Is "detailed" audiophile code for too much treble?

Most of the time brightness or sharpness in a system can be attributed to the upper midrange and not treble at all. It's often the sooner arrival time of the midrange in relation to the bass and high frequencies.

Listeners respond to how a song displays instruments and voice and while we can add descriptors such as warm, neutral, bright, resolution, detail, depth, separation, texture, etc., etc.,etc.,...one person's bright is another's just right.

Also depends on room, source and material, and how we trained our brain to listen.  I have listened to amps that emphasize the upper mids and lower highs which was overbearingly unpleasant to listen to as well as sounding unatural to me.

Slightly accentuated highs seems to add to an airiness, sometimes. Depends on how much density/mass is in the notes being played. Some speakers sound weightier, some more light footed and I can find both pleasing but prefer one over the other depending on the material I am listening to.

Some speakers are deemed refined which I have found too refined and less transparent that I have hoped for even if they excel in other areas.  Others prefer the refinement what they consider sound harsh to them. 

Probably why we buy and sell gear looking for system synergy and the sound we want in the room we have. Take what works in one room and place it in another and  the familiar sound may or may not sound as expected.

The speakers I have kept are Focal, Dali and Triangle.

Speakers I have returned or sold are Focal, Dali and Triangle. Same brand doesn't guarantee success up/down the line.  Also sent back Dynaudio, Wharfedale, Boston Acoustics, Ascend Acoustics, Jamo, Martin Logan, Quad, etc.

Recently sold the little ML 15i which was alot of fun watching movies but never adjusted to it with music.  Same with Quad S2.  None of the speakers were absolute failures as many liked them.  The only speaker that gave me listener fatigue was the Jamo.  All my speakers can be considered low to midfi, same with equipment and as I listen at lower levels, it suffices.  

Higher end equipment to me is for someone that wants to create a more lifelike concert like SPL experience, otherwise, the cost benefit of spending more decreases...as does our hearing as we age if we listen too loudly. That's also personal preference. 

As to brightness, I think it's wonderful to have the overtones and textures of certain instruments exposed to hear and experience as long as there isn't glare, excessive sibilance, or other artifacts added from either the equipment used to record and process the sound.  Then there's the recording itself to consider.

Strange but engaging hobby.

All these responses are suggestive of mild synesthesia, where one sense spills over into experiences in another. In strong synesthesia, for example, some people will experience distinct colors for each word or digit they encounter. Here we have largely visual metaphors for aural experiences. Yet in synesthesia the visual experiences aren’t merely metaphorical. They are inseparable, in experience, from the reality.

There are some neuroscience researchers who suggest we’re all, at least mildly, synesthetic. But the thing about synesthetes is that where one person may always experience the number 9 as blue, to another it may be red. The experience is at the level of something objective; the reality is nonetheless a subjective one. Still, the number 9 is real, and different from other numbers. So the subjective perception of coloration is nonetheless accurate in indicating an objective difference in the underlying reality. It’s not just psychological. What comes across as a metaphoric expression points to something real, despite the problem this presents in creating a common language for the quite real and fundamentally accurate personal experiences of difference.

Audio is all about personal preferences. Bright, warm, and other terms are unfortunately fluid. Bright to me is quite annoying, in fact I was never able to listen to classical music until recently because no speakers I had owned could competently reproduce strings. They were mostly dark/warm, but some were just bright, the highs were annoying. I recently purchased Caladans, apparently I was fortunate because my wait was only around 3 or 4 months, but it was worth it. Now I had owned Quad ELS57s decades ago, and I strongly suspect that I would have enjoyed classical music through them.They had limitations, most notably volume, that resulted in my moving on, but they had an amazing midrange. Anyway, you might hate my system. It is detailed, and some are overwhelmed by details. People hear things that they had never heard before on recordings that they believed they knew well. I don't find it bright, I can even listen to Kokomo, one of my best tracks for testing brightness. So, I don't know if you dislike brightness or details, but screw what others like. Listening is personal, listen to what you like and just enjoy. If you try to please others, you'll go nuts because you can't. 

In some references the reviewer or MFG will say highly revealing 

or ultra precise.which is attracting in print but may burn your ears. Personally I am currently looking at a Loudspeaker that have excellent dispersion , as well as detail and come with  high quality resistors that adjusts the output to the tweeter to blend into Any Room. Which I think is a brilliant idea.