Originally Posted by goneten
Just want to get an idea from the experts in the field.
To my knowledge frequency response and transient response are intrinsically tied. If you flatten the room response it should lead to a subjectively quicker sounding, more tuneful bass.
If you apply parametric eq to cut several peaks that coincide with the bass notes in your music the difference in amplitude alone should affect the bass. Do you feel it sounds subjectively quicker?
There is someone who I know who claims that frequency response aberrations can't affect our perception of bass speed and/or timing. I don't agree with this whatsoever based on my own observations.
What are your thoughts?
"What are our thoughts", he asks, only to object to anyone who DARES disagree with his ill-formed assertion!
After after all is said and done, your carte blanche conclusions are still incorrect.
Given a relatively flat response, simply employing PEQ to randomly cut gain levels at particular frequencies would NOT "affect our perception of bass speed and/or timing" and result in tighter more defined bass..
Your assertion is wrong.
One only need provide one example to disprove an assertion.
If however you happen to focus on mitigating a modal antinode that simultaneously reduces both its magnitude, and more importantly, the associated resonance /persistence, the result you claim - provided a coherent translation and correction is employed, may very well occur.
On the other hand, 60 cycle hum often occurs at lower levels and die to its steady persistence which runs counter the the transient dynamics of program material is STILL prominent and creates a problem despite its relatively low magnitude.
You mistake the common association of a modal peak with the associated resonance, which while OFTEN the case, is not a NECESSARY condition.
Thus you mistake what is TYPICAL with what is NECESSARY.
I am sorry you miss the subtlety of the fundamental relationships. Magnitude may indeed accompany a resonant condition, but the magnitude need not be objectionable in order for a resonance to contribute to a less than optimal sense of definition.
The lack of a NECESSARY nexus invalidates your point - regardless of how common the nexus MAY occur. And unfortunately, EQ alone is not a satisfactory solution for such issues.
So again, rather than concentrate on anecdotal agreement based on simplistic frequency or SPL level measurements which ignore much of the pertinent behavior, try employing the proper tools to display the 'rest of the story' and increase your understanding of the complete behavior and the relationship of the various component factors.
...and with a bit of luck we can avoid the oft cited misstatements comparing 'fast' and 'slow' bass!
And then we have FOS who comes along and then falsely asserts that I have said Anything about the ETC response! Can we say "brain dead", or would the word "Liar", as in the Webster definition regarding "one who intentionally misrepresents facts" apply? Oh, but wait, I can make it all OK by adding a