Why haven't audiophiles enthusiastically endorsed the SACD?

[Auricauricle]

This forum's got me wondering if there's a dark side too all of this: Namely, is there such a thing as way too much detail?

With Blue-Ray, the ability to resolve even the most minute fragment of visual nuance is spectactular to be sure, but not realistic. We may see the various pimples and hairs growing upon the person we stand before, but we don't observe them. Similarly, as we listen to music, few of us are truly aware or attendant to the various groans and squeaks that accompany the performance. True, it is present, but they are soon ignored in favor of the composition as a whole. In short, do such devices truly present an over all more complete "picture" or are they so filled with chock-a-nlock detail that we lose out on the overall composition?

The previous post refers to a blog that is much more verbose, if you wanna sift through a deeper look into mah thought thinking modus operandi (ahem.....).

[Feanor]

This forum's got me wondering if there's a dark side too all of this: Namely, is there such a thing as way too much detail?

....

(For the sake of arguement), I say there is no such thing as too much genuine detail, that is, resolution. Real resolution manifest itself as transparency, especially as "air" or "space" around the instruments and vocalists, and also (e.g.) the ability to make out more words on multi-voice choral works.

There is such a thing as "etch", that is, sharp-edged, apparent but not authentic detail. I think that largely comes from distortion at higher frequencies caused by inferior design or components. Of course, it is exagerated by recordings balanced for too much to the upper-mid and high frequency.