K
karma
Guest
HI All,
When I started the thread concerning CLS bass equalization I got the answers I was after. But like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, this thread changed into another and very interesting subject. Better than my original subject, I think. I thought the new subject deserved its own thread.
Namely, is low bass in a home hi fi system worth the effort? Another question is how much bass is enough? Another; what tradeoffs are in effect to get good (great) bass? Another; how much are we willing to pay? Another, what is the quality of hi fi bass? And, very important, will our rooms support low bass?
This is a classic debate. Early in hi fi history, great bass was the Holy Grail. Witness Klipchorns and other large speakers of the era. Folks without large rooms were out of luck especially with the advent of stereo. Then came the AR-1 and AR-3A systems which, for the first time, offered good (not great) bass that would fit into the average listening room. They were revolutionary.
The next major developments in the great bass debate were the original Quads and mini-monitors. These were designs that forced the consumer to choose between the excellent but specialized talents of these speakers and low bass. You could not get both. Subs were rare to non-existent but this quandary opened the market for the development of subwoofers. Once subwoofers became available, the great bass debate really caught fire.
This history brings us to the early 1970's. Digital audio had not been invented. Vinyl rarely had deep bass. Sure, once in while an exceptional recording came along with some deep bass, especially organ and symphonic material. In truth, there was not enough recorded low bass to overcome the expense of hearing it. But, Sheffield vinyl recordings made it clear that great bass could be recorded and when heard on a bass capable system, the recordings were awesome.
Digital audio and synthesized music made the bass debate interesting. Increasingly, deep bass recordings became available. Musicians love deep bass too. They responded to the technology. Now, the issue that Roberto has brought up became a hot issue. To bass or not to bass, that is the question.
The tradeoffs I mentioned above started to be real considerations for the audio consumer. If you were a "full range" dipole speaker owner, such as CLS's, you were trading off great bass against the extraordinary talents the speaker can demonstrate. It proved very difficult to seamlessly add subs. And costly too. ML realized very early that practical electrostatic panels were never going to produce deep and powerful bass. Thus, they decided to go the hybrid route which is effectively a woofer connected to the panels. They were not true subwoofers except the Statements and Monoliths. With ML's big guns great bass became available but at a VERY high price. The more modest hybrid systems had adequate bass performance but would not challenge a really good sub. Panel/woofer integration was and is a consideration. Separate subs also have the same issues but, if the problems could be solved, offered great bass.
I have definite opinions on this subject but I’d rather discover what you think.
Roberto, I would appreciate your input. You make your case very well and I think the group needs to hear it.
risobet, you are not off the hot seat. I would love to see your well thought out views here too.
So, that's the background. To bass or not to bass?
What do you think? How much bass do you need (want)? How do you view the tradeoffs?
Sparky
When I started the thread concerning CLS bass equalization I got the answers I was after. But like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, this thread changed into another and very interesting subject. Better than my original subject, I think. I thought the new subject deserved its own thread.
Namely, is low bass in a home hi fi system worth the effort? Another question is how much bass is enough? Another; what tradeoffs are in effect to get good (great) bass? Another; how much are we willing to pay? Another, what is the quality of hi fi bass? And, very important, will our rooms support low bass?
This is a classic debate. Early in hi fi history, great bass was the Holy Grail. Witness Klipchorns and other large speakers of the era. Folks without large rooms were out of luck especially with the advent of stereo. Then came the AR-1 and AR-3A systems which, for the first time, offered good (not great) bass that would fit into the average listening room. They were revolutionary.
The next major developments in the great bass debate were the original Quads and mini-monitors. These were designs that forced the consumer to choose between the excellent but specialized talents of these speakers and low bass. You could not get both. Subs were rare to non-existent but this quandary opened the market for the development of subwoofers. Once subwoofers became available, the great bass debate really caught fire.
This history brings us to the early 1970's. Digital audio had not been invented. Vinyl rarely had deep bass. Sure, once in while an exceptional recording came along with some deep bass, especially organ and symphonic material. In truth, there was not enough recorded low bass to overcome the expense of hearing it. But, Sheffield vinyl recordings made it clear that great bass could be recorded and when heard on a bass capable system, the recordings were awesome.
Digital audio and synthesized music made the bass debate interesting. Increasingly, deep bass recordings became available. Musicians love deep bass too. They responded to the technology. Now, the issue that Roberto has brought up became a hot issue. To bass or not to bass, that is the question.
The tradeoffs I mentioned above started to be real considerations for the audio consumer. If you were a "full range" dipole speaker owner, such as CLS's, you were trading off great bass against the extraordinary talents the speaker can demonstrate. It proved very difficult to seamlessly add subs. And costly too. ML realized very early that practical electrostatic panels were never going to produce deep and powerful bass. Thus, they decided to go the hybrid route which is effectively a woofer connected to the panels. They were not true subwoofers except the Statements and Monoliths. With ML's big guns great bass became available but at a VERY high price. The more modest hybrid systems had adequate bass performance but would not challenge a really good sub. Panel/woofer integration was and is a consideration. Separate subs also have the same issues but, if the problems could be solved, offered great bass.
I have definite opinions on this subject but I’d rather discover what you think.
Roberto, I would appreciate your input. You make your case very well and I think the group needs to hear it.
risobet, you are not off the hot seat. I would love to see your well thought out views here too.
So, that's the background. To bass or not to bass?
What do you think? How much bass do you need (want)? How do you view the tradeoffs?
Sparky
Last edited: