Is "detailed" audiophile code for too much treble?

@immatthewj The Benchmark AHB2 is the most detailed amp you can find. No other amp is as close, until maybe the recent SimAudio North Collection. The AHB2 is a bit sterile sounding with neutral and bright gear. It works well with warmer gear.

However, the SimAudio seems as detailed and not sterile or fatiguing. I heard it with what I condsider rather bright speakers. This thing is at another level of detail compared to my CODA #16, which is pretty good in that regard.

I recently heard a $100k CH Precision amp a few days after the $15k SimAudio 761 and though the speakers were different the details from the Sim were a lot more. Main thing is that it was not fatiguing.

The most detailed gear I have ever heard at any price is the new RAAL 1995 Immanis headphones at $10k. Stereophile and TAS will have reviews of them soon. Not fatiguing at all. I would love to hear this with the AHB2 amp. I think the Sim would be too powerful.

I heard aa system at Audio Alternative in Atlanta GA about 10 years ago - Vandersteen 7 speakers, Audio Research amplifier, Genesis turntable (and it might have been a Lyra cartridge, not sure).

The presentation came across as slightly darker than the usual hifi system - but it had detail out the wazoo! I played "Moby Dick" from the then-newly reissued 'Led Zeppelin II' vinyl and you could clearly hear the hand drums moving forward and backward in space. Same with my demo disc, Don Dixon's "Helen" from 'Romeo At Julliard'

Back to the question, Is "detailed" code for treble boost? Yes and no. There can be more detail in presenting bass instruments, not just stringed, but drums, that has nothing to do with high frequencies, but everything to do with presenting the harmonics of the root frequency and the crispness of the initial contact on string or drum head so as to be true to the original. However, when presenting harmonics of higher pitched fundamental notes, going into the treble range, sure tweeters' capabilities and limitations come into play.

In my case, ratcheting improvement in each part of an increasingly componentized system, I've gotten to where it is more pleasing using the "Natural" EQ of a Yamaha pre-pro's YPAO room equalization, which rolls off the high end more than "Flat". But that from improvements elsewhere in the chain that have increased the detailing throughout the bass and mids (Emotiva DAC, Fosi V3 Mono amps with Sparkos op-amps, Revel speakers -- each an improvement on several generations of other models in those stations).

Brightness and detail are two separate issues, although often finding both in some systems.  Also, people have different tolerances for brightness.  The fix is better/different components. 

@g2the2nd 

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.

Perhaps it's just that the gear you've happened to hear WAS both detailed and bright. I have similar tastes in sonics -- I prefer more present upper bass/low mids to accentuated upper mids/highs. The buzz-words I watch for in reviews are "lively" and "energetic". Those often indicate a more tipped up, forward presentation. As others have said, detail in and of itself need not be fatiguing. As @kennyc states, we vary in our tolerances for brightness. I have little tolerance for brightness but that doesn't mean I like a dull top end. I want a cymbal to sound like a cymbal. The only sure-fire way to find out what pleases you is to listen to a variety of gear.