Sibilance in recordings: your experience the same?

Sibilance, to me is the most annoying of virtually all system flaws. I remember my first foray into High End audio was disappointing almost entirely, because there was virtually no female singer who didn't sizzzzzle into the mic, or so I thought.
Extended HF, with no regard to interconnects, speaker cables, GOOD solid state, (which back then was an oxymoron), a cart for the table which could actually track correctly. That sibilance unearthed a vast multitude of problems.
"What's New", by Linda Ronstat was such a dissapointment for a long time because of this. The music, I loved, the rendition of her voice, not so much.
They obviously peaked her voice in the upper ranges; why, to give it more 'presence' I suppose.
There is a device which produces 'tube like' distortions, known as, and I'm no doubt wrong on this, "Aphex Aural Exciter", which introduces tube like distortions onto the recordings. Many female vocalists, Barbara Streisand being, at least at one time, the most visible, LOVE this effect.
In designing some speakers, one of my principal goals was to have NO SIBILANCE ADDED. Sure some recordings sound that way, but a speaker with just a few db of spike in the upper regions, and in the wrong bandwidth, can send most of us running from the room. Again, and I've said it before, a good theology for speaker designers, could be "The best tweeter I ever heard, I didn't."
This should be viewed as, HF's sound electrostatic, not 'dome'.
I'd personally rather have a slight roll off than that nails on the chalkboard sibilance.

"I'll talk, I'll talk, God, please make them stopppp!!!!!!"

To add some perspective to my initial inquiry, I use a Shunyata Hydra 4(Shunyata Taipan Helix Alpha 20a power cord to the wall) for my CDP (Cambridge Audio 840C), pre (Belles 28A), and tuner. My amp is a Spectron Musician SE MK2, plugged straight into the wall; speakers are Von Schweikert 4SRs (version 1), rear tweeters turned all the way up. I did find that changing the IC cords from RCA to XLR between the pre and amp made a slight reduction in sibilance. Over the last couple of years I’ve added a number of power conditioning tweaks, piece by piece, in and around the system...and I really need to do a little controlled experimentation to identify what they do/don’t do. The tweaks include two Blue Circle Noise Hounds and a PS Audio Noise Harvester plugged into adjacent outlets. Any thing jump out?

Sibilance is usually in the recording and is a characteristic of microphones, some worse than others.

Actually sibilance is a REAL microphone artifact which is really on the recording. Eliminating it is best done by prevention. After that any strategy which limits it is doing so by smearing or attenuating the signal. This can be more pleasant to listen to but not because it's "correcting" the signal. Choosing cables or anything else which universally eliminates it may not always be a good thing. Tube based systems exhibit less sibilance than S.S. and the reason for that was the subject of a lively debate sometime ago in a TAS roundtable discussion. It was postulated ( but without uniform agreement) that tubes might gently smear the signal which is what makes them so " musical". My advice is to buy better recordings and to have tubes somewhere in the preamp or output stage of a cd player to gently minimize the remainder.

Without any scientific data to support this, I would say that, while I agree that sibilance is a real artifact, that it's not limited to simply microphones. The reason I question this is, why does it manifest primarily and while not exclusively, at least mostly in vocal recordings.
Massed strings, which because of the focus of thier collective bandwith, would seem to be very prone to this same effect, yet I don't find it in the same amounts.
That, plus as I listen to the remakes of Winston Ma's works, recordings which sound so unbelieveably sibilant in thier original forms, sound extraordinarily less so after he performs his 'magic'. Winston told me personally, that his process is one of (of course many more things than this and I am simplifying) removing layer after layer of noise within the recording.
The harmonics of say a female voice, an octave, two, and three above the dominant in that female voice reside in the 1khz, 2kz, 4khz frequency bandwidth. This, not too coincidentally is spread over the range of many mid to HF driver crossovers.
With time and phase 'smear' in this region, coupled with great amounts of noise in SOME recordings the result is a heightened distortion level.
As to tubes smearing this information, I don't think that's it. Tubes, by most, even solid state designers are by consensus thought to have better low level resolution. That greater resolution may simply give more information over the entire spectrum allowing for a fuller more complete therefore less sibilant sound.
I offer up the one theory, crossover issues in dynamics, as one thought after living with the Sound Labs for quite a while and not having anywhere near the same level of sibilance introduced. Also, the Quads, and even the Maggies full panel units. None of these panels, to my ear share in these sibiant issues to nearly the same degree.
This group of theories has, again, no proof offered, and may be completely wrong. But given hundreds of hours, make that thousands, of listening, it seems that some or all of these may contribute to the annoying artificacts we call sibilance.