What is Tight Bass?

@mijostyn , *L* It’s nice to right, even if the source is suspect...;) *L*

Square wave sweeps seem to be accomplished by that which is deemed ’dry’ or ’too crisp’, although I tend towards that over ’warm’. This seems to fuel the ’tube vs. ss’ debate, which we ought to sidestep at this junction.... That gets flogged on a regular basis ’elsewhere’ here @ AG, and needs no replay here...🤞.

I’ve the calibrated mic already, and a batch of the gratis programs available and downloaded already, so the means and method are in place. ;)

Being able to ’see’ what’s ’line input’ contrasted to ’room response’ is instructive, esp. in my diy Walsh endeavors....it’s silly to expect them to sink to 20 hz. without ’argument’, and they weren’t meant to, either...

And that’s why I hand it off to a sub....and concentrate on what’s above 100ish hz.

I’d be happy to run a tube amp in lieu of my ss amp to hear the contrast involved, but that’s not in my dance card currently (pun not intended...). I’ll have to wait for infamy to be able to do that under duress....and yes, I’m teasing. *G*

@realworldaudio, thanks for your kind comments, and I’ve been committed to this line of irrationality for over a decade now....;)

I’ve achieved a sort of ’presence’, I guess:

https://www.google.com/search?q=diy+walsh+speakers&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i59i450l8.781244161j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

...and I appear 6x in the ’images’ link, which I think for a diy foray gives me some sort of odd gravitas on the subject....and bearing in mind the vid is 7ish yrs. old and shot with a ’point & shoot’ and a lousy mono mic in it...

What you see & hear is not current, no....but the concept is still under ’revisions’...
My goal is to put the soloist within reach, in a psychoacoustic fashion.

It does require a surround arrangement, but trying to keep it inobtrusive and subtle in a physical presence in one’s space, with a nod towards room treatments that don’t suggest ’recording facility’ treatments in an extreme.

It works, but I fried one of four prototypes in the process. Been working on improvements in the meanwhile to prevent that from occurring again.... ;)

As an omni/dipole enthusiast, and the rise of 5.1 & 7.1 in HT in general, I feel that omnis’ need to be developed and become a real ’player’ beyond what is currently available....
And I’m committed to try in my limited means to give it a go..."...not that it is easy, but because it is hard." to quote JFK, once upon....

*L* Don Quixote had the same problem, but my windmills are smaller and I lack a Sancho as a wingman....;)

"To infinity and beyond!" *L* Not on my bucket list...infinity is a very long time, and I’d doubt sanity would last that long within me... But a good cheer for my team of one....;) Thanks....

Regards to you both, I remain a J in process...

A dichotomy on amplifiers for good bass?  'Tight' if you like, but I prefer accurate, or true to the live event.

Some suggest only tube amps supply bass that reproduces the live event well.

Others that only solid state amps have the raw power required.

May I suggest the reconciliation is in the power supplies.  All accurate bass reproduction needs very stiff power supplies that allow the amp to control big woofers rigidly.  The best amps of every type have big power supplies.  When I switch on my big Krells the houselights dim as the huge capacitors suck juice from the wall.  Big ARs have massive transformers.

By the way OP, you mention electrostatic.

Sorry, you won't get any bass below 50Hz from an electrostatic, even though they're great at all points above. 

Many start to roll off at 80-90Hz.

Good speaker placement in a good room will give you tight bass. This is not hyperbole. 

I already had what I thought was good, tight bass and moved furniture around and the difference was remarkable.

I learned this back when I had Salk Song towers with double 5" woofers. I thought the bass could not get tighter or deeper from 5" woofers. They sounded like 10"-12" woofers after 6 months of 'exploiting' my rooms potential. No professional sound treatment was used...just a measuring tape. Subwoofer was put in storage.

Think of it like looking through a camera lens and believing what you see as pretty good. Then somone activates the autofocus and you realize what clarity really is. 

You're listening to speakers 'through' your room.

@clearthinker 1+. Having run large ESLs for decades not only do they hate making low bass (they will do it in a lumpy fashion) but it hampers them everywhere else increasing distortion and killing headroom. You are absolutely right about big power supplies but to that you have to add low impedance output stages or in other terms, a high damping factor to control a large subwoofer driver. A tube amp can have the power supply but unfortunately not the output stage. I had Krell KMA 100s for 20 years and they did make great bass and great everything else for that matter. I would still have them if one hadn't burned out. They gave me a love affair with Class A amps that I can not get away from. I understand why many love tube amps. I am considering buying a pair but, there are SS amps that will provide the same shimmer and effortlessness. The ones that I have heard are all Class A and I do not think this is psychological.  

@sandthemall , a good room and proper placement are essential for good bass but there are other factors that have to be considered to get the job done which is why achieving sota results are so difficult. This is compounded further by the use of subwoofers. Bass has a lot of energy. An explosion is a low frequency pulse. In medicine we use low frequency pulses to break up kidney stones. Put on a 30 Hz test tone and turn the volume up. Listen to your whole house rattle. This energy creates a lot of spurious noise which in simple terms is distortion. It starts with the enclosure the driver is in then multiplies with each surface and loose item. Totally accurate bass is something you can only dream of.