Why the obsession with the lowest octave

To ignore the range from 20 to 40 Hz is to deny the FACT that there are harmonics down in that range that do affect realistic music reproduction. Not to mention that there are also ques down there that give us the impression of a large hall for example.

Don't believe? Listen to a cello on speakers that cutoff at 40, and then listen on a full range pair. Many people do live with the lowest octave, and many live without much above 12kHz, but this does not prove there is no valuable information there.

Elizbeth,

I usually find your posts to be very informative, but I have to say that your passing this off as some testosterone-laced fantasy is beneath your knowledge. Maybe you just meant to poke fun at us guys. ;-)

Electronica artists have the freedom to create music without the limitations of traditional instruments. They can be creative in any octave they want and I don't want to miss out. That's why I have a pair of JL subs. I saw Crystal Method live in Santa Cruz at an older venue and I really thought the ceiling might start to crack and fall on our heads due to the extreme bass. The room seemed to be shaking vertically even when the volume was low at times. It may have been "unnatural" but it was their art and creation and we were having a blast. Don' wanna miss out on that in my living room!

interesting thread, some like low bass and others do not....I like full range including top end....my speakers go to 20hz and I have the room size to support that low tone...in live venues I've noticed big bass waves "hit you in the chest" with a physical impact...but I like balanced sound unless the artist likes to push the low end...I never thought low bass was a "male" thing...new concept to hear someone say that.

The logic involved in intentionally limiting frequency extension is similar to the logic which would say it's advantageous to limit one's visual field. Perhaps glasses should have a black strip at at the bottom to block vision looking through the lowest portion of the glasses? Big advantage, right? That's what is being done with speakers which limit the frequency response. Big advantage, eh?

Someone intentionally wants a truncated representation of something? Fine, good for you. Not me; I'll take the full experience. As long as finances and space permit there's going to be a true full range reference speaker in my home.

Listening levels are not dictated by frequency extension. If you have ever heard a solo vocal piece played with and without a subwoofer you know immediately what LF adds to a system's performance, including clues to the spatial nature of the recording venue. It's misinformation to suggest that persons pursuing LF are just doing so to get the gut punch.

I believe I am not alone in that I care not terribly much the degree of shake/rattle/boom my system has. Instead, I want supreme quality of two channel in all music genres without unnecessary limitations. In terms of pursuing the best sound attainable, when a rig has little bass extension beyond 40Hz it's been seriously compromised.

I never thought low bass was a "male" thing...new concept to hear someone say that.

One need only attend a single show, look around at a dealer, or pay attention to who is posting here in these and other audiophile forums, to know that this is by far and away a "male" hobby. The percentage of women who care about this stuff is extremely small in my estimation and in my direct experience for over 35 years. Present company (at least one of us) being part of the minority.

My own experience of well-reproduced bass is that it brings with it a fuller appreciation of what is on the recording, the space it was recorded in, the instruments themselves (assuming they do reach those lower octaves). In that sense music becomes more engaging. It is like adding a fuller palette of hues to a visual reproduction of a painting: with more limited hues, say a coarse screen magazine reproduction in People magazine, the image of a painting with tremendous range and contrast would do adequately in conveying what the painting generally looks like. Reproduce the same painting with state of the art stochastic printing and at 600dpi resolution and you will have a far greater understanding of the what is actually there, and arguably a greater potential to enjoy what the artist put on the canvas.

As far as the high end of the spectrum, which is certainly important as well; I wonder how many people hear anything at all above 17khz. I doubt many of those posting here do.