Is "detailed" audiophile code for too much treble?


When I listen to speakers or components that are described as "detailed". I usually find them to be "bright". I like a balanced response and if there is an emphasis, I prefer a little more mid-bass.

 

It is a question, what say you all?

g2the2nd

I never interpreted the meaning of "bright" when used in the audio vernacular to be the same definition as when used it the discussion of the intensity of a light.  But I may have been wrong about that; I often am.

Wow, that is quite a range of answers.

I would say more often than not a “highly detailed” “whatever” relies an excess of treble and often a dearth of midrange to highlight details. Many of these are major high end brands. But definitely not always, really good equipment that focuses on the music first does exist. This is one of the reasons I run all Audio Research equipment. It reproduces the details in proportion to the real thing and they are reproduced in the appropriate band… often upper midrange (like much of the sound of cybals and bells are in the midrange… they sound like brass… not sizzle). Many components overemphasize treble and artificially bring out the venue and mastering. It doesn’t take much to really pull the emphasis from the music to the detail. If the midrange is attenuated then you start loosing the rhythm and pace and the “music”. Tilting to the analytical mind and from the emotional side looses the compelling musical satisfaction.

 

One of the best things I did recently was to compare a ~$10K integrated Luxman, ~$10K integrated Pass, with an Audio Research I-50 through Sonus Faber speakers. The difference was so stark it was shocking (to me… I have fifty years of listening experience) the Luxman artificially gained detail through way too much treble (it sounded really “high end”), the Pass was in the middle with more relaxed treble and a pretty good midrange bloom… made me want to tap my foot, then the Audio Research… I simply fell into the music… sure the detail was there if I could get myself motivated to listen for it. But it’s perspective was music first.. then the details… like I was listening to real live music.

It can be, but there’s no standard in audiophile lingo, so it depends on who’s using the term, and how. "Detailed" can be good, or it can mean too detailed. I think maybe "hot" might be less confusing descriptor of too bright, too detailed, too much treble, etc.  When I hear the term "hot" I always know they mean treble that's unpleasant.

Bright can come through in a few ways to me. Treble boost is one of them, and it gets fatiguing after a while. It’s a fairly common tactic with some speaker brands so they stand out more in the store, but it’s usually a short lived novelty.

Sometimes the perception of brightness is not an actual boost in frequency response, it’s simply treble that’s sloppy, etched, or smeared that can result in sibilance, emphasis of certain vocal consonants, splashy cymbals, etc., There’s a bunch of possible causes, but it’s often from overstressed tweeters in their lower range due to poor crossover or other design choices. It can also come from inferior crossover parts and connections, baffle reflections, phase shifts due to placement, and a slew of other less than optimal circumstances. Sometimes it’s just poor synergy across the board. Either way, it’s been a show stopper for me for a long time, and I’ve spent a lot of time trying to eliminate potential causes without loosing the natural open treble with a sense of air and space that comes from really good treble.

Another  visual analogy:  The best portraits are hardly ever over lit.   Light levels set the mood.  Same with higher frequencies in audio.  
 

For example, Audio Research does tend to do a good job in presenting detail without overdoing it to the point of becoming fatiguing as indicated above.