The bass is..... the place.

[RayDunzl]

OK, but a possible alternative:

Take a pristine perfect photograph and print it. 'Correct' it with a blue-ish tinge so that when printed and viewed in a yellowish room (yellow wallpaper on a sunny day), it reproduces the original colour balance.

View the two prints side by side in that yellowish room on a sunny day. Objectively, the 'corrected' print is better...

I agree.

...but in context it looks blue.

In fact, the original neutral print always looks more neutral in whatever light you view it, even if the 'corrected' version (possibly) shows more detail.

Now you lost me.

 

[Cosmik]

Now you lost me.

Well the point is that your eyes adjust their colour balance to the ambient lighting in the room. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if our ears adapt themselves to the acoustics of the room in a similar way. Change the 'colour temperature' of the source of the audio while 'viewing it illuminated by' the room (i.e. not headphones or nearfield listening), and I suggest that maybe it 'looks' wrong even if it seems to measure well in absolute terms.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

But that would be a hump in the frequency response that I am not expecting from the 'ambient' acoustics of the room, so I also see that as a problem. What I am tentatively suggesting is that if my speakers are neutral (and yes, how that is defined is contentious), then whatever the room does after that will sound 'natural'. That doesn't mean that all rooms will sound good, but that always aiming for a flat response at the listener's position by means of electronic EQ is not my automatic choice.

Accepted, but my suggestion is that as we are adding our own room's acoustics to the recording, attempting to eliminate our room at the bass frequencies using electronic EQ may lead to strange psycho-acoustic results, no matter how good the measurements look.

Offhand, I do not know how your ear/brain can distinguish "natural ambient" room-induced bass peaks and valleys from those introduced by non-linear equipment, like speakers. A peak is a peak, no matter the source. A hump is just a peak or a succession of close together peaks with a different Q, hence broader frequency coverage. I do not know how you can subconsciously and effortlessly tune out the room induced ones as sounding "natural", whereas you likely would find those caused by equipment as unacceptable.

Yes, you can get used to the sound of your room, as I said, so that you "expect" certain aberrations, even coming to prefer them. That makes it familiar and habitual, not natural. But, to me it is like walking down the road and you get a little stone in your shoe. Yes, you can get used to it and keep on walking, trying to pay little attention to it, though you always know it is there. Or, you can stop for a minute, bend over, remove your shoe and take the stone out. Ahh, that's better.

It might just be terminology, but lot of research has confirmed that "flat" measured response is not preferred in rooms. Smooth, non-peaky, downward sloping with increasing frequency measured response is preferred. But, we are focused on the bass here, and it happens that is where room-induced abberations are the worst, by far, due to the inescapable physics and acoustics of room modal variations below the transition frequency. Many just use EQ in the bass for that reason. And, it is often tunable to taste via target curve editing in most EQ tools, with easy, direct near-instantaneous switching on or off for critical listening comparisons.

I hear no strange psychoacoustic results from EQ in my room, and ditto for all others who have visited the room or my friends with EQ in their rooms. To me, that sounds more "natural", as in closer to the sound of live music. All the listening studies I have seen with properly done EQ confirm the same thing. But, it is certainly possible for audiophiles to screw up the EQ calibration, as more than a few have anecdotally, leading them to the conclusion that the EQ, not them, is to blame. And, of course, some EQ tools and techniques are better than others. Some older ones in AVRs, particularly, were not very good.

What I hear consistently with EQ in my system and in my friends' rooms is smooth, well integrated bass that is "quick" with no noticeable distortion, hangover or boominess and with excellent deep bass extension. But, you, of course are perfectly entitled to prefer whatever you like, as are we all. Your beliefs, rationalizations and justifications for your preference are unnecessary, and they are, of course, unfounded.

It is easy to exclaim, "I hear things I did not hear before" with peaky, non-linear bass behavior, as opposed to smooth, non-peaky bass. Yes, but it is not there in the recording when the playback system is not linear. It all depends on what you like.

 

[RayDunzl]

Well the point is that your eyes adjust their colour balance to the ambient lighting in the room. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if our ears adapt themselves to the acoustics of the room in a similar way. Change the 'colour temperature' of the source of the audio while 'viewing it illuminated by' the room (i.e. not headphones or nearfield listening), and I suggest that maybe it 'looks' wrong even if it seems to measure well in absolute terms.

I understand that idea.

Nevertheless, at the present time, I am pleased with the results obtained with a little automated DRC that attacks the bass problems that bothered me before.

What I hear consistently with EQ in my system and in my friends' rooms is smooth, well integrated bass that is "quick" with no noticeable distortion, hangover or boominess and with excellent deep bass extension.

Yeah, I agree with that assessment.

 

[Sal1950]

Example: Before... After...

Hey, I'm becoming a ASR modeling star.
Thanks Ray!

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Cue AJ to step in with 'gradient' bass

Well, preferences differ, not everyone wants bass free of "artifacts" and 99% audiophiles have a complete blank look at the mention of "gradient" or even "cardioid" bass....
Though it appears some can hear it http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=general&m=617847&VT=T
IMO, everything must be "in the place", bass with articulate pitch, definition and depth (<20hz), to HF "air"...and everything in between.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Who here thinks that the reproduction of the bass notes in their room is 'perfect' and are totally satisfied with the results. If so, what are you using--- a subwoofer, or a speaker with large drivers and a large enclosure? or maybe both. Your room size and construction?

I'm totally satisfied with the bass response (and lack of ringing) in my 25x16 foot living room, but it's not perfect. No room has perfect bass. Even anechoic chambers which you'd think would be perfect are not, because they're perfectly anechoic down to only 100 Hz or sometimes 80 Hz.

Bass is indeed the final frontier because it's the most difficult to reproduce for speakers, and the most difficult to tame for room problems.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I don't think I can hear a tone below 25-26Hz, although I haven't tried real hard.

I didn't think I could either until I bought a killer SVS subwoofer. When I played loud sine waves through my previous Sunfire sub I couldn't hear below 23 Hz. I assumed it was me, but when I got the SVS and did it again I could hear down to 16 Hz. My friend Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss has a system that plays down to 8 Hz, and I can hear that when he has it putting out 130 dB. I seem to remember reading that there's no real LF cutoff for hearing, that it just needs to be loud enough to hear it as a tone.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I didn't think I could either until I bought a killer SVS subwoofer. When I played loud sine waves through my previous Sunfire sub I couldn't hear below 23 Hz. I assumed it was me, but when I got the SVS and did it again I could hear down to 16 Hz. My friend Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss has a system that plays down to 8 Hz, and I can hear that when he has it putting out 130 dB. I seem to remember reading that there's no real LF cutoff for hearing, that it just needs to be loud enough to hear it as a tone.

Eh? what? Did you say something?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

It is slowly dawning on me that proper bass reproduction is where the realism is. We, audiophiles externalize and internalize and debate and bitch and moans about the minutiae of Audio reproduction. Some love mids and some love treble.. Correct and believable music reproduction begins with the proper foundation: Bass.
I have gone through many of the panoply of audiophile affectation, I think. I was a midrange first person and purchased a Quad ESL63 Cosby modified. Well, it did a few things well but correct , realistic levels (anywhere ) and bass were not part of this equation. THe speaker could not play bass period... at least no realistic bass.. then I went ML CLS .. same thing, it played the mid well and some of the treble was peaky and the speaker could be screechy too often ... Of course I was an audiophile and accepted the screech, moving toward dull sounding tube amp for "synergy" since matching amps and speakers is part and parcel of what we like but darn .. that complete absence of bass in music was wearing thin... No way to pound my hearing into submission with Metallica ..small ensemble and feminine voice were OK, .. Male voice never sounded right to me on the CLS ...
Got then Maggie SMG or was it the SMA?.. better .. music....better bass.. then moved up to a lot more and got a MG 3.5 then 3.6 then 20.1 ... bass kept improving but I never was entirely satisfied with the bass , I had in mind and posted about the beautiful midbass of the Duntech Sovereign and subsequent Dunleavy speakers .. Still something was amiss in the bass for me .. Then I read and built for a friend an IB sub.. People these can go as low as it gets and because of their ridiculous output can be EQ'd to great success ..but still something was amiss. Then I read about multi-subs... dismissed it as an HT thing.. then read about Dr Earl Geddes research on Muti-Subs .. Conversed a bit with the man and tried Multisubs ... For me, Game over! Multiple subs is where the action is ... and this is where I am speculating based on the works of those giants: Todd Welti, Alan Devantier, Floyd TOole , Sean Olive and Earl Geddes, there may be others I either don't know about or forgot. It seems to me that for the best possible the bass response needs to be smooth across the room; at least as many places in the room as possible, ideally at every point within the listening space. We seem to listen to much more than what reach a microphone membrane at a given point in space. We hear the bass from the room, not from the speakers. I am currently experimenting with some Sunfire Subs nothing special, those small cubes .. Yet the quality of bass I am getting has me wondering what in the world is going on.. Not optimal yet... Far from it, yet superior to bass I have heard from friends with system with great bass response and/or with serious subs in audiophile configuration, that is subs in pairs flanking the main speakers. I get down to low 20's easy at 95 dB in a 20 x 15 x 10 concrete room with only drapes and furniture as treatment. I am slowly learning REW and will post when I get a better handle of it, my measurements ... Not satisfied but the point I am trying to make is that Room treatments in the bass are not evident. They have to be big and do not solve most of the issues... Mutisubs OTOH seem to present the listener with a level and quality of bass that belies the subwoofers involved. Suddenly it seems that the system has gotten better... mid are better perceived and so is treble. Smooth and extended bass seem to result in more accurate everything else...
So yes! Bass is the Place but the road to get there is not the Orthodox Audiophile way. It requires much more than positioning speakers and changing PC, IC and components. It requires time , efforts and measurements and for most rooms, multiple subs.

P.S. Must say that my 5 years listening to mostly headphones have been very educative. The best headphones (Hifiman, Audeze, Stax) will tell you what is wrong with your bass reproduction.. They eliminate the room but this bass doesn't energize your body only your hear and it never sounds realistic but from listening to headphones and a lot, I have a clear idea of how clean bass sounds. Most audiophiles should try headphones to clean out their system sound... An education, I must say.

 

[fas42]

Interesting journey, Frantz ... as I've mentioned many times getting the really low bass frequencies "right" has never been an issue for me - mainly because getting everything above those frequencies working properly is where the action is, IME. When the system is in the zone, bass guitar, double bass, big pipe organ, all those instruments which produce genuine bass notes, rather than general room rumbling, come across extremely well.

In 30 years of listening I have never heard a system do bass, using mega drivers, that makes me say, Wow!! Plenty of them sound rather silly, a somewhat more refined version of the kids' mobile bass bins; that is, nothing like the real thing.

Bass sounding right IS because mids and treble are working right - not the other way round ....

 

[Sal1950]

Must say that my 5 years listening to mostly headphones have been very educative. The best headphones (Hifiman, Audeze, Stax) will tell you what is wrong with your bass reproduction.. They eliminate the room but this bass doesn't energize your body only your hear and it never sounds realistic but from listening to headphones and a lot, I have a clear idea of how clean bass sounds. Most audiophiles should try headphones to clean out their system sound... An education, I must say.

Very similar paths over the years ending here. Now running 2 Hsu subs and have worked on positioning and crossover tuning. Lots of changes coming sometime in the future including digital room tuning I think.
I've learned a lot from my headphone listening as you, using them as diagnostic tools but just never gotten into using them for long term listening for enjoyment. Along with the missing visceral impact they just don't satisfy in the same was a speaker listening. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my ways.

 

[fas42]

Along with the missing visceral impact they just don't satisfy in the same was a speaker listening. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my ways.

Doubt it. Tried the headphone thing myself a couple of times, once with loaned, premium Sennheisers for a while, and it's not in the same class as decent speaker playback, as an experience.

 

[NorthSky]

I didn't think I could either until I bought a killer SVS subwoofer. When I played loud sine waves through my previous Sunfire sub I couldn't hear below 23 Hz. I assumed it was me, but when I got the SVS and did it again I could hear down to 16 Hz. My friend Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss has a system that plays down to 8 Hz, and I can hear that when he has it putting out 130 dB. I seem to remember reading that there's no real LF cutoff for hearing, that it just needs to be loud enough to hear it as a tone.

Hi Ethan,

I did google around, to see what is the lowest frequency that a human person can hear. I looks like that we can hear down to 12Hz (15Hz, and 8Hz).
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range

Tests (A): http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php
(B) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...R-hearing-Video-reveals-frequencies-hear.html

• http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

Bonus: http://www.dspguide.com/ch22/1.htm
______

I have no clue how low I can hear because I don't have "the bass is the place" (subwoofers that can play down below around 25Hz).
Higher; last time I checked...12kHz...that's it. So, everything I listen to @ home is roughly from 24Hz to 12kHz.
I need more capable subs...my ears can take that direction...I just have to watch for my heart.
And if I want a new pair of loudspeakers, no need to buy a pair that can play above say 15kHz.
For subs; 15Hz yes...that would be "the bass is the place".

 

[Cosmik]

I think the bass is crucial also - it is an essential part of the recorded sound. It seems strange to me that audiophiles tag the bass on as an afterthought, and put up with vented speakers and other anomalies that mean that the bass behaves differently from the rest of the spectrum. If the bass isn't in perfect lock step with everything else, you would think that it would detract from the 'cohesiveness' of the sound. For me, it has to be sealed bass with big drivers and DSP crossovers with timing correction - in other words, attempting to make a multi-way speaker behave as close to being a single driver as possible.

 

[fas42]

For me, it has to be sealed bass with big drivers and DSP crossovers with timing correction - in other words, attempting to make a multi-way speaker behave as close to being a single driver as possible.

I would agree. For me what was particularly enlightening a year or so ago was hearing a system made up in that very fashion - dual sealed bass boxes, immensely heavy through having double skin construction with sand filled cavity, driven via DEQX correction - a frequency sweep indicated very clean reproduction of the lowest frequencies.

Yet, with a couple of test CDs of mine, pipe organ and ZZ Top, the intensity and "power" wasn't there - I was disappointed. In some other recordings the benefit of having those very deepest frequencies coming through was clearly audible, but for the vast majority of tracks there wasn't anything in it.

 

[Don Hills]

... Yet, with a couple of test CDs of mine, pipe organ and ZZ Top, the intensity and "power" wasn't there - I was disappointed. In some other recordings the benefit of having those very deepest frequencies coming through was clearly audible, but for the vast majority of tracks there wasn't anything in it.

That's because in many cases there really isn't any. (Bass below 40 Hz in the track.)

 

[AJ Soundfield]

That's because in many cases there really isn't any. (Bass below 40 Hz in the track.)

That may be true, but I wonder whether that commonly held belief is via spectral analysis or "ear".
I use Foobar with the spectrum analyzer always active and am often surprised by what I see in terms of bandwidth.

 

[TBone]

That's because in many cases there really isn't any. (Bass below 40 Hz in the track.)

Exactly, during the process of ripping my CD collection; near every one was chopped below 50hz ...

 

[TBone]

And lets not forget the trending of adding more & more compression to the mix over the years, providing the illusion of "punchier" bass. Many audiophiles seem to prefer that; me not so much ...