There is no such thing as too much detail; if true accuracy and musicality are the goals. Not only are accuracy and musicality NOT mutually exclusive, but you can't have one without the other. The problem is that the so called detail is often a distortion, often an accentuation, usually in the upper frequencies, that causes images in recorded music to sound too etched and aggressive.
Elgordo, I respectfully disagree with your comment that live music is not very detailed. There is a wealth of information in a live music event that even the best sound systems fail miserably trying to retrieve. I just don't get the often touted idea that "good" sound systems image or do detail better than a live performance; it's simply not possible. We audiophiles often point out, and correctly so, that the human ear is far more sensitive than any electronic instrument, including microphones; so, any extra detail heard from a sound system has to be a distortion if it was not heard at the original event. The tonal and harmonic content of the sound of most acoustic, and electronic for that matter, instruments is so rich and complex, that most record/playback equipment does, in absolute terms, only a fair job of capturing. That is why there is no substitute for extensive exposure to the sound of live music to be able to judge fairly, how well or poorly, electronics "detail". And this does not apply only to acoustic instruments. Talk to electric guitar players about the different tonal attributes of certain 6L6 tubes, for example, and you realize that those individual tonal qualities and subtleties, although not as complex as those of say, an acoustic violin, are every bit as fragile in the context of the record/playback process. As far as imaging goes, listen to the incredible specificity of the triangle in the percussion section of an orchestra; I have never heard a system that does it quite like that. The way that it jumps out at you with some systems is just not natural. One of the first things that a young instrumentalist learns from a teacher is that if he/she is playing the upper, or higher pitched, line in a composition, that part should be played a little softer than the lower part. By virtue of being higher pitched, that musical part or line will be perceived by the listener as being played louder; not necessarily a good thing. It is then easy to see (hear) why "accuracy" in a sound system usually means bright and with too much detail.
My theory about why live music is often perceived by audiophiles as "less" detailed than recorded music is this high frequency distortion issue, and also that at a live event, there is the inevitable distraction of richer emotional content due to the presence of real, live human beings making music. Many audiophiles, sometimes unwittingly, focus more on the technical aspects of music listening, and less on the emotional aspects. A performer has to open up emotionally on a very deep level to be credible; the listener also has to open up emotionally in order to appreciate this.
Elgordo, I respectfully disagree with your comment that live music is not very detailed. There is a wealth of information in a live music event that even the best sound systems fail miserably trying to retrieve. I just don't get the often touted idea that "good" sound systems image or do detail better than a live performance; it's simply not possible. We audiophiles often point out, and correctly so, that the human ear is far more sensitive than any electronic instrument, including microphones; so, any extra detail heard from a sound system has to be a distortion if it was not heard at the original event. The tonal and harmonic content of the sound of most acoustic, and electronic for that matter, instruments is so rich and complex, that most record/playback equipment does, in absolute terms, only a fair job of capturing. That is why there is no substitute for extensive exposure to the sound of live music to be able to judge fairly, how well or poorly, electronics "detail". And this does not apply only to acoustic instruments. Talk to electric guitar players about the different tonal attributes of certain 6L6 tubes, for example, and you realize that those individual tonal qualities and subtleties, although not as complex as those of say, an acoustic violin, are every bit as fragile in the context of the record/playback process. As far as imaging goes, listen to the incredible specificity of the triangle in the percussion section of an orchestra; I have never heard a system that does it quite like that. The way that it jumps out at you with some systems is just not natural. One of the first things that a young instrumentalist learns from a teacher is that if he/she is playing the upper, or higher pitched, line in a composition, that part should be played a little softer than the lower part. By virtue of being higher pitched, that musical part or line will be perceived by the listener as being played louder; not necessarily a good thing. It is then easy to see (hear) why "accuracy" in a sound system usually means bright and with too much detail.
My theory about why live music is often perceived by audiophiles as "less" detailed than recorded music is this high frequency distortion issue, and also that at a live event, there is the inevitable distraction of richer emotional content due to the presence of real, live human beings making music. Many audiophiles, sometimes unwittingly, focus more on the technical aspects of music listening, and less on the emotional aspects. A performer has to open up emotionally on a very deep level to be credible; the listener also has to open up emotionally in order to appreciate this.