Yeah, but I think the answer is more complex than this, at least if I understand what you're saying. A system-level Q=0.7 is not the only way to "adjust" bass response. I much prefer a flat response like a Q=0.5 design will give you, but I think an overall, in-room frequency response that tilts up starting at about 100Hz and being about +3db by 20Hz, and is tilted down about 2-3db by 20KHz sounds most natural in a lot of home listening rooms. In other words, small listening rooms. IMO, simply saying the answer is a speaker or an overall system with critical damping isn't sufficient to get "realistic" sound.\r\n\r\nLarge concert halls generally have pretty consistent bass for any seats away from the walls, but medium-size venues as jazz is often played in have far less even bass response. The music sounds different depending on where you sit; there's no one "right" sound.\r\n\r\nObviously with pop or rock music there often isn't a performance you're reproducing in the classic sense, and I think the Q=0.7 speakers are mostly aimed at this market. Let's face it, it is the majority of the market, and I haven't even mentioned the totally contrived foley of movies.\r\n\r\nYou have made a good point. Small rooms are a problem, with lumpy bass response from reflected waves and cancellations. However the time element is important and low Q highly damped speakers with lack of hangover, don't feed into these room issues as much as undamped ones do.\r\n\r\nYou can easily demonstrate the time element of exciting a resonance with a weight on a spring. The longer you excite the resonance the greater the amplitude of the resonance. When it comes down to it, Q is very much about time.