Is "detailed" audiophile code for too much treble?

For those who are sensitive to bright/strident sounds, I often think one solution is a “soft” dome tweeter.  

@12many… “that for my ear, with each bump up in resolution or detail due to better components, the tone or frequency shifted slightly upwards, making the entire presentation seem a tad bit brighter”.

+1 For me as well.

That is an easy path to take. Auditioning better equipment you listen for what is most easily discernible… detail… it often comes with a slight bump in brightness. I have followed this path and ended up with a very sterile system. I refocused on the music and quickly refocused on Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, VAC and Sonus Faber which focus on the music first (midrange bloom and rhythm / pace) then add detail and bass without allowing the overall tonal balance to change. In the end with these products you get the overall gestalt of the music without highlighted (exaggerated) details.

Doesn’t mean that sound is not pleasurable to many people. Different folks listen to different things. Some folks like to have their chest feel the bass, some the violinist move their foot, but some want to recreate the real thing and emotional connection… an easy path to loose in the process.

This is a great thread - I had the same questions and this thread is very informative.  It seemed to me, that for my ear, with each bump up in resolution or detail due to better components, the tone or frequency shifted slightly upwards, making the entire presentation seem a tad bit brighter.  Not necessary annoy bright, but just a different presentation due to the added details.  I am probably far down the wrong path, but for example, for a bass note that might be at 100 hz, but with more detail, the extra detailed vibration of a string, I might be picking up 200 hz tone on top of the 100 hz, or a higher order harmonic.  The 200 hz signal with the underlying 100 hz tone might then give the perception of a higher tone or frequency, although the added detail or more realistic sound and welcome.  Anyway, just thinking out loud.  

One person's 'too much' can be another person's 'not enough'.....

I define detailed not by amount of treble but rather when attack and decay are correct and not smeared in time. So sound is not muddied by the fact that notes sound longer than they should be and do not start overlaping with other.

The best test is a symphony orchestra.

+1 Many audiophiles will shake in their pants before they touch the orchestra though ....because that’s when their million dollar rigs fall apart (all gear sold by the emperors with no clothes shall get exposed).

Another way to look at this, does “reality” have too much detail? Barring the use of excess hallucinogenic drugs, the answer is “no”.

But in music, what is reality?

Just one example that we’ve probably all heard.

When I listen to my system, I often hear a piano miced so that I can hear the action/thump of the pedals and sometimes even the hammers retracting.

I don’t think I’ve ever listened to someone play a song on the piano where I had my head in there and could hear this stuff.

So this IS reality, but who’s reality?

Increased detail can be nothing more than dropping the noise floor with better components or better room absorbing/dispersion control.

Brightness can usually be traced to the high frequency transducer, offen experienced with metallic tweeters like beryllium, but not all metallic tweeters sound bright- depends on the execution.

Another way to look at this, does “reality” have too much detail? Barring the use of excess hallucinogenic drugs, the answer is “no”.
High-end audio is simply a facsimile of reality, so you can have detail without the shrillness - it all depends on the execution

@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. 

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. 

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).

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'

@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.

Fatiguing ?

There’s nothing magical about any of this. Components like this are typically not designed with ideal bench test measurements in mind. They happen when designers purposefully "voice" components to sound like real music, not exaggerated imitations of it. I believe it’s harder (time & $$ cost) to design in that manner

A few examples. All are quite resolving, also quite musical w/o exaggerated treble::

• (NOS DAC) Metrum Onyx
• (speakers) ATC SCM12 Pro passive monitors
• (speaker amps) Bel Canto 600M monoblocks
• (headphone amp/preamp) Violectric V281
• (headphones) ZMF Caldera

I’ve found a number of audio components that managed to be very detailed (ie, resolving) without being bright or edgy..But it took years of looking. Components like that are unicorns.

What, pray tell, were the magic unicorn components that you discovered that  provided detail without sounding "bright"?

Dear OP:

Yes. "Detailed" is definitely code for too much treble.

Not always, and not in every system. But it’s code for too much treble way too often to be ignored, IMO.

I’ve found a number of audio components that managed to be very detailed (ie, resolving) without being bright or edgy..But it took years of looking. Components like that are unicorns.

Systems can be detailed without being bright.  Or at least without being too bright. Detail may mostly be associated with treble but I find that real detail goes all the way down to the subs. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

@phusis 

Some of it probably comes down to semantics and ascribing different meanings to chosen terms

Well worth keeping in mind for this discussion! 

Like so many audiophile terms, it means what you want it to mean.... 

"But since human hearing is not flat, a flat response could yield all kinds of lows and highs a particular listener does not want."

So if you roll off the highs and your ear is rolling them off further, you take too much away. Natural sound is not produced "rolled off".  It goes from infrasonic to ultrasonic.

no

Some of it probably comes down to semantics and ascribing different meanings to chosen terms, but to me "detailed" in sound reproduction often reads as something that draws attention to itself apart from or outside of a holistic aspect of the presentation.

By comparison how would one describe the sound heard from live acoustic instruments playing? Mostly I don’t think of "detailed" when listening to a live symphony orchestra, but rather ’liquid, flowing, natural warmth, uninhibited in scale and dynamic swings, lack of smear, less pinpoint and more amorphous, a swell of sonic force coming in waves’ - something along those lines. With smaller ensemble, more intimate live acoustic concerts the physical aspect and precision of placement often becomes more prevalent. Sitting close to a grand piano is quite an experience and quickly lets you know how most speakers would simply collapse trying to replicate to sheer wallop, power, presence and size of presentation such an instrument is capable of. Not to mention tonal aspects all the way down into the lows with the frequency range it requires - it’s a beast.

Choosing components (incl. cables) and speakers, setting filter values (actively), tweaking acoustics and the placement of speakers to me very much comes down to approximating that desired "informative within the whole of presentation," where the sound is more or less framed by a cohesive sphere of sound with a solid core to it. I don’t want to hear treble as I do overtones ingrained with a primal, timbral imprinting; HF that doesn’t draw attention to itself but has substance linked to the instrument or voice from where it originates. Same with the low frequencies for that matter - I just want them to uninhibitedly "be" when required and part of the presentation as a whole. Sound like that mayn’t impress at first (or, to some even later on), but to me it’s certainly the more mature and natural presentation.

Of course there’s also accounting for the Munson effect and the variations in perceived frequency response at different SPL’s. I could operate with a different filter preset for very high or low SPL’s (but don’t), and thus using a usually fixed reference SPL for setting filter values does imply that listening at either quite low and very high SPL’s doesn’t present the best overall balance of presentation. I’m not really bothered by that being I typically listen at or around ref. volume level.

^^^ But since human hearing is not flat, a flat response could yield all kinds of lows and highs a particular listener does not want.

To answer OP’s question, I think of detail as the ability to hear distinct sounds in the program material. Like when I upgraded my audio interface to film capacitors in the analog stages, and suddenly I could hear sounds I didn’t know existed. I could hear the timbre of a wood-bodied instrument, such as a cello. I could hear the ugly sound of guitar strings rattling against one of the forward frets, even though I was pleased to actually be able to hear such a detail. It is in fact a caveat to have a detailed (read that: revealing) system because it shows you when a recording is truly bad.

I don't see why a bright system is associated with detail.  It's a different phenomenon in my opinion.  I think Sennheiser HD's of various models are bright sounding, but this doesn't give them any increased ability to be detailed.  I'd say the equipment behind is has greater affect on detail.

If you think about it, a flat frequency response SHOULD provide the most detail because if you have a dip in the response you loose detail through that area, and if you have a peak, you mask detail in other areas.

If you have a flat response to "beyond hearing" it will sound bright because most people are used to hearing "rolled off" highs.

It only means what people think the word describes. There are some who seem to equate lots of detail and transparency with a bright sound. But many don’t. There’s no definitive answer.

Some people say a highly detailed system is a little bright. Think of the opposite, a warm or lush sound. Wouldn’t that at least imply a loss of detail? So it’s just words that people assign to their own understanding of sounds. Some words have almost universal agreement, some don’t.

Bottom line is higher frequencies are an essential part of detail. They can also be a key source of noise and distortion which lead to fatigue.   It all is needed and all needs to be done well ie have a handle on noise and distortion.  After that it’s largely a matter of tuning to personal preference. 

ffed,” or “smeared” is what you hear when you go into the venue’s bathroom
 

That’s because the higher frequencies have been lost and only the lower remain. 

Bright can mean several different things. Clean, clear, stunning. It can also mean cold, lifeless, harsh.

Detail is how well you can pick out individual voices and instruments and how much of their timbre you can appreciate. Percussion cannot be used to determine detail as it is hyper-detailed and leads to a false sense of detail. The best test is a symphony orchestra. 

IMHE many people prefer systems that are on the bright side. This gives a false sense of detail. It also increases sibilance and makes cymbals sound tinny. 

How a system is performing requires either measurement or comparison with a known flat source such as headphones.  I prefer measurement. IMHO every audiophile should have a USB measurement microphone. 

If you want to hear a wonderfully detailed system look for ESLs driven by a powerful class A amplifier. 

Good analogy Audphile1! You just described the difference of most Samsung TV’ s( over saturated colors) vs the better Sony & LG’s. They have a blacker background & more realistic colors which can be very similar to a really good, natural sounding sound system vs a lesser one. This is often but not necessarily associated with cost either. I think we’ve all heard nice sounding, pretty high resolving systems for very reasonable $ but If you want a system to sound good & fill a big room w/ a big sound stage, deep tight bass & play loudly & dynamically, that costs a lot more. . 

@noromance, well said. You can tell the difference in minutes.

“Detailed” is what you hear in a live acoustic performance sitting six to ten feet away from the performer(s).

”Muffed,” or “smeared” is what you hear when you go into the venue’s bathroom.

Nothing to do with “bright” or “treble.”

Perhaps this may help?

Detail:  The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components. See "low-level detail." Compare "haze," "smearing," "veiling."

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary | Stereophile.com

I equate detail to clarity and separation. Brightness to an aspect of the tonal character. 

@audphile1 

Detailed, articulate, resolving, transparent and musical doesn’t have to be bright.

As you go up in quality of components, you generally get more transparency, more finesse. It’s important to balance the system with components that compliment each other. If you have a really high quality amplifier and speakers, that combination will reveal any shortcomings upstream and that includes brightness. Good components (and cables) usually take some time to acclimate to and to really start appreciating the sound quality. Refined and not in your face. Think of walking into a store where you see a bunch of TVs on display. The ones with colors and sharpness thru the roof is what immediately strikes you and at a first glance these units impress. Spend a bit more time and you begin to realize it isn’t natural and is actually fatiguing. Same with audio. Detailed, articulate, resolving, transparent and musical doesn’t have to be bright.

Brightness is perceived from higher amplitude high frequencies, or harmonic distortion. Detail is perceived from a greater level of resolution.

Well, you like what you like, and that's about all to be said.  Happy listening.

I don't know whay, but I enjoy a detailed presentation.  I lucked into a slew of vintage 6SN7 pairs and I was rolling them in the balanced input sockets of my preamp, and the ones that made the biggest positive impression on me were the ones that brought out the most detail.  But that could be just a thing with me.

I always thought of "bright" as kind of a harsh treble.  Maybe a treble that is too "sparkly."

To me, "hot" kind of means an up front/in your face presentation, and for some recordings it works well for me.  But that's something that a little bit will go too far in a hurry.  I wouldn't call my own system "hot," but I certainly own at least a few recordings that I consider to be "hot."

All the best,
Nonoise

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. 
 

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.

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.

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.