Do most people prefer tight bass or non tight bass?

Eh, kind of the unspoken aspect or requirement, but agreed. If we are to go there, then please allow me to add "Full range". 

Tom

As @noromance eluded to in the first post...."accurate".

I've always disliked the audiophile adjective "tight" when referring to explaning bass.

I'd add "natural", "organic", "well defined".

The tighter the better with many things including bass. 

@ghdprentice 

+1 

‘“non-tight bass” audio performance subwoofers are responsible for many people disliking them in 2-channel audio, car audio, and home theatre if it  calls attention to the system and is the cause of the dissatisfaction problems.

In two-channel audio systems, poor choice subwoofers have fully earned a bad reputation. They usually suck when it’s boomy, muddy, and out of control with an obnoxious bass overhang that lingers so long as to blur most of the musical information up until the next bass note is struck.

We all know outright irritating subwoofer experiences, whether it’s from

(a) a nearby car thumping so loud that it appears to be bouncing up off the road,, or,

b) a home theatre system with such overblown (ergo, anything-but “tight” ); bass that causes you to start feeling nauseous part way through the movie

It is fair, I think, to say that our wallets dictate the composition of our systems.

Tight as a knat's posterior. Any boom, timing issues, slop, overponderance or slowness is unacceptable. 

Tom

Yes, of course they do.

It is fair, I think, to say that our listening habits and musical tastes dictate the composition of our systems.

Yes, it is!

I suppose digital instruments reproduce some things correctly, but when they’re trying to reproduce the sound of an acoustic instruments. Well, they do a good job. Just not the whole enchilada

By that, I mean "as well as analogue." When I hear a french horn on vinyl, I know instantly it is a French horn. When I hear it on some digital recordings, I can hear that the tonal quality is not the same. I can’t say that I hear that on vinyl. At least, not the records of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s.

When I listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtsTT-vJ9M4&list=FL8xpTP3iFfuJnnEXYYR5UGQ&index=3

I hear the brass, and  they are recognizably the instruments I hear in the hall. The performance appears to have been VERY well captured, and the tonal qualities of instruments are there. When I hear this piece through digital (usually, a CD player), the tonal richness is less "there." It still sounds good, but it is not quite all the way "there."  (I’m talking about this performance AND on other recordings.)

And I haven’t found digital - in the past  - to be fully likelike enough, that it is indistinguishable from the actual instrument in life. Many, many people who do not listen to classical, opera, jazz or blues will never miss this. But it is on  some  recordings, whether they "care" or not. And if it is there, I want to hear it reproduced accurately (aka: LIVE).

I don’t mind people who say, "Well, I don’t care about that." That’s their right; it’s their preference. But when people then say, that $20K CD player is no better than my $1000 CD player, and start bashing others (with better systems than them, usually!), I wonder: what kind of music do they listen to?

Because it’s patently untrue that a cheap dac will usually match one of the "giants." I’ve owned excellent,  VERY top-of-the-line digital DACs, and they sounded....Excellent. As in: precise. Great Bass. Great Treble. Great midrange. But it did not always come together as a musical experience. Unless, of course, one doesn’t have a lot of experience with the real thing, and then it’s easy to think that you’re getting "everything." And again, someone whose diet is pop and rock is not going to hear  what the best dacs do. There is not a lot of harmonic information in the typical modern recording. It’s mostly fundamentals. So, for those who don’t care, that’s fine.

And your point is very valid.  

@gbmcleod 

I don’t disagree with your post, mind you; just to play devil’s advocate though, I’ll say that digital instruments allow us to hear sounds and orchestrations we’ve never heard before. I’d say that’s a good thing, and I respect the opinions of those who think otherwise.

I listen to a lot of electronic / digitally produced music. One day, it struck me that the music to which I was listening had never vibrated air until my speakers reproduced it. Think about that! Pretty interesting, isn’t it? 

Actually, this is a very cool bass track that "stacks" an acoustic bass on an electric bass.

https://youtu.be/oG6fayQBm9w

The first consideration must be : What is the SOURCE of the bass ?  Bass is not generic --- it is specific.  Is the source instrument bowed, plucked, blown or struck to produce the bass in question ?  The "leading edge" of the sound predicates the instrument that produces it.  A bowed doublebass has no "slam".  A tuba cannot sustain a note as long as a bowed doublebass can unless the tuba player uses a technique called "circular breathing".  A percussive or struck bass will decay rapidly whereas a blown or bowed bass can be sustained at the will of the player.  Once the source is determined, then a correct assessment of bass can be made.

Of course, with the advent of electronically produced bass, all bets are off since bass guitar can be sent directly into the recording console without the benefit of any acoustical environment to "tailor" the sound.  "FutureMan", the bass player with "Bela Fleck and The Flecktones" added octaves below what one would expect with his ground shaking "Drumitar" instrument that he invented.  So, in regards to electronic bass, your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

Great response. Thank you for this.

I don’t think most modern audiophiles listen to classical or jazz music a lot, so acoustic instruments are not something they seem to know well. If I go by what I hear on YouTube, acoustic instruments are practically non-existent on most pop songs.

By contrast, if this was 1982, it would still be mostly acoustic 🎸(and analogue). I can’t fathom not hearing all the beautiful instruments that exist. And it’s ironic: we’ve arrived in the ’Digital Age’  where everything is available, but we use fewer instruments to make music than we ever have and most of that is electronic instruments. Which is wildly ironic, since High End designers were trying to make their component reproduce all the colors of an orchestra playing acoustic instruments, only to have so much music reduced, 20 years later in pop music, to a diet composed (almost completely) of drums, guitar, synthesizer for the most part. The odd instrument is thrown in, but mostly, the tonal palette in pop music is pretty "gray"-sounding.

Battered

What kind of music do you listen to? If you have a lot of classical music, you want bass that delivers harmonics in the cello and double bass section. (less tight, but more harmonically accurate).

If you listen to pop or rock, then more concussive bass might serve your music well.

I like the bass my Rythmik F12G produces for me with its paper cone, servo control, and multitude of adjustment possibilities - in particular its three damping adjustments (high/medium/low) that work for ALL music genres .  For the jazz/blues/classic rock music I most listen to, high damping is king.  It gives me the tightest, most articulate bass possible.  An incredibly fast, resolving subwoofer (no affiliation w/the brand, just a fan).

In a word (or words) I'm partial to tight bass, which seems to me to dovetail with the term "articulate".  I don't know if you can get one w/out the other.  Or......they're simply synonymous audiophile terms.  Can bass be "articulate"...but not "tight"?  

You decide. 

I like it Velvety and Nuanced with feeling.

Quote - Bass intensity and detail are more accurate.

I want the bass to represent the fundamental tone of an instrument and voice.  Bass frequencies range from 20 to 250 Hz with sub-bass from 20 to 60 Hz generally.  For 60 to 250 Hz is should be detailed and represent the recorded sounds, hopefully correct and balanced with the upper frequency spectrum.  As to sub-bass, there’s detail and bloat.  Depends on the taste of the listener which is preferable.  I prefer detail without bloat, intense as the recording dictates (a mastering decision).  I guess I’m spoiled as I have tunable sub-bass with my Von Schweikert VR9 SE Mk2, easy to place speakers (just adjust for the upper frequencies) with very wide dispersion,, tight/fast and very deep bass (15" Rel powered sub built-in).  My other speaker also has deep and tight/punchy bass, the Legacy Signature III with 3 10" woofers.  I sold my Legacy Focus speakers as it had 3 12" woofers with very deep and sloppy/slow bass relatively speaking.

Good point, if it is depth charges then not as tight is ok. 

The first consideration must be : What is the SOURCE of the bass ?  Bass is not generic --- it is specific.  Is the source instrument bowed, plucked, blown or struck to produce the bass in question ?  The "leading edge" of the sound predicates the instrument that produces it.  A bowed doublebass has no "slam".  A tuba cannot sustain a note as long as a bowed doublebass can unless the tuba player uses a technique called "circular breathing".  A percussive or struck bass will decay rapidly whereas a blown or bowed bass can be sustained at the will of the player.  Once the source is determined, then a correct assessment of bass can be made.

Of course, with the advent of electronically produced bass, all bets are off since bass guitar can be sent directly into the recording console without the benefit of any acoustical environment to "tailor" the sound.  "FutureMan", the bass player with "Bela Fleck and The Flecktones" added octaves below what one would expect with his ground shaking "Drumitar" instrument that he invented.  So, in regards to electronic bass, your guess is as good as mine.

Put me down for "accurate bass" !

Lots of great answers but bass response should reflect what the music or the movie requires. It should not in any way shape or form distort the original intent of the artist. But each listener has different expectations and the ultimate test depends on so many different factors that can never be quantified in a single answer

Tight for me.  Tight means accurate when I listen

Bass is not tight. If so it would be treble.

I would not frame the issue in those terms. Bass intensity and detail are more accurate. Does your subwoofer dovetail with your speakers' woofers? Do drums and stringed bass instruments sound the way they would in live  small venue music?  Or do your subwoofers hit like a crude but satisfying blunt instruments so you enjoy yourself too much to care about the inaccuracy? 

I like my Bass pan fried in butter.  Light sprinkle of salt & pepper.  Isn't English a fun language.  

My preference is tight bass (just drop the b).  Music to my ears.

Hi-fi lore, was at one time you had to have a 15" woofer for good bass - due to the inherent low resonant frequency and large ability to move air - or something like that. These days smaller, faster 8" and less woofers are popular. Problem is they need long throw excursions to provide the volume at low frequencies that then increases distortion. Solution is, multiple small woofers to yield same area as a 15", but faster response with the same or less excursion travel.  

@polklover

+1 

Ever hear a car rolling down the street with a booming bass?  You want the opposite of that.

For me it ultimately starts with the amp and how it controls the speaker drivers. Clearly the Damping Factor spec is key….I don’t think you need a huge number but as always more is better. The Mac at only 40 is the main culprit, that’s too low. Something around 200 is my minimum for DF. My current amp is 1100 DF at 20Hz, for most part I have very tight bass and articulated well. Some recordings have a bloated low end so nothing you can do with that. Over all I prefer a tight articulated bass that still gives me deep notes and pressurizes my room very well, and I still can hear the other instruments. 
You are hearing the difference so it does make for a choice of what you like or not. 

It totally depends on the music, sometimes I just want to feel the bass, other times I want to be able to discern the difference between a bass guitar and bass drum. 

Think most of the time, the bass resolution is in the recording. Some Hip-Hop will have bass boom, while some Blues will have tighter more accurate bass.

In general, for 2ch, I like sealed boxes, including my sub. Want the tighter more accurate sound. Now in my HT, I just want the room to shake, music accuracy is less important. 

I can sit and listen to my 2ch setup all day, at moderate volumes. Only done it a few times watching music on the TV in the HT room, but it does become fatiguing over time. Some of that might be the 13 speakers, and 2 x12 subs. 

Absolutely tight, but a natural sounding bass. As if an actual jazz upright bass player is in the room. I’ve only heard that from an OB speaker I used to own that had 15” bass drivers that were created specifically for OB speakers. The thunk, the funk, were all there and they sounded as natural as I’ve ever heard. 

You really need to find the right amp for the right speaker. You can also consider good subs, because a speaker with good bass will cost you $20k plus. Subs will also give you some flexibility to play with tubes, which many enjoy for the sound qualities.

@theaudiohiffle This is true as far as it goes in reference to bass on any one particular recording. Playing a multitude of recordings over a relatively long period of time will expose tonal imbalances, non pleasing tonality will rear it's ugly head.

As for comparing to live, I'd suggest timbre is likely the only non variable we have for a reference. And even this problematic, what about amplification and sound reinforcement. And then we have synths and even analog instruments may have unique sound qualities, for example the woods used on any particular instrument, and this goes on and on. How about aural memory. I don't think many use live music as a reference anymore, home audio is far more about pleasing oneself.

The problem is you can't tell whether or not the recording is realistic.  You can only tell if the sound produced by your system is realistic.  And that means compared to live.

When you compare it to "live" to see if it's realistic, are you thinking live from the front row, 7th row center, the back? Big hall or small? How can you decide which of these versions are best? How can you know what the actual conditions of the hall were like in order to know if the recording matches up and is realistic?

The problem is you can't tell whether or not the recording is realistic.  You can only tell if the sound produced by your system is realistic.  And that means compared to live.

I prefer bass that is accurate to the recording.

I want my bass to sound accurate.  I want a well recorded string bass to sound what I can hear live sitting close to a jazz trio, I want an electric  bass to sound like an electric bass, I want a pipe organ to sound like a real pipe organ in a real hall.  

Other than that, we are talking damping factor/speaker interaction.  They need to be matched perfectly whatever the combo.

End of discussion so far as I am concerned.

The big ported 12 inch woofers on our Northcreek crossovered with custom Northcreek woofer zobel circuit Matrix 801 S2 speakers got tighter and go about a half octave lower going from a Jon Soderberg modified Threshold Stasis 2 with 250 watts per channel to custom built 140 watts per amp KT77 monoblocks.  The bass became a lot more textured as well.  And started blowing my pant legs around from 15 feet away.  And everything else got better in fact. Better enough that I’ll never spend any money on the system again for anything other than KT77s and an occasional cartridge.  

@tannoy56, my hearing checks great, and my "preferences" are, what they are. Tubes are not the best for me, when we are talking about bass slam, bass detail and bass control. I did state it is all subjective, and I do not appreciate your nastiness, however, I suppose you wanted a heated argument. ENJOY! MrD.

Honestly what are we comparing the bass to? And whats to say tight bass is not artificial,  and flabby bass for that matter. Most live events use a pa system so u can hear them, other than a totally acoustic event at a small indoor venue if the music sounds good to you, then why would it matter. 

@hilde45 ....When it's tight, it's right.  Goes for a lot of things, it do...😏

I think DocFreud would agree....kinky old fart.....*L*

@dman777  Thanks for posting this. The tight bass is more accurate. McIntosh is using autoformers which is what is reducing the dynamics in the bass and the damping factor. Thanks  for reminding me why switched from McIntosh amps. I was considering switching back. 
 

Which amp did you prefer for mids and highs? 

• I think kids prefer non-tight-bass. And adults prefer type bass.

Generalization, but basically true. 

@mrdecibe "I gave up on tube amps a long time ago.{"

What happened, did you lose your hearing? 

In general, I prefer the bass I hear from sealed box speakers with larger drivers, 10” minimum, 15” maximum, although I’ve never heard an 18” or larger, I might like it. The larger drivers seem to hit the lower notes better, and the sealed boxes don’t boom as much. Solid state amplification seems to dig a bit deeper than tubes which can roll off quicker, but may offer better tone. Tubes also reproduce the music as I remember it from the 60’s and seventies 

This sounds like a question for Dr. Freud.

+1 @mulveling 

Over the years, I’ve come to learn and appreciate the difference between articulate bass, bass bloom, and ‘bass slam’. Bass bloom, which is what you get with many low to mid priced tube amps can sound pleasant at first, but it also tends to hide the  details, especially in and below the midbass region. It lacks that visceral impact that you sometimes crave. As mulveling mentioned, you need to go up to the big boy tube amps to get that, but they tend to be expensive to buy and maintain. 
 

Bass slam, while impressive at first, can get fatiguing after a while. IMO, it also takes away the musicality. I found that some SS amps have too much damping going on resulting in bass slam. 
 

what I did to learn the difference was to visit a lot of jazz clubs to understand what real drums sound like. They’re definitely not what it sounds like in most systems. I’m gradually tuning my system to approach the real thing but I’ll admit I’m far from the real thing and might not get there. But I’m getting closer.   

Bass overhang kills what most of us want out of our systems.  OK for home theater, but not what you want for your music experience.

Damping factor measurements of an amplifier doesn't make much if any difference. I have had amplifiers with a damping factor of 150, that had better bass than amplifiers of over 800 damping factor.