Sat front row at the symphony...

viber6, you have to define “detail”.  This has been pointed out previously.  Sure, one hear a certain type of “detail” up close.  We can debate the importance of some of that up close detail.  To a great extent it becomes a personal preference based on a variety of things; not the least of which is how one listens to music and even how each of our individual hearing apparatus hears.  However, and importantly, one also loses important musical detail up close that can only be heard from a reasonable distance.  

A mathematical definition of detail is the sum total of information at all freq.  Musically speaking, it is perception of the note fundamental with all the added harmonics, or multiples of the fundamental freq.  Since further distance has the main effect of reducing the higher freq from absorption and reverberation smearing, there is less total harmonic info, esp at higher freq.  

The one effect you validly mention is the gelling effect of the bass clarinet and cello to make a blended tone color.  While this is an interesting synthesis of the individual clarinet and cello tones to make a new blended tone, it is debatable whether we can call that "new" detail.  Suppose you have complete blending so you hear the mixture as a new color, but you can't separate the two different instruments.  You gain the blend, but lose the information as what the two components are.  Example--Grieg and other Scandinavian composers create unique tone colors from certain instrument combinations, but it bothers me if I am listening to a low resolution audio system or distant live sound and I cannot identify the individual instruments that make up the blended tone.  Wine analogy--I am not a connoisseur, so while I might enjoy the overall taste, I cannot perceive or I have never had the training to appreciate the many individual tastes.  If I got a wine tasting education, I would enjoy more aspects of the wine than I am presently able to.  So the wine connoisseur perceives more details of the individual flavors, and is analogous to the front row listener.  My taste perceptions are analogous to the distant listener, only able to perceive the blend.  

Good musicians can blend well enough so that even up close, the perception is a good blend.  Further away, there is more blend, but at a severe price of much less individual detail.  This effect mainly concerns HF detail, since HF are quantitatively lost much more at distance than lower freq detail.  Since you play midrange and lower freq dominated instruments, I see why you are less concerned with HF detail than I.  I don't ignore low freq and midrange detail, either.  The fact is that all instruments have significant wideband freq energy.  The string bass has a uniquely wide freq range from deep bass to the HF from bow scraping and strong plucking of the string when it slaps the fingerboard.  I get much more of the total wide freq range string bass sound (more detail) by listening close vs further away.

At Tarisio/Sotheby/Christie auctions, I have listened to good violinists comparing different violins.  Even from 5 feet away, there may not be much difference that I hear.  But then I compare these violins under my ear when I play them.  The differences are magnified by orders of magnitude.  I hear shortcomings under my ear that I totally missed from only a few feet away.  That's due to the tremendous increase in detail up very close.  However, close listening doesn't just reveal more flaws.  It can reveal more power and beauty.  In a string quartet, I once played with another violinist who had a Nicolo Gagliano.  I liked what I heard in her playing.  When she let me try her instrument, I was shocked and bowled over by its power and multicolored beauty under my ear.  More details PLUS more beauty.

viber6, you like the up close perspective. That is fine, more than fine, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. Clearly we will not agree on this point. More specifically, on which approach serves the music best. “Chacun à son goût”!  In my opinion the music, as intended by the composer, gets priority. I will close with a few final comments to address yours:

To be clear, my example of bass clarinet/cello blend is but one example of many and of all that is going on in a large scale orchestral composition. That blend IS the detail, the new compositional detail. If we are to give composition theory as used by the great composers any credence it is really not a debatable point. This orchestration technique is far more than an “interesting synthesis” and is crucial to the composition. It is precisely what the composer wants to be heard. Not the individual instruments, but the blend. This serves the composition best. Soloistic passages by individual instruments obviously do get their turn. Perhaps this analogy will help to make the point:

I am sure you are familiar with the work of the French-pointillist artists. Stand very close to a painting by Georges Seurat and one sees a tremendous amount of the detail that is all the individual and different color paint dots (not strokes) that were his signature technique. However, the images, which are the “message”:of the painting are indistinct. Then, stand back some distance and it all comes together and reveals images full of beautiful colors and textures that his work is known for. This is akin to what we are discussing here.

I have witnessed and/or participated in countless examples of an orchestral musician (myself included) “auditioning” a new instrument, or instrumental accessory. To do so in a familiar hall as opposed to one’s home is crucial. It is a very common practice to do so on stage before rehearsals or during breaks from rehearsal and a colleague or two are recruited to assist in listening and offering opinions on what they hear. Without exception the listening assistant goes out into the house to listen. Never standing close to the player and his/her new piece of gear. Reason is that what is heard from a distance is what matters most. Acoustic sounds need a certain amount of travel distance to fully develop. Often, an instrument that may sound robust or brilliant up close simply doesn’t project that sound well. Conversely, an instrument that may sound compact up close can have tremendous projection. One of those interesting mysteries of sound production. Of course, as you know, how the instrument feels to the player has to be factored in when making a determination.

Anyway, good to discuss these points with you (and others) and regards.

@frogman ....+1..... the " playing " of the instruments, through the conductor's direction, is why I attend performances. I listen for the playing, through my rig, as well. My best. MrD

Ive found some music halls in New Orleans that me and my wife and perhaps I'll  bring my mother.  I kinda doubt the shows are as thrilling as what's up north but for our first time I believe it will be nice. I think my wife will be impressed, a great Mother's Day present.