Is bass the most important frequency band?


One thing I’ve noticed when upgrading my audio system is that when I have really good bass, I’m happy. If the bass is top notch, I can overlook less-than-stellar treble or so-so midrange. The opposite does not seem to be true. Sure, I can get tremendous enjoyment out of a high-fidelity playback of a flute or other instrument that doesn’t have much bass impact, but when I switch to a track that has some slam, if my sub/woofers don’t perform, I’m left wanting, and I am inclined to change the track. When my subwoofer game is top notch, there is something extremely pleasing about tight, powerful, and accurate bass response that easily puts a smile on my face and lifts my mood in a matter of seconds. Maybe it all boils down to the fact that bass frequencies are heard AND felt and the inclusion of another sense (touch/feeling) gives bass a competitive edge over midrange and treble. I am not talking about loud bass (although that can be really fun and has its place), but the type of bass that gives you a sense of a kick drum’s size or allows for the double bass to reach out and vibrate the room and your body. I propose to you that bass and sub-bass should be optimized first and foremost, followed by treble and midrange in order to maximize enjoyment. Thoughts?
128x128mkgus
Google and google some more. Like are high frequencies more harmful than low frequency. Plenty of info out there.


I love bass but I can't stand bloated mid bass. It makes sound unlistenable for me. I'd rather miss the bass. But what I value most in sound is clean attack and even more clean decay at all frequencies. Plus I need dynamic linearity, accurate level changes whether they are small, medium or large changes in level with out compression. I value these factors more than linear frequency response although I see no reason to have it all. Finally if you need to pick a part of the frequency band that is most important, it's the mid range. No experienced audio man really questions this.
This question is much more complex than it is being given credit for.

Two examples, from the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. At the extreme low end, really good bottom end reproduction improves the sense of envelopment and improves the sound well up into the midrange. This is the case even when there is no discernible low bass present. I heard this when first going from one sub to 4, and again when putting all my subs on Townshend Pods. In particular with the Pods I distinctly remember being surprised because I was expecting and listening for low bass but what hit me instead was the greatly improved imaging and envelopment. What was surprising was the low bass I had put the record on for hadn't even started yet. 

Something similar also happens at the extreme high end. There the addition of Townshend Super Tweeters would seem to only affect from about 15kHz and higher. But yet in this case clear improvement is heard well down into the midrange, and even some pretty low bass sure seems to sound more tight and articulate with greater clarity. 

For these reasons I think it is overly simplifying to talk about frequency bands as if they can be viewed in isolation. They can, of course. But only by discounting a lot of really significant phenomena such as these.
" 90% of the brains processing power is between 500Hz-15kHz. "We evolved listening to sounds in nature that had consequences for us - the voices of prey and predators, the sounds of weather, and the human voice. Hypothesis: we developed music-making in the same frequency ranges.
Post removed