘image’ nor how much ‘detail’ is present but perhaps focus more on how coherent is the music or how deeply nuance of the performance.

Detail and imaging are important in music reproduction. But they can be over emphasised in ‘audiophile listening‘. This thread I believe prompt a wider discussion into the question of how and what we can be listening for.

Yeah kind of like Caruso on the old 78's The media doesn't really matter compared to the music and performance to make the connection.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

I Believe most music lovers appreciate a piece of music not because how well it ‘image’ nor how much ‘detail’ is present but perhaps focus more on how coherent is the music or how deeply nuance of the performance.

It is just a semantics point, but some posts ago coherency was used in the sense that there are no transitions in sound type between speaker units and is now being used in a very different sense. Can we know what are you exactly meaning with your words?

IMO people appreciate music because of many factors, that are extensively listed in audio glossaries, including imaging and detail. And surely most music lovers do not care about our hobby - known and studied since long.

 

[dcathro]

I quoted from his section on Reverse Glossary, thanks for confirming my points. In fact he addresses many subjects related to detail, such as inner detail, low level detail, as well as different qualities of sound related to detail, either in absence or excess. The point is that some of the anti detail and anti imaging people present detail and imaging as negative aspects and IMO proper detail has mostly been associated to good sound quality and enjoyment of stereo sound reproduction by most audio writers, manufacturers and audiophiles.

I see Detail as a negative word, because, to me, it implies dissociation. To my mind, information needs to have meaning and be connected or related to the other information around it. The more information the better as long as it is part of the connected fabric of music.

 

[Ovenmitt]

Is there a threshold of missing detail beyond which you can no longer enjoy listening to music?

My threshold must be very, very low.…. After first hearing Robert Johnson nearly 40 years ago, the hair on my arms still stands on end when I listen to “Hellhound on my trail”.

Missing musical detail to the point of not enjoying…. Dont know. I do know Mr. Johnson’s music - along with The Carter family, Jimmie Rodgers, Louis Armstrong’s Hot 5’s and 7’s, etc., etc. we’re recorded on very early and primitive equipment. These recordings don’t have a lot of detail. Do I like them? You bet! They’re some of my favorites and are considered seminal by most.

BTW - fantastic OP!

 

[tima]

I Believe most music lovers appreciate a piece of music not because how well it ‘image’ nor how much ‘detail’ is present but perhaps focus more on how coherent is the music or how deeply nuance of the performance.

Detail and imaging are important in music reproduction. But they can be over emphasised in ‘audiophile listening‘. This thread I believe prompt a wider discussion into the question of how and what we can be listening for.

"What are you listening to?"
"I'm listening to detail. Without micro-detail believability is lost for me, and so is emotional connection."

Some suggest loss or lack of detail is distortion.

How and what we can be listening for are interesting topics as is why we are listening. I think some listen for the experience a composer and orchestra try to evoke and some listen to hear their equipment perform well and for the audiophile attributes it evokes. Different forums offer different proportions of each.

 

[PeterA]

The point is that some of the anti detail and anti imaging people present detail and imaging as negative aspects and IMO proper detail has mostly been associated to good sound quality and enjoyment of stereo sound reproduction by most audio writers, manufacturers and audiophiles.

I am not anti detail and anti imaging. I just think there is more to music and an enjoyable listening experience. The OP is a critique about the direction, the sonic priorities or attributes, of much of the current high end gear. Some of it seems to emphasize details and precise imaging above all else. It is the impression with which one is left after some demos of new gear. IMO, this is a bad direction for the high end.

A highly resolving system has exceptional detail and realistic imaging (scale, location, separation) but they are presented in a natural way, so the listener is not distracted by them for the sake of the music. They are an integral part of the music along with everything else and but a subset of a systems ability to resolve the information captured by the recording. The listener should be left with more. He or she should be relaxed and free to have the mind wander at will to focus on different aspects of the performance, just like when listening to live music. The gear too often thrusts upon the listener details and imaging over all else. This is not a natural or realistic listening experience, but it seems to be preferred by some.

 

[Ovenmitt]

I’m a visually oriented person. I use an auditory to visual analogy of film vs video, and what that means to me as a listener. When I watch a movie that was shot in 70mm film I see a more liquid, continuous flow to the image…. film is more immersive to me. The details are present but not as pronounced - they are part of the whole. With good 4K video, details are more vividly pronounced. While video looses the depth and flow (continuousness) of film it presents a sharper, more detailed image. I feel like I can “see” the bits and pieces better. The outlines are sharper. I prefer my movies to be shot on film and my sporting events seem best in high resolution video. I ”see and feel“ more emotion when I view images shot on film - both still pictures and movies.

My critical listening has evolved over time. When I’m trying to evaluate and understand what a new component is doing in my system, I still listen to the individual parts - bass, treble, timing, imaging, detail, etc…….. but the “individual parts“ part of listening has gotten shorter and less meaningful. I am finding that I am much more about, how does this “new thing” make me feel? Do I want to keep listening to it or switch back to something else?

Music is very emotional for me. I seek that emotional connection at its highest level when I listen to my big system….. as I am with film, I find more emotional connection with music when a system is balanced toward a continuous immersive flow, rather than a pixelated viewpoint where each detail is presented as a separate part.

Just as I prefer film to video, my brain seems to be wired for spinning records into big horn speakers, with vacuum tubes lighting up the listening room at night.

 

[Al M.]

I Believe most music lovers appreciate a piece of music not because how well it ‘image’ nor how much ‘detail’ is present but perhaps focus more on how coherent is the music or how deeply nuance of the performance.

You prefer nuance over detail. Yet how can you have nuance without detail?

The micro-detail of bowing in a string quartet, or in the playing of solo violin or solo cello, for example, is essential to the expression of the musicians, to the nuance of their playing. It also allows for hearing subtle shifts in tone. If you don't hear that detail, nuance is lost. Same for the touch of a pianist on the piano. You need to hear all of its detail in order to appreciate the nuance.

I have found that the more a system presents detail properly, the better the musicians appear to be who are playing the music -- their expression becomes much more nuanced and thus richer.

Or take separation of instruments in complex orchestral music. If you hear all the detail of all the little voices and timbres in the overarching polyphony of musical strands and sounds, the music becomes much richer and more nuanced. Why do you think the composer made the effort to weave this intricate web of subtle inner voices, all this detail, in the first place?

Of course, detail is not all the nuance there is. Micro-dynamic expression, the subtle volume shifts from one note or chord to another, plays an absolutely integral part in the players' nuance as well. But detail is all-important too.

Detail and imaging are important in music reproduction. But they can be over emphasised in ‘audiophile listening‘. This thread I believe prompt a wider discussion into the question of how and what we can be listening for.

Of course detail can be overemphasized. That typically happens when tonal balance is unnaturally tipped towards upper midrange and treble. That's why I mentioned above "presenting detail properly". As I said in an earlier post, the trick for a system is to present all the detail under a full, rich tonal balance (unless a tonal balance is naturally thin, which can also happen in certain live acoustics -- yet this is not the typical case).

Detail needs to be woven into the proper tonal texture, and into a proper presentation of musical flow. Otherwise it can indeed stand out unnaturally. But proper detail is *not* the enemy of music or a distraction from it. On the contrary, it is essential to conveying the nuance of musical composition and expression.

 

[tima]

I am not anti detail and anti imaging. I just think there is more to music and an enjoyable listening experience. The OP is a critique about the direction, the sonic priorities or attributes, of much of the current high end gear. Some of it seems to emphasize details and precise imaging above all else. It is the impression with which one is left after some demos of new gear. IMO, this is a bad direction for the high end.

A highly resolving system has exceptional detail and realistic imaging (scale, location, separation) but they are presented in a natural way, so the listener is not distracted by them for the sake of the music. They are an integral part of the music along with everything else and but a subset of a systems ability to resolve the information captured by the recording. The listener should be left with more. He or she should be relaxed and free to have the mind wander at will to focus on different aspects of the performance, just like when listening to live music. The great too often thrusts upon the listener details and imaging over all else. This is not a natural or realistic listening experience, but it seems to be preferred by some.

Yes, excellent post. I'm looking for a natural balance that does not incline or lead me to some sonic attribute and allows me to direct my focus at will as my mind flows with the performance, likewise allowing me to pull back to a larger view. My listening is neither attracted to nor distracted by the stereo.

Thinking of imaging .. not a great analogy: angling speakers to point at your ears to increase stereophony versus pointing speakers straight ahead to reduce it. In the concert hall there is one source, the orchestra in a hall. In the stereo listening room there are two sources, speakers in a room. Psycho-acoustics in the listening room can be tailored to emphasize perspective. What perspective do you want?

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

on jazz or "lady with a guitar" I prefer and get closeup
on complex orchestral work I like to sit a little further away
I get both as long as the recordings allow it...

 

[PeterA]

It is about balance, not emphasis and spotlighting, bits and pieces. Nuance and detail depend on the overall level of system resolution. If your mind goes to detail and imaging when sitting down to listen, the presentation is not balanced, and it is not about the music, at least in my experience.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

a good sign if you forget about system and just enjoy the music

 

[Al M.]

It is about balance, not emphasis and spotlighting, bits and pieces. Nuance and detail depend on the overall level of system resolution. If your mind goes to detail and imaging when sitting down to listen, the presentation is not balanced, and it is not about the music, at least in my experience.

Except, when I go to the concert hall, sitting in a good, relatively close-up position as I prefer, I get hit with a ton of detail, it's inescapable. So yes, with actual live music my mind goes to detail right then and there, and I love it. That happens with an obviously balanced presentation.

But that's just me, everyone perceives things differently.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Except, when I go to the concert hall, sitting in a good, relatively close-up position as I prefer, I get hit with a ton of detail, it's inescapable. So yes, with actual live music my mind goes to detail right then and there, and I love it. That happens with an obviously balanced presentation.

But that's just me, everyone perceives things differently.

the clue is that the details don´t stick out from the rest, but is presented as part of the whole