Why the obsession with the lowest octave

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.

Why the obsession?

I'd guess that a big part of it is people not really appreciating just how little musical info there is in the bottom octave, because they think that what they're hearing is lower in pitch than it actually is. From posts I've seen over the years, I'd bet that many folks here would guess way low if asked to ID the frequency of a bass sound played for them. But that misimpression may - in one sense - be useful.

The upper half of the next octave (60hz-80hz)is critical to lots of music and speaker specs are misleading. As Bob astutely points out, those anechoic FR graphs manufacturers provide do not usually include distortion numbers - presumably because they'd suck. Also, room effects are wreaking havoc with the signal throughout the bass region.

Bottom line, it's very tough to predict in-room bass performance from manufacturer's specs. It might not be a bad rule of thumb to focus on 20hz to 40hz with the hope that a speaker designed for critical performance in this sub bass region will be better than average in the octave above. No guarantees, but probably not a bad rule of thumb. Personally, I use room corrected subwoofers, but that's a different thread.

As to the gut impact and spacial cues provided by the actual deep bass, I agree that there is something to this, too. Some recordings have significant energy in the 35-40hz range and you will "feel" this in the gut.

The spacial thing is interesting in that info in this range is impossible to localize, so you'd think it wouldn't help with staging, imaging, etc. However, it's easy to see why even very low level info in the 20+hz range MIGHT provide spacial clues. Think of a predator's footfalls - very low level, very low frequency. Very useful to prey if they can use that info to better understand the environment they're in. Obviously speculative on my part, but - at least - not as counterintuitive as it might seem at first.

Just my guess, my experience, and MHO.

"Sit mid hall or balcony and you won't experience the visceral impact of low bass."

Often but not always true.

Sitting at Dress Circle balcony level in Carnegie Hall, I felt the visceral impact of the tympanis when struck to the greatest degree I recall at recent live concert events.

If I go back there or elsewhere and do not hear and feel it, I will now know for sure I am missing something.

BTW, this is a good thread!

"When you hear the rumble, T-Rex may be near, and that is exciting, know?"

Or if not, maybe just Tweety bird.....