|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I wonder which musical instruments or if any can go lower than 27 hz?.All of we want more low frequency extension down to 20 hz but are the instruments really going so down??
Follow Ups:
I believe that on a few pipe organs the biggest deepest piper have a fundamental of 15hz. Not too many CD recordings of these but there are some. Then there is Telarc's 1812 canons. Lead in to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon.Even when fundamental note is only 40- 60hz, the harmonics may go w-a-y d-o-w-n
t
he
r
e
!!!!
How can they? Harmonics are multiples of the fundamental.
Cheers,Graham
"Blue meters, big watts. This must be Heaven!"
then by all means find a pair of speakers that go down to 20Hz. Also make sure that your listening room is at least 28 ft long. Grand piano go down to about 27.1 Hz.My Thiel 3.6s have their +/- 3dB cutoff around this frequency, but the +/- 1 dB cutoff is about 30Hz. Virtually most musical informationa is above 30Hz. Organs with 60 foot pipes can produce music that can reach below this level (some Bach solo organ works). As I said before, having speakers that can reach 20Hz is 1/3rd of the problem. Next you have to have a listening room and then the source material.
Best!
Get a spectrum analyzer program for your computer and see how much info there is below 27Hz. There is one song in particular I always used as a bass demo that has a ~30Hz drum note that shakes the room. But there are even lower notes that I had observed on my computer but was unable to hear until I played the track on a friend's IB subs. As with anything in audio, you don't know what you're missing until you hear it done right (or at all).
I think the point many are missing is that if we quantify how much time one spends litening to music below 27Hz, we would all agree it is precious little. Why spend big bucks in order to have the capability of listening to notes that aren't recorded on 99% of the music we listen to?The only audience for this kind of capability would be the home video junkies.
... besides I don't think DVDs often go real real low as in below 40hz, just loud. In fact, I think the THX standards are would seem pretty modest to dedicated Telarc junkies.
Try the Fleetwood Mac "Dance" DVD. Very low rumblings on some of
the songs. That's the DVD to compare other concerts with...very well done, both visual and audio. But, who knows if and what freq. the rec. studio filters
out sub. info.
I did'nt read the other post's, so I may be repeating other
people. It's not that individual notes go below 27Hz, (bass guitar is
41.2Hz I think, piano even lower) it's when you when you play
certain chords, or even 2 notes at the same time, you get a
"difference frequeny", "beat frequency", whatever you want to call it, that can be of a very low frequency. Example is when you tune a guitar by ear, you play
two identical notes off of 2 different strings. You will hear the beat
frequency, then you tune for a zero beat. Anyway, I think it's justified to strive for at least for a -3db at 30-35 hz or lower.
.
I play BEAD on my basses for the most part and have had very few problems getting it to reproduce on most systems. I notice the vibration of the instrument over the sound when playing a B for the most part (it really is a rumble and a pain to control), but even the harmonic of that note is low.Honestly, I wouldn't worry about getting down to 20Hz in a home system... like others have said, it'll cost more than is really necessary to get something that isn't record in 99% of our music. If it were between throwing down $500-1000 on a decent sub, I'd rather put more money into mains speakers that have a usable room frequency of 50Hz or more. You'll notice more of a difference there.
Whooaaaaa, slow down everybody! I've built my goals in trying to build a good system which reproduces low frequencies without going overboard. It's very simple. As an organist, I find it imperative. First of all, what about the 1812 overture (field cannon - yeah I know, 8 Hz; only the best subs can reproduce - to a limited extent), all organ music, synthesized music, and field drums (listen to "In the Hall of the Mountain King...and many more)? In order to get at least SOME of the low notes reproduced from such recordings you need a subwoofer or super full range speaker.
EKG, I have the same Virgil Fox recording on LP and CD - unfortunately the recording does not contain a lot of fundamental notes well reproduced. There is a new recording of the organ on the Dorian label called "Magic," which is great compared to the older recording. I highly recommend it - lots of LOW frequencies with those beautiful 64 footers that you can WALK IN! (actually, I don't think my system comes close to reproducing them, but great on the 32 foot pipes).
I have a REL sub, which in my room gets me flat down to about 19 Hz, and many recordings I have contain information to play on the sub. SO...bottom line, if you listen to chamber music, jazz, and some others - to include most movies (movie makers put most low notes at about 40Hz because the majority of people don't have true full range systems, and you get much more "bang" at 40 Hz than at 20), a decent speaker going to 40 Hz should be sufficient. But also, to second the statement of a previous poster, a good low frequency system does reproduce ambient "hall" sounds which gives you a more accurate sense of "being there."
I really think the best systems possible for all these reasons combine multiple 12 or 15 inch drivers, but who as the space...
Enjoy!
Jimmy2615
First of all thank you all for your answers.It was very helpful..I was just asking it for only music not for a home theatre system..I have Paradigm Studio 100 and I always wonder if I need a subwoofer with them for the whole low frequencies.In the specifications it says low frequency extension is 25 hz but it also states that frequency response is On-Axis (0°) ±2dB from 39Hz - 22kHz..So does the Paradigm really go down to 25 hz??What is your opinion??
Aram,Looking that you posted your question in speaker forum I assume the your question have purely audio application. About which frequencies are you taking? The Fundamentals? The double bass has the lower fundamental at 160Hz, so what?
Music has no direct relation to frequencies (in the way you use frequency… but there are another ways) In the way you use frequencies there is no musical necessity to pursue the sub 27 Hz. However, the LF have very important implication in Audio. The average audio person should be happy of 60 Hz in his playback system reproduced musically correct but mostly it never happens . If you are talking about proper reproduction down to 27 Hz then we are talking about unspeakably expensive installations and fairly complex solutions.
Romy,> The double bass has the lower fundamental at 160Hz, so what?
what are you exactly talking about? My double bass has a fundamental frequency of about 41 Hz at the low E. Even a cello reaches down to 65 Hz.
> The average audio person should be happy of 60 Hz in his playback system reproduced musically correct but mostly it never happens
Here I would agree. But what is "musical correct" in your terminology? How do you prove it? With the help your long term listening experience? I would like to learn more about that. Do you compare audio systems with another or is your reference the live experience at the concert?
*** what are you exactly talking about? My double bass has a fundamental frequency of about 41 Hz at the low E.Yes, I heard that form many people in Audio. (www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html) As I understand the pitch determined by the length, mass, and tension of a string and according to three unrelated double bass players that I consulted with the fundamental frequency within a "standard" 42-inch instrument are around 150 Hz (I was told twice 160 Hz and once 140 Hz). Considering that my guys studied this staff in their "conservatory time" and have no idea what Audio is I tend to believe them. It looks like the body of double bass "develops" sounds further from the lowest resonant frequency and therefore whatever pushes our spectral analyses on the left from the ~150 Hz are just the harmonics.
*** But what is "musical correct" in your terminology?
Tone has beneficial value. Even the frequencies, properly treated by a listener, should be projected to their listening benefits and tighten to a "human feedback". An "Expressed frequency", which has an absolute mathematical value only, should not be taken under consideration without being properly interpreted. In order to become the "consumed frequency" many, very many, things should be considered (Reverberation time at this frequency, the way how the frequency were gotten, structured and many-many others)
*** How do you prove it? With the help your long term listening experience? I would like to learn more about that.
Prove what? The objectivism of subjectivism? Interestingly that whatever you call "listening experience" is totally irrelevant. It is very common that people just do not know what the listen while they are listening and I have seen many folks in Audio who do it for 20-30 years. I frequently came across to an observation that people at AA ask questions and do not understand the complexity of the question they are asking. I would like, as usually, avoid to answer the "accidental un-understood questions' and would say again that this topic is way above what the AA-subscribers could handle.
*** Do you compare audio systems with another or is your reference the live experience at the concert?
Comparing of audio equipment is fundamentally faulty way to perform any audio evaluations and this is where all those screamy audio industry morons are slipping (an particularly the reviewers). Live music is not necessary an absolute reference as well not matter how absurd it sounds (there is a lot more to it). By being born a human you already have all necessary "recognition patterns" to recognize Music built-in. Remember the history of developing of the musical ideas, musical instrument, composing techniques, expressive method and so on… became available only because we, the humans, have the common denominators within us: out inner-we reaction to external sonic irritations…. So, the 40 Hz is not "what sounds" but what created within your inner-you a reaction that would be typical for 40 Hz. You should not listen sounds but the reaction of your inner you to those sounds. If you learn this fairly basic listening technique (and this is just very beginning of a properly structured listing culture) you will be able to "evaluate" those funny hundreds-thousands-dollars-playback-systems within 5 seconds and will discover how much BS within so-call high end is going on. Leave the "Audio comparing" to the unfortunates who has their "natural sensitively" bleached out by drugs, alcohol, anger, fear and by those "many years in the business"…
Rgs,
Romy the Cat
I believe that Romy is talking about the harmonic overtones from the double bass. These must be reproduced in the time and frequency domain. Most loudspeakers do this very badly, some are less worse than others. If you don't reproduce these harmonics by burying them in noise,assorted distortion, or cut them out by using stiff crossovers than you will not reproduce the real structure of the of the double bass. Acoustic intruments can have very complex harmonics. Most loudspeaker marketing folks would rather not talk about this.
nice to hear some sense - finally...
You are absolutely correct but there is much more to it. Double bass begin to be converted into “audio bass” at the electronics level and then just “finally got killed” at a loudspeaker. The majority of audio electronics can’t preserve the harmonics stricture of original signal. The measurement of the static harmonic distortions is totally irrelevant (in the way how it usually done and interpreted). In a bass reproduction the harmonic dynamics become super critical. Practically none of known to me amplifiers can properly roll out to a note preserving an appropriate stricture of the process. Mostly they go very sharp trying to reach the pitch, flatting the parabola, and, as a result, they strip harmonics, original “dynamic or dynamics” and some other important parameters that all together sent to a listener a message “fake” and made Dr. Gismo crying about the lack of tone in Audio. When we introduce a speaker with it's mechanical limitations, barbarically over-engineered crossovers, fundamentally improperly operating drivers, enclosure’s “help” and the timing limitations we totally lost the musical benefits of bass and convert it into a melodic fart. In addition there is a years-and-years-lasting marketing propaganda which infects the sick audiophile brains with an idea what kind of the "audio bass" should be consider "fashionable and appropriate”. I have a good tradition to invite each 6-month a heavy core audiophile and to let them to listen some music. If after the listening they look at me like I am idiot and they saying: “Romy, your have very shitty bass” then I secretly treat thier commnets as a highest possible compliment. Proper bass reproduction is unfortunately totally unknown in the “common audio”…
I'll disagree when it comes to well designed solid state amplifiers. The problem I have found is more noise related than distortion related. I'll agree on loudspeaker design problems.
In addition we can also add the back emf from the loudspeaker and the rising magnetic field from the power transformers in the amplifier. Note: We have just started to look at problems with loudspeaker/power amp interface.
*** I'll disagree when it comes to well designed solid state amplifiers.Not for the sake of argument but for sake of education could you bring up some models that you would consider “fit you bill”.
*** Note: We have just started to look at problems with loudspeaker/power amp interface.
I quite disagree with you. “We” just recently made this topic popular, sellable and marketable. Whoever REALY know what is going on never took the loudspeaker/amp interface out the picture (and particularly for the LF) (http://anchovy.ece.utexas.edu/members/tom/papers/jasa_96.html) In case of multi-amping the special built LF SET with negative output impedance (and with no feedback :-) is a defiantly the way how it should be done, and it always were…
Since this is Speaker Asylum I will not comment much further on amplifiers. I'll let Bud Fried do that. Warning: He will laugh hysterically at your mention of SET's. He built those the first time around.
At this point I need to hand off to Bud Fried. You won't believe me.
Dan Banquer
The lowest note of a double bass is 41.2 Hz and a piano goes down to an A at 27.5 Hz. Even a normal acoustic guitar goes down to 82.4 Hz.The standard 440 Hz A is the A above middle C on a piano. The A string on an acoustic guitar is 2 octaves below that which makes it 110 Hz, and the bass E string on the acoustic guitar is a fourth lower than the A string which makes it 82.4. The double bass and bass guitar go an octave lower again.
Any standard reference text giving the frequency range of instruments will confirm these bottom frequencies.
David, there is a difference between “bottom frequencies” and fundamental frequency. Fundamental is a lower resonant frequency. I have seen a number of the “standard reference texts” that confused it.For example you 13' x 17' listening room could easily “produce” music that contains 20 Hz. However, the room itself has it own lowest resonant frequency witch would be somewhere around 180 Hz… By the way there is law of acoustic, if you care, saying that a room can’t properly reproduce bass if the bass’ frequency is lower then the lowest resonant frequency of the room. I know, I know… I am with you on it….
Romy,I'm an amateur musician as well as an audiophile and music lover. I tune my guitar with an A=440 Hz tuning fork, and I know which note on the piano is tuned with the same fork. The bottom A on the piano is 4 octaves lower than that. The frequency of the note halves with each octave we go lower so, in order as we descend, the frequencies of each of those lower As are 220,110, 55 and finally 27.5 Hz. The low E string of the double bass is tuned to the E in that lowest octave between 27.5 and 55 Hz, hence it's 41.2 hz tuning.
As A.J. states, some instruments and voices concentrate more energy into overtones rather than the fundamental frequency of the note, definitely changing the tonality and perception of pitch that is given. In some cases performers deliberately do this for artistic purposes. There is an interesting table on page 6 of the liner notes for Stereophiles 2nd test disc. The first 2 tracks for channel identification and phasing are a recording of John Atkinson playing a Fender Precision Bass and the table lists the level of the overtones produced in relation to the fundamental.The first overtone, an E at 82.4 Hz, is 11.8 dB LOUDER than the fundamental at 41.2 Hz while the next 2 overtones 9B at 123.6 Hz and E at 164.8 Hz) are 5.8 dB and 7.8 dB softer than the fundamental at 41.2 Hz. This still represents an enormous amount of energy at those frequencies.
What this means in terms of reproduction is that a speaker which is rolling off at 50 or 60 Hz, as many are, would actually reproduce the 2nd and 3rd harmonics at 123.6 and 164.8 Hz much louder than they would reproduce the fundamental 41.2 hz note. In fact, I doubt that listeners would perceive the fundamental at all with many such speakers. Many people can be confused by this because they listen to music and hear a bass part and think that's it, then go to a live performance or hear the same recording on a different system (or even make a change in their own system) and suddenly hear a totally different bass part to what they've been familiar with and wonder where it came from. It need not even be that the notes start to fall an octave or 2 octaves lower but are the same note, they can actually be different notes if harmonics like the 3rd or 5th, for example, have previously been perceived as the fundamental. The whole shape of the melody of the bass part can change as a result.
It's also worth noting - just ask any double bass player, pianist, acoustic guitarist, or anyone who plays an acoustic instrument - that the sound of their instrument which they hear while playing is significantly different to the sound that they hear if they're at a normal listening distance while someone else plays. This is simply because instruments project unevenly, like a loudspeaker lobing, and different surfaces of the instrument project different harmonic patterns. My guitar doesn't sound as deep to me when playing on the lowest strings as it does when I'm somewhere in front of it while someone else plays. The sound board and sound hole project to the front while the sound coming most directly to my ears is from the sides which are stiffer and favour higher overtones. Most acoustic musicians have a similar experience - instruments are basically designed to project sound to the audience rather than the musician. At least electric musicians can stand in front of their speakers and set the speaker stacks up so that they hear a more representative sound if they wish, and can stand the volume :-(
I repeat - check any reputable text for the frequency range of various instruments and you will find that the lowest note of a double bass is at 41.2 hz and the bottom A on a piano is 27.5. There are any number of reputable authorities you can use to confirm this, in fact the Grove Musical Encyclopedia probably even has this sort of information somewhere if you could figure out what to look for in the index.
Well,you and A.J. both brought some valuable points. Frankly speaking I’m still not convinced. When you are talking about the lowest note of a double bass is at 41.2 Hz then it is a resonant frequency of the entire instrument, the resonant frequency of the sting or just a heist point in the frequency parabola?
I am not quite sure if it is relevant but I think I have to a harass my bass players to learn what the hell is going on here. Thanks for your and for the A.J.'s posts. I will fuggier out the "Truth about the BBS" (big bass secret)...
All this double bass matter is probably due to the fact that your bass player friends do play electric bass. They depend on amplification and speakers for the reproduction of their instrument, so when they are playing the lowest notes of the bass they assume that what listeners hear is the first and second overtones and hardly the fundamental, but if you got the bass plugged into an osciloscope, you could see that the sine wave would be of 41.2 Hz (if you could supress distortion in the bass' electric cart), as David has clearly explained, electronic music reproduction has limitations that one must be aware of.
In fact, since frequency doubles when you play the same note of the next higher octave, many people hardly distinguish as different notes the same E of next octaves.
*** All this double bass matter is probably due to the fact that your bass player friends do play electric bass…
41.2 Hz is the lowest frequency at which a string of that length and weight vibrates. The vibration pattern producing that frequency has fixed points at the bridge and nut (the point where the string is anchored at the top of the neck) and the point of maximum amplitude is at the midpoint of the string.The string also vibrates at frequencies which are harmonically related to that full length vibration. They occur at whole number multiples of the fundamental frequency - twice, three times, four times, five times, etc - and are related to vibration patterns of half, one third, one quarter, one fifth etc of the whole string length.
The string vibrations are transmitted to the sounding board, the top of the instrument's body, via the bridge and the bulk of the sound that people hear comes from the vibration of the sound board which is a mechanical amplifier for the sound of the vibrating string. The volume of a string vibrating on its own is not very loud and the vibration has to be transferred to something else which will vibrate and project the sound more efficiently.
The body of the instrument will have it's own natural resonant frequency which may or may not be the same as the note being played. Actually, the resonant pattern of the body of the instrument can be quite complex with the back, sides, top or sound board, and neck all having different resonant frequencies which you can hear by tapping them.
"The body of the instrument will have it's own natural resonant frequency which may or may not be the same as the note being played. Actually, the resonant pattern of the body of the instrument can be quite complex with the back, sides, top or sound board, and neck all having different resonant frequencies which you can hear by tapping them."And it is all these differences that differentiate the "tone" of double bass A from double bass B. In addition, the type of string used also does affect the 'tone', but to a smaller extent from my experience.
I started to, and the post kept getting more and more complex. In the end I just cut all of that material out.Instrument construction is an arcane art. I used to be friends with a classical guitar maker and owned a couple of his guitars at one stage, and watched him building instruments, including one of mine, over a number of years. Theory is one thing and practice is another, and the practice of building great instruments relies a lot on gut feel and instinct. The theory only gets you so far, but when you get to the point of realising that the timber used in each sound board is different and start to try and extract the most from each individual board, for example, you end up in totally new terrain each time. You've never worked on THIS piece of timber before and it has it's own character. Experience helps to a degree but ultimately you start to do something unique with each instrument, and they each end up with their own individual character even though the instruments of each maker do have their own family characteristics. The range of things that make a difference is quite large and very small variations on a physical level can have a profound effect on the finished product.
excellent post! thanks.but maybe the issue has changed to the difference between the lowest note of a musical instrument vs. the lowest frequency one can hear through a particular audio system in a particular room.
by Johan Sundberg (Academic Press). Then you'll understand what you're talking about because fundamental frequency (aka Fo) is the main frequency on a given note. Every sound source which is not producing pure tones (like a diapason or a clinical audiometer that are capable of producing just one frequency sounds) produces sounds which consist in a fundamental frequency and harmonics, all entire multiples of the Fo, thus if a bass is emitting a 37 Hz fundamental, also produces 74, 148, 296..... overtones, but you don't hear all them, due to resonancy characteristics of each instrument overtones can be amplified and conform formants, these formants are the "signature" of every sound source, they allow you to distinguish an /a/ vowel of an /e/ when speaking, the voice from your grandfather from your father's and a real organ from an electronic one. Sound sources DON'T produce harmonics under the fundamental, but some resonance characteristics of the rooms, specially if static waves are present, can enhance the lower frequencies. It is possible, for some instruments, even for human voice, to produce formants of higher intensity than the fundamental, perhaps what your musician friends meant was that in double bass the first formant has more energy than the fundamental, that's why most listeners only perceive that 140 Hz freq you mention, but that doesn't mean that very low freqs. aren't produced.
Have you ever wondered how can an opera singer to sing louder than the whole orchestra if the maximum SPL of human voice at Fo is 105 dB and the orchestra can go above 110 dB? Have you realized that at the opera most of the time you simply cannot understand the words of what they sing? If you're interested I can explain ;-))
"Have you realized that at the opera most of the time you simply cannot understand the words of what they sing?"And all this time I thought it was because they were in Italian.
It's fun, but I'm from Spain I think I'm fluent in english and I speak french and italian (i've said speak, not to write) and always when going to opera wondered why I couldn't understand a word unless I was reading the booklet with the words, despite I could clearly hear singers' voices on top of the orchestra.
... for your helpful post. I believe I understand what you mean.Perhaps one the most diffucult things in audio (at least for me) is to trust these > > "recognition patterns" to recognize Music < < you did mention.
Are there any books you can recommend to develop a personal listening culture?
Still a work in progress as I can't get the topic tied down. So read it as a draft.But look at the music range charts. One on the main screen and one on pop up.
I would say my SF EAII + 2 REL Strata III are pretty much the same as "your" Jaguars...
Bosendorffers'(spelling) have one extra octave more on their keyboards that most pianofortes'
it'll be a dream to sit and play one of these babies...
even *I* sounded pretty good. :-DThe sound of Lower registers of Bosendorfer
is hard to beat.
I did too, at a now-defunct Sherman Clay store in Los Angeles. I actually preferred the sound of a Baldwin concert grand in the same store.
a lot to do with the make of the strings. Different strings will produce different overtones, can make the piano sound kinda tubby. A set of good bass strings installed can run you $800-$1000. Not a cheap proposition. Restorers sometimes use inferior strings to save a buck or two thus ruining a perfect piano. I guess it would not be the case for a new $50K piano, but i have heard many vintage Steinways sound horrible in the lower registers.
There are instances of 32foot stops that extend below 20Hz,Some recordings have recorded down to 16Hz!!!!!Depending on the type of organ,and the venue.
I havent' used my sub for years. It's an older HSU that goes down to 17hz. Just not needed for the few recordings that have significant response down there. I think the Pines of Rome is one, there are a few others. Even tocatta and fugue goes only to 40 hz or so, I believe. Not the kind of stuff I usually listen to.If you get down to 32 hz flat you'll not be needing a sub for music. 40 hz flat is a good compromise for economics.
Now, if you're talking sound effects or movies, I'd say yes, go for the sub basement. I've also noticed what seem like subsonics in some opera recordings. Not sure they are not more of a distraction there, though.
Well, even if no instruments play that low (except organs and synthesizers), I think that ultra-low-bass extension is desirable because it helps to give you a better feeling for the acoustic space of the performance, particularly in live recordings. It's not so much that you hear this kind of bass, but you sort of subconsciously feel it with your whole body. It expands the soundstage beyond the walls of your listening room and improves the "you are there" experience. IME, this can be true even for music that doesn't include a lot of "musical information" down there, for example, choral works in a large cathedral.
as low bass imparts venue information as much as anything. The amount may be small, but you notice it when it's missing and the soundstage collapses some.
Brian Walsh
Funny thing; I thought music was supposed to be an auditory experience, as opposed to a visual one; but what do I know? Or is the problem that the loudspeaker in question decides to resonate when given low frequencies it can't handle. The above is typical of most typical boom box design loudspeakers. Try the above with a well designed line tunnel or better yet a well designed transmission line and your boom box effects disappear. Face it; Fried is right.
While the lowest note on a full sized piano is 27hz, it is seldom played. Tympani are tuned to 25hz, but when played loudly double. The lowest note on a 4 string bass is 42hz, but its 2nd harmonic is usually 8~10dB louder(5 string is 31hz). A few years ago the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (JAES) did a music survey with a spectrum analyzer. 98% didn't go below 40hz, 99.99% didn't go below 28hz, and you could count on one hand ones that went below 28hz (and they were all synthesized). If you hold the box size constant, going from 40hz to 28hz costs you 4.65dB, and going from 28hz to 20hz another 4.35dB .
)I used to build and sell what I thought was the optimum trade-off, a 40hz sized box with 28hz 'step-down-tuning'. On 98% of the music it had 9dB more output than the 20hz box. A modest amount of EQ was designed in to the amplifier to make it flat to 28hz. While there is no such thing as a free lunch, good engineering choices can seem almost 'free'.
Tympani? Their are 5 avalable, all which have a tension pedal to adjust eaches notes. The lowest, largest Tymps. ,have fundamintals to only 47hZ. Each Tymp is a 1 octave instrument with thae range adjustable via footpedal. Go to your local high school and play them.
The lowest note of the piano - Even when it's played, the fundamental (i.e. 27Hz) is usually less audible than its harmonics, and it's these harmonics that ironically allow us to identify 'that' lowest note of the piano, and not the fundamental.do agree that with all that low freq content, the sense of 'space' is better protrayed (as with high high freq content)
The first movement of Ravel's Concerto for the Left Hand had a few of those 'last notes'.
I have a very nice recording of Virgil Fox playing the John Wanamaker Grand Concourse Organ in Philly. Ive heard it live and no home system is gonna come close. It has a set of SIXTY-FOUR foot pipes. My system is down 3db at twenty-six hz. It don't even come close. For that kind of bass you need huge amount of power just to move enough air. Buy a good set of sealed headphones that are in effect isobaricly coupled to you ear drums. The other problem is most rooms are just not big enough to sustain that kind of bass reproduction. I suppose you could just buy a shaker coil and hook it to your system and listening chair for real seat of the pants bass. The used to sell them for car stereos. EKG
Mount your lounge on a platform with a couple of low frequency shakers for added realism.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: