Why the obsession with the lowest octave

If one can get deeper bass without any tradeoff of other qualities, why not? But, such "free" deep bass is hardly ever achieved. Bigger drivers able to push more air usually means more mass (inertia makes such drivers less nimble), bigger cabinets (hard to control resonance), and most significantly, deep bass response usually means much lower speaker efficiency and the need for higher powered amps. To me, there are very few higher power amps that deliver the kind of performance of low powered tube or solid state amps.

I care less about high volume, extremely deep bass than I do about good behavior where most of the music resides in the lower range. I want realistic tonality to bass. There are a lot of speakers on the market with extremely tight, punchy bass, that lack the ability to deliver the proper tone and harmonic structure of lower range instruments (double bass, kettle drums, contrabassoon).

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.