Excessive sibilance and edge....treat room?

"Defining sibilance as too much precision or clarity seems a bit oxymoronic, though. How can you have too much?"

Again, its a subjective term and not everyone will explain it the same way. But in the above case, a good example would be a microscope. Just as you would bring forth detail that you would not normally see with the naked eye, an audio system has the potential to reveal more detail than you would hear naturally. For example, most vocals are recorded with microphones that are very close to the singer. So in reality, unless someone is talking or singing directly into your ear, you have the potential to hear much more detail in the recorded voice than you would under normal conditions where the person would be much further away.

If you look at the playback side of the equation, the problem can be further enhanced by component choice. I've always felt that one of the reasons sibilance is so annoying on speakers that have metal tweeters, is the fact that there are no parts of our bodies that are made out of metal. Its very difficult to make a metal speaker driver have the timbrel accuracy needed to reproduce the human voice when the materials that we are made of are so vastly different than metal.

Keep in mind though, as I said before, I'm just giving a couple of examples based on my own subjective judgment and that the issue of sibilance is a much broader topic than I'm going over here.

"By saying HF are being stretched to sibilance with soft tweeters to me is more accurate since distortion is after all the result which is in the end a loss of original content/experience."

That's a very good example of how subjective this topic can be. When you say that high frequencies are stretched to sibilance with soft tweeters, I have a hard time visualizing what you are referring to. But that doesn't mean you're wrong. Its very difficult to describe in words how something sounds.

Another way I could state it is to say that HF transient response is audibly better with hard vs soft tweeters in that HF are more highly defined with them, thus less sibilant. The microscope analogy is a predetermination by the recording venue and therefore the effective original. Whatever it is is the playback goal. I don't see how that relates to this topic. I think you are misplacing subjectivity with communication. Language is after all the largest barrier. Having only a keyboard to communicate with exacerbates this problem to the extreme imo. Probably the main catalyst to the subjectivist disposition so ubiquitously held in virtually all the forum sites. Consensus took a serious back seat with the inception of the internet. I can relate to the 'metal' dilemma which is why I like mylar ribbons the best.

"The microscope analogy is a predetermination by the recording venue and therefore the effective original. Whatever it is is the playback goal. I don't see how that relates to this topic. I think you are misplacing subjectivity with communication."

Again, its all subjective, but it relates to the topic because regardless of how the sibilance occurs, people are going to want to try and fix it. (At least the people that are bothered by it. I have friends that don't mind it in the least). Personally, I don't think my example is a predetermination by the recording venue and therefore the effective original. The reason for that, is vocal sibilance is not a natural occurrence. Its a product of the recording/playback chain.

What speakers use mylar ribbons? I don't think I've ever heard one before. I tried Magnepans, but they were way too sibilant for me. lol.

You used the microscope analogy as a bigger than life product as it would relate to a recording. Being closer to the subject doesn't necessarily conclude with sibilance. In any case, ime it's been a lack of performance on the amp's part that has been bothersome to me as far as sibilance is concerned. If an amp isn't fast enough to negotiate the important consonants to life like realism, it's a poor design no matter what else it's good at imo.

I should say mylar on aluminum foil such as those on my Kappa 9s. Or the solid mylar domes on the Kef 105s.

"You used the microscope analogy as a bigger than life product as it would relate to a recording."

Now I get what you are saying. I didn't mean it like that. I was thinking in terms of distance or proximity. For example, when a voice is very closely miked, its kind of like having someone very close to you, talking directly into your ear. Its not natural, or normal even. Since you hear so much more detail, I thought a microscope was a good example.

"Being closer to the subject doesn't necessarily conclude with sibilance."

Your absolutely right. You don't have to get sibilance just because you are close. I do feel, however, that the chance of sibilance occurring does increase in situations of close proximity. But even then, results can vary. Different equipment, room, personal taste, etc.., will all play a part.

"In any case, ime it's been a lack of performance on the amp's part that has been bothersome to me as far as sibilance is concerned. If an amp isn't fast enough to negotiate the important consonants to life like realism, it's a poor design no matter what else it's good at imo."

At least you know where the problem lies. Sometimes its very difficult to pin down the source of the problem. It can be any component, not just the speakers.

"I should say mylar on aluminum foil such as those on my Kappa 9s. Or the solid mylar domes on the Kef 105s."

I thought you may be referring to those folded ribbon tweeters that some companies are now using. Martin Logan is probably the best example. The tweeters on your Kappa 9's look similar to the ribbon tweeters that Genesis used.