How much Boom Boom do you like in your bass?

I am curious whether folks here know what real bass sounds like. It’s easier with the midrange – we have a reference for a voice. We know what strings sound like. But how well do we know what “correct” bass sounds like?

I temporarily moved my system from a dedicated small bedroom to a very large living room, which has many windows (bass traps) and large openings to other rooms in most corners. (I threw my mondo traps in the other corners and a bunch of insulation in the corners also.) The speakers are far away from all surfaces, about 12 feet from each wall.

The sound is way different – better by FAR in most ways. The system sounds more open and transparent. As I am very busy and lazy, I do not have the time to measure now or tweak. However, trusting my ears, one thing that is DEFINITELY better is the bass. It does not sound as boomy as it does in the small room, which is no surprise. But some boomy-ness remains. Is it the room or Vantage’s woofer?

So here’s a dilemma for audiophiles: even if we get the best speakers paired with state of the art electronics, most of us do not have a reference room. We have no idea what our system really should sound like in an ideal setting. Listening to our system for a while we get used to the sound, and we believe it is correct or to our liking, at least until the next upgrade.

I think this is especially true for the bass. However, incorrect bass may mask other frequencies, especially the midrange. Maybe this is a poor analogy, but people use tubes, (as I do in my preamp) to “make more things more natural, add, color, and enhance” the sound. Extending this analogy to the bass, by playing with different rooms and different levels of treatments, are we willing to find out what the best bass our system can reproduce should sound like? And will we like it? Or are we happy to have that “incorrect” boomy bass that we have learned to like?

Probably not an issue for (non CLX) ML owners since most live with crappy bass, but how many audiophiles would not buy speakers with incorrect bass? How many people buy Wilson because of the exaggerated bass?

How many more customers would ML have if they got the bass right?

I'm not sure if there is a correct level of bass. I think it is basically just what you like.

I see a lot of live music both acoustic type music and also amplified blues bands etc. Often the latter sound better with a great deal of bass but you definately wouldn't want too much bass with the former. There is some music I like live but wouldn't want to hear at home and other music (generally acoustic) for which I do buy the CDs and listen to at home. What I am saying is that the level of bass that you want at home may not equate to the amount of bass you get at the live event. I think the latter would cause listener fatigue.

I certainly want realism in terms of soundstage, dynamics etc. but not in terms of bass. In any case the level of bass at the live event is determined by the sound engineer who in a lost of cases if probably a bit deaf

For me, it depends on what I'm listening to. My system serves for both music and as a 7.2 home theater system (see my system link). With the HT, the subs are really important and in general the more 'boom boom' the better. With music, however, I move to 2-channel and don't even engage the subwoofers. I don't particularly like the subs putting in too much, as I feel it overpowers the sound. Since my Summits each have a couple of subs, I'm quite happy with what they produce.

Boom? No...

Definition, punch, extension, speed, agility, weight - yes!

Best thing for good bass is a solid concrete floor. Suspended floors make a mess of it.

Best way to know what a bass guitar sounds like is to own one, I guess, which I do...

Bass is a very important part of the music spectrum, and one of the hardest to get right.

You correctly identify the room as one of the primary reasons for either good or poor bass performance.

Note that one can have poor bass performance and still have tons of bass, but it’s one-note, peaky and often with waaay to long a decay.

The smaller the room, the more likely room modes impinge on decay and in producing very peaky responses.

Even rooms designed for ‘ideal’ dimension ratios (like I did with my HT), will still have plenty of issues in the bass.

Therefore, to get ‘good’ bass, I believe one needs:

• A well sized (>3,000 cubic feet) room with reasonable ratios
• A well treated room (I have >45 devices and have spent >$15K on acoustic treatments)
• High performance subwoofer, correctly located and with low distortion (1% at 105dB @ 25hz)
• Top notch crossover with overall system time delay and phase compensation
• Time-domain and frequency domain room correction (e.g. Audyssey)

I believe it’s next to impossible to get good bass from just a 2 speaker setup, as there are usually too many compromises in design and placement to create the ideal blend. That said, there are some superb speakers out there, but they cost an arm and a leg and are huge.

For most of the ML line, I believe people will achieve much better bass performance with a well-integrated sub.

As for why bass sounds so different in various rooms, and why physical acoustic treatments for these frequencies are key, you have to think about bass not just as a sound frequency at a point in time, but it’s actual ‘wave’ like behavior in a small room, where energizing a room mode with an initial broadband tone of 75dB SPL actually result in an 80 dB SPL tone in the room at certain frequencies as modes start to accrue at various frequencies at 100ms after the initial tone burst, then the whole thing looks like a mountain range as it decays over the next 500ms. That’s over half a second worth of room-induced reverberation and resonance.

Here’s a waterfall chart of an untreated room:



And here is the treated room (still no EQ):



And here’s a good thread on the topic of how to interpret room modes in these plots:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...how-do-room-modes-show-up-waterfall-plot.html

Hello,
Interesting. Last week, my Paradigm Servo 15 V.2 died leaving me without a subwoofer for the time being. My theater system consists of Vantages, Stage, and either Vistas or Montages (Swap these out for my Bedroom system. Currently, I am using the Montages.

To my utter and complete surprise, my system sounds great even without the Servo 15. I had no idea the Vantages were capable of so much bass. As in my room honestly shakes. I can only imagine how good Summits and Spires must sound in the bass department. In fact, my system sounds cleaner without the subwoofer.

I realize I am missing the lower octaves and I am either going to repair my Servo 15 or purchase a Descent or Depth. But, even without a sub my system sounds quite good.
Cheers,
ML

I use my sub only for Home Theater. For two-channel listening, I prefer the Summits alone. They go plenty deep, and have a smooth (enough) response in my large room, via both listening and measurements. It wasn't until I got the XTZ Room Analyzer that I realized how artificially high I had been cranking up the bass, which actually had deleterious effect on the midrange. Jim Smiths Get Better Sound has a very nice discussion about stereo system bass and subs. I agree with him that stereo subs (a la the Summit woofers) sound better than a single outboard sub. However, for true LFE in Home Theater, you really need a separate sub (or two).

Hello,
I definitely agree that a subwoofer is essential for home theater. I am just shocked at how good my system sounds currently without one. If my subwoofer cannot be fixed, I am going to purchase a new one ASAP. In the meantime, it sounds pretty good considering.
Cheers,
ML

Gentlemen, thanks for responding.

I agree with the room treatments wholeheartedly. However, if you take the Summit, the Spire, and the CLX, the bass will sound completely different in the same room. Summit X and Spire are almost identical except for the number of woofers. Which is correct?

Also, I wonder how JonFo's plots would look like for these 3 speakers in his room.

Are the woofers ML uses in the Summit, Spire, Vantage, etc., of top quality? To be honest, although my bass is MUCH better in the bigger room, it's still very disappointing when compared to the CLX, SoundLab or JansZen.

It still seems to me that because we do not have as good a reference for the bass as we do for the midrange, there is such variability in the bass from speaker to speaker for a manufacturer and from speaker brand to speaker brand.

I suggest going to hear some unamplified players on an upright bass...
A good reference!

David Matz said:

How many more customers would ML have if they got the bass right?

Click to expand...

if who got it right martin logan or us ? I am not really sure what point you are trying to get at hear?

Hi David,

Regarding ML getting the bass "right", I like Fish, don't really understand your point.

Having owned the Aerius, the CLS2A's, the SL3's, and now the Summit, all of them did / do bass quite well. I must say I am not a big fan of a prominent bass from a 2 channel audio perspective. Too much bass can and does cause significant degradation of speed, clarity, and transparency in the mid range and highs.

In addition, most recordings don't really have much bass response below 40hz or so.

From an adjustment standpoint, the Summits are the easiest to "dial in" with the volume crossover controls.

I believe the key to getting the best bass response of ML's is vibration attenuation and panel rake angle. Once optimized and assuming everthing else is set up correctly, one should be more than satisfied with the ML bass response.

And, as Jeff said, go hear an acoustic (double) bass in a live environment. That will give you a good reference to use as a standard.

GG

David Matz said:

Gentlemen, thanks for responding.

I agree with the room treatments wholeheartedly. However, if you take the Summit, the Spire, and the CLX, the bass will sound completely different in the same room. Summit X and Spire are almost identical except for the number of woofers. Which is correct?

Also, I wonder how JonFo's plots would look like for these 3 speakers in his room.

Are the woofers ML uses in the Summit, Spire, Vantage, etc., of top quality? To be honest, although my bass is MUCH better in the bigger room, it's still very disappointing when compared to the CLX, SoundLab or JansZen.

It still seems to me that because we do not have as good a reference for the bass as we do for the midrange, there is such variability in the bass from speaker to speaker for a manufacturer and from speaker brand to speaker brand.

Click to expand...

David, the biggest variability is still the room.

But to the comparison you mentioned between three speakers in the same room, I'd say the plots would largely look the same except that the Summit could go deeper (and therefore energize certain modes more) and the Spire goes a bit lower than the CLX. But otherwise the under 120hz might look very similar.

The CLX would not have the low end room modes (like that 20hz mode) as it can't energize the room at those frequencies.
However, it would do much better in the mid-bass (120-400hz) than the spire or the Summit, as the larger mid / high panel and the DualForce bass panels can push a lot more air there.

So I'd predict the CLX would sound the 'tightest' with really clear definition of Double-Bass down to 60hz. Primarily on it's strength in the mid bass and a pretty clean output into the upper bass region.
But add a good Sub (and integrate it well) and it would be a pretty amazing combo.

tonepub said:

I suggest going to hear some unamplified players on an upright bass...
A good reference!

Click to expand...

A great suggestion.

One of my standard demo discs is the Jacques Lousier Trio "Best of play Bach" on Telarc Multichannel SACD.

The double bass and drum kit on that disc is superbly recorded (as is the piano).

When played back on my system now, it's quite realistic. With very 'tight' bass thanks to the well treated room and room correction, one gets to hear every note in the bass region.

No single person who's heard that disc has failed to make several comments on how they've never heard a setup sound so 'real' in the bass.

Gordon Gray said:

Hi David,

Regarding ML getting the bass "right", I like Fish, don't really understand your point.

Having owned the Aerius, the CLS2A's, the SL3's, and now the Summit, all of them did / do bass quite well. I must say I am not a big fan of a prominent bass from a 2 channel audio perspective. Too much bass can and does cause significant degradation of speed, clarity, and transparency in the mid range and highs.

In addition, most recordings don't really have much bass response below 40hz or so. ...
GG

Click to expand...

Gordon,

The bass on CLS was pretty much non-existent below 60hz or so (at decent volume levels), due to both panel excursion limits and dipole cancellation. But like the CLX, give amazing mid-bass performance. So it can reproduce the 'tightness' of an acoustic double bass fairly well. But the low-end would be missing.

As for an SL3, I measured and played around with mine a good bit before I cut it up for the Center channel duties. And IMHO, it's bass performance and bass to panel integration was not as great as it could be,
Not bad, but not up to the standards of what the ESL panel can do.

My approach of using a Line-array of high quality mid-bass drivers paralleling the panel (as I did in the SL3XC) yields the kind of mid-bass and bass that is a much better match to the ESL both in terms of projection (as a line-source) and in power-curve (it does not compress or distort at high SPL).

So I feel that most of the middle of the range ML's are a bit deficient in the bass and mid-bass. But considering the inevitable compromises involved in speaker design, they are not bad at all. One can do a lot worse with the same expense.

This is why I believe a good sub, well integrated, can relieve these speakers from the low bass (20 - 60hz) and allow them to perform their best in the mid-bass.

Oh, and you'd be surprised at how much infrasonic bass there is on many recordings, including classical.
It imparts a sense of 'space' and 'being there' that when filtered out or removed (by turning off the sub), that I'd never want to be without it.
Not that it ruins the music to not have it there, but it is just a more 'limited' view.

Boom vs Bass

As some have noted, it is way too common to find people with subs in their system where the sub to main speaker balance is totally skewed.

This is definitely one area where ‘trust your ears’ is rarely good advice, as we tend to want a bit too much bass on first encounter with a sub.

In my experience, I’ve only found one; yes one, audiophile with a sub that was not set too hot. Every other system, the sub was +6 to +10dB too hot relative to the mains.
This not only exaggerates the low end, in most of those cases, the rooms were untreated, and the ‘boom’ of room modes pretty horrid.

So the number one thing people should check is that they have their system well balanced. And beware of just going by the RatShack SPL meter, as it’s notably inaccurate in the bass, and the type of tones used to test also affect setup. Look for articles on sub setup. Plenty out there.

Also, for some reason, it’s become popular to associate ‘boom’ with good bass. It isn’t, it’s usually over-energized rooms, with looong decay times that totally obscure the actual musical information in the lower registers.

Unfortunately, even recording engineers assume people run the bass cranked and that there will be ‘boom’ in the room. So some modern recordings sound a bit ‘flat’ in my rig due to that (but I can compensate with EQ).

I guarantee few of you have actually heard a well integrated sub and main system in a home setting. It takes a lot of effort to get that right.

Also, HT vs 2ch is not an either or thing. One can design a great performing multichannel system and still have astounding 2ch performance.
I enjoy multichannel audio, but it took a dedicated room, and all the effort I outlined in prior posts to achieve that. That same effort results in a pretty amazing 2ch result as well.
And my 2ch uses the sub at all times, as that foundation is really important to instruments like solo piano. For instance the Zenph Glen Gould SACD is totally different experience with the sub shut off or filtered.

But 2ch pales next to multichannel in terms of immersion and soundstage on well recorded discs.

Now this is getting very interesting for me! One of the main reasons I started this journey was to study acoustic bass lines that I couldn't really hear with my old Big Box stereo systems. I'm getting closer all the time with the help from this forum.

One of the things I've learned is just how different the tone of, for example, Ray Brown is from Major Holly is from Scott LaFaro to Willie Dixon, etc.

My parallel journey of teaching myself how to play upright bass includes how to get the best tone from my bass. I practice in the same treated room as my stereo and I play live often.

The acoustic bass has been my starting point and the main focus in the way I put my stereo system together.

Satch

tonepub said:

I suggest going to hear some unamplified players on an upright bass...
A good reference!

Click to expand...

Jeff,

Actually hearing the upright bass at the Dave Brubeck show a few weeks ago prompted this thread. When I play my SACD's the bass does not follow the music.

FISH_MAN said:

if who got it right martin logan or us ? I am not really sure what point you are trying to get at hear?

Click to expand...

Fish and Gordon,

I think it's a universal fact that hybrid electrostats can't integrate the bass well. I have not heard one that does it well until I heard the JansZen. Every few years when ML updates their models, the selling point is - guess what: better panel / woofer integration. I am very familiar with the SL3, owned the Ascent, and own the Vantage (which by the way is the best $5-6K speaker in the world IMO). The pattern of improvement in that one area has been constant. Look 10 years ahead, and take a guess what the selling point of the future models will be....

Also, I am not arguing for more bass. I think most people have too much bass and think it's correct or good because they feel that boom boom. I am curious as to what speaker gets the bass right.

I think we all agree that people who do not treat their rooms really have no clue how good their systems can sound. (Which is thousands of martin logan customers, by the way.) However, take a nearly perfect room- say JonFo's for example. Let's put the Spire, Summit, and CLX in there. They will all pretty much sound similar in the midrange, but sound different in the bass. Which will be correct?

Finally, if you guys are enjoying your speakers' bass it's great. For me it's a weakness. A short story can help illustrate my point: My wife was a biology major. She spent many hours looking at the microscope in college. When we got engaged and went diamond shopping, the jeweler told her she had an "expensive eye". I ended spending double on the ring. In audio, I think I have an "expensive ear" in that the bass just does not sound quite right to me. I agree that the room is a big factor. I believe that woofer / panel integration and the woofer of the Vantage may be big contributors also.

David:

I think you are definitely on to something in what you've noticed with the diff in sound on the upright bass.

While I agree with you on the merits of the Vantage, that last 10hz or so of the bass is really tough to get right and you aren't going to get it with anyone's five thousand dollar speaker.

I also agree that a lot of it is the room. Unless you have a really big room, it's tough to get bass and spatial cues to sound correct.

A lot of people can make bass, few can do it accurately. Unfortunately, that last 10-15hz of bass is where you will probably spend an incredible amount of money chasing, with room, room treatments and subwoofers.

I say be as happy as you can be with what you have or get ready to spend a lot of time and $$.