Ah, the cumbersome line that separates the perception of an over abundance of treble and perception of accurate rendition of real world forwardness and 'grit'. It's a delicate line - one that's full of many variables, the foremost being personal perspective.
Unfortunately, I don't have any definitive answers to help anyone out here. Who does?
However, what I do have is my own experiences to fall back on. For the purpose of this thread, I will focus on the Totem Acoustic Sttaf and the Martin Logan Vantage. Despite the big price gap between the two, both products are great performers and bring unique qualities to the table in their respective price class. Good though as they are, both share a number of differences with one another, the most obvious of which is the way they reproduce highs. Let's start with the Vantages:
The ML Vantage's sport great detail and produce what I consider to be polite and laid back treble presentation. What's so great about this combination is that you get tons of detail off of a recording without the negative sensation of being bombarded by an excess of treble. Perhaps the most important benefit you get from this type of presentation is that it enables you to enjoy music that you've otherwise had to set aside due to other high end loudspeakers rendering them darn near un-listenable. That's a good thing right? Well, I think so. But does that make it realistic and natural? To these ears - no.
The Totem's by contrast are a bit more energetic in the top end. You could even say they are a tad tilted upwards in that regard. Although they do not project sound in an aggressive manner ala a horn or point-source loudspeaker, what they do give you its the grit, bite, and texture that you hear from an instrument in the real world. The truth is that live music is often aggressive and gritty, and the Totem's capture these effects with a far greater sense of honesty than the Vantage's. The upside is that great recordings (and particularly instrumentals) can sound delightful. The downside is that a lot of poorly recorded material will be rendered for what it is, and sometimes, 'what it is' can be downright brutal. Some would call them accurate, others may call them bright. My ears lean towards the former. Does that make them the better speaker (with regards to treble at least)? No. It doesn't. It simply makes them different.
As always, it's a situation of yin and yang. I've found other products that bridge the gap between the Sttaf and the Vantage, but they too had shortcomings and/or qualities to them in critical areas I personally could not live with.
Some audiophile's believe it's all about linearity and accuracy, while others believe its all about an enjoyable (albeit colored) presentation. I've yet to find something that suits my own tastes in all regards, so for now, I will simply have to settle for living with both speakers. At the end of the day, I feel blessed that my life is good enough to where I can concern myself over things like this!
