40hz ratings/speaker response

Once again, I agree with Sean. While I don't think your amp is really the problem, more power wouldn't hurt.

Perhaps the size of the listening room has something to do with the limitation of sound frequency. Assume that sound travels at 1223km/hour at sea level. Then if my conversion table is correct, sound travels at 1,114 feet/second. The sound frequency that we are debating here is 40 cycles per second. The wavelength of sound at 40 cycles per second is about 28 feet. That means that it would take a 28 foot room to fully develop sound at 40 cycles per second. I think that this is size limitation of most listening rooms. Larger rooms will develop lower frequencies of sound. If you want to fully develop sound at 35 cycles per second, you will need a 32 foot room. If you want to fully develop sound at 30 cycles per second, you will need a 37 foot room. If you want to fully develop 25 cycles per second, you will need a 45 foot room, etc., etc. In conclusion, why are we torturing ourselves trying to get speakers of lower frequencies, when we should be considering getting LARGER ROOMS. Let's go for broke, if want to develop a one cycle per second sound wave, you will need a 1114 foot room!!!

Redwoodgarden, One only needs to have one dimension (could be cross diagnal, from opposite corners in a room) the size of ONE-HALF a wavelength, so divide all your calulations by 2 i.e. 40 hertz fits easily in a 14 ft room.

Bob P.

Thanks Bob(inpepinnovations) for the clarification. This old dog just learned a new trick.

Red, Keep in mind I am "technically challenged", but if your formula and theory is correct, what I really need to do is simply rearrange my listening room, a hassle, but doeable. As the one who started this thread, I have to ask Red, are you kidding? or is that really the way to maximize a deeper sound stage that will enhance bass?
joeb