Musicality vs Transparency & Detail


I would like to get the opinions of forum members on this topic. As I work to develop my audio system I wonder if the goal of extreme detail retrieval will sacrifice musicality. How have you been able to achieve excellent detail retrieval without getting an etched fatigue inducing sound. As an example when I have read about Shindo equipment I have always come away feeling that it was not noted for detail retrieval but was high on the list of emotionally satisfying.
Jean Nantais who frequently post here seems to feel that ultimate desire for detail has sacrificed musicality. On the other hand Arthur Salvatore of high-endaudio feels that the ultimate goal is the retrieval of low level detail as his first priority.

Can one go to far in the quest for ultimate transparency and low level detail retrieval? Have you ever retreated in system development to equipment or cables with less detail because of listening fatigue? Look forward to your comments.
montepilot

Showing 6 responses by piedpiper

I agree with Rushton. One way to put it is that true transparancy, and thusly true detail, has nothing to do with exagerated sense of detail via brightness or edginess, which are distortions. Noise that rides the signal, as opposed to noise floor, can result in a brighter, edgier, superficially more detailed sound but is actually masking true detail. Listen for a lack of harsh edge coupled with a sense of more information and naturalness, being sure to use reference recordings that you can trust to be naturally and well recorded. If you build your system around this you will have a magically revealing system that is very satisfying.

Bear in mind that bad recordings will sound bad, but you won't be adding insult to injury. You can, if you want, prioritize components that are smoothed over as opposed to simply lacking in harshness, and end up with a system that is forgiving of bad recordings, at the expense of low level detail that fleshes out the palpable you-are-there/they-are-here effect.

Assessing each component can be tricky though, since a better down stream component can reveal upstream coodies. It can be done though.
The other issue I didn't quite cover is that some components, most easily speakers, can editorialize the frequency response by being simply brighter or less bright, etc., by adding or subtracting frequency amplitude without necessarily adding edginess, boominess, or other distortions. A component that is simply brighter, or one that lacks bass, can seem more detailed but is not, of course.
I agree with Jcarr regarding studio monitors. Audio engineers, with many exceptions (I'm one), are notorious for their ingnorance of, and sometimes scorn for, audiophile products. They respect workhorses that help them get their job done in short order with a minimum of fussiness.
Bottomless pockets are not always necessary, although that, along with everything else, is very relative.
I agree that timbre is critical and I do think you can evaluate it accurately at least to some degree. I believe the difference you're hearing, Stringreen, between the sound of your violin as you play it under your ear and that of the same violin on record is a matter of distance as you point out yourself. Having said that, accurate timbre and naturally presented fine detail are both important to me.