frequency range for instrument vs speaker

There is an audio frequency chart linked in another thread under speakers. It shows the frequency range of musical instruments. It is under the thread titled, " Thoughts from THE Show, is $29k the new $10k?".

Oops! I just clicked on the poster's link and found it is the same chart.

I have had speakers with a flat frequency response down to 20Hz and my current speakers are flat to 27 or 28Hz. I haven't missed those bottom 7Hz. I occasionally heard thumps in recordings like in the first Cowboy Junkies Album with my old speakers that I don't hear now, but that wasn't really music or part of the music. It was like someone's foot banged into the mic. More just ambiance that was not really adding to the music. I think speakers have a full sound or a nice robust fullness if they can get down to the low 30s. Monitors that start to fall off in the 40s sound good and musical to me, just a little light in the bass and missing that kick or punch in the bass. Maybe it depends on the amplifier and cables too. I can play Fresh Aire III on vinyl and the drums go right through the floor with my current speakers/amp- much deeper feeling as I remember vs. my old speakers/amp combo that went down to 20Hz.

Drew: I understood that speaker frequency response is measured in an anechoic chamber so that consistent comparisons can be made with regard to speaker response performance. In the real world, the speaker sits on a hard or soft floor, close to or far from walls and ceilings. These variables, plus furniture, curtains and rugs create colorations in the music and then we must consider the type of amplifier and cables attached to the speakers and how they respond to the impedence characteristics. So speaker designers can create an instrument that looks perfect on paper when operated in an ideal environment, but how it behaves in our homes can be an entirely different matter, right? For example, just placing speakers near corners in a room can reinforce the base or adding curtains on the wall can dampen down the highs. I also learned in the past that too much dampening in the room kills the music. I have my speakers positioned a good distance from any wall. My speakers sit on spikes on a wood floor but I have a good sized rug placed directly in front of them. I haven't made a detail spectrum measurement but I believe I am close to a flat response curve as I could possibly get. Not saying that it is flat, just that I have acheived a satisfactory balance. I think about all of the parameters that speaker designers must consider both acoustically and electronically and then the nearly infinite variables of peoples' listening enviroment, associated cables and electronic gear and I can see why we have so many types and styles of speakers.

"I'd say just about *any* loudspeaker would benefit from the right pair of subs properly blended."

That's true because it is adding more power (assuming powered subwoofers) to the whole system and low frequency reproduction takes lots of power. Properly blended is the key and that doesn't come cheap. Plus, at some point the stereo will either run everyone out of the house or shake the house down. The ultimate plight of the over-enthusiastic audiophile.

I tend to agree that below 30Hz is not really musically relavant. Sure, it adds ambience in some cases. By the low 20s it is more felt than heard. It is an awesome experience to hear a large pipe organ in a large cathedral. I have never heard that reproduced electronically 100%. Perhaps it would take a room nearly as big as a cathedral to do it. The 16ft pedal on the pipe organ just makes a pressure and creates a certain mood and is always a relief when that low frequency sound ends. I think that is part of the mood too. I think some experiences like being in front of a large pipe organ need to be experienced first hand.

If you think you can just buy a subwoofer, drop it into your living room and add an octave to the range of your music, then you are deluding yourselves. Room volume and size plays a much greater role in the low frequency response of a stereo system than with the higher voice range frequencies. Just like discussed, speakers can have a perfectly flat frequency response in an ideal anechoic environment, they do not quite achieve that flat response line in a real world listening environment. Perfectly flat response is a bit dull and boring anyway. I know, I tried that once years ago. I worked hard on my room with an analyzer and anechoic panels to make a flat response at my listening position. It sucked the life out of the music. btw- I had speakers back then had a 20-20k Hz range. I found the bass sounded better way into the next room as compared to my listening position.
When you add a subwoofer to your system and things seem to go deeper, that's mostly because it is reinforcing the 30-40's Hz range. You are not going to hear 20Hz from 12 ft back, ie. not at the same SPL level as the higher frequencies. That wavelength is over 56 feet long. Sure you can fold it over and reflect it back, but you better have some sturdy walls to get efficient reflections and the distances better be just right so it is at the correct phase angle at your ears. Even the 30-40 Hz range have wavelengths over 20ft long so their SPL levels at 12 ft back are not going to be as high as levels in the voice range without some boosting. Just try listening to the grand pipe organ from 12 feet back sometime. You won't hear the low pedals that close to the pipes nearly like being much further back in the building.

Johnnyb, you explained it well. It takes a lot of effort and work to get it balanced across the broad spectrum. What I was trying to say is that the long wavelengths are multiple times the length of a typical listening position. So the SPL at 12ft (typical listening position) of a 20Hz frequency is going to be much lower that at 56.5 ft-, ie. the full wavelength. So to make the 20Hz frequency the same loudness at 12ft as shorter wavelengths will take a lot of power and then the loudness of the 20Hz frequency will be much higher as you move out to the 56ft range. Like you said, you have to work very hard to balance all of that out and get it to work. You are taking great pains to get the reflections and the sources to all come together at the listening position. I still doubt you can achieve a balanced 20-20k in a small room.

You are right. Full spectrum audio is achievable but takes a lot of patience and money. More than I have of either one. I certainly don't want to discourage the enthusiasts that are working to achieve that, but it is also good to share our failures and successes so others learn something from it. I'm pretty happy where I am with my system today. I think my large size and volume listening room combined with the wood floors made a tremendous improvement in the sound of the lower registers. I had the Thiel CS3.6 pair when I moved into this house and they just didn't seem to be enough for this large room. When I got the CS6 pair the sound filled in nicely. I'm not trying to play at loud volumes, just that the larger speakers seem to fill the range better in a larger room. The converse is true too- smaller speakers work better in a smaller room.
Everyone has a different path to take in this hobby. Many are happy to have the mid-range magic of Quads, which I also used to enjoy immensely at a friend's house years ago with female vocals, and others want the full range to go with their broad stage orchestral music and others the hard kick and punch of rock and roll.

I'd say that there is not a divergence of opinion here; but a divergence of preference. What frogman said yesterday triggered a memory. I was listening to a 70s vintage record a few months ago and remember thinking to myself that the reverb was not nearly as apparent as it was years ago on my old system with the speakers that had 20-20k response. This record is a studio recording and the reverb from the walls is very apparent. On my old system it was nearly at a level of distraction. I remember my brother listening to that record years ago and commenting on it and he didn't like it. I could still hear the reverb a bit but much more subtle on today's system. Another observation: In the services yesterday morning a musician was playing the drums. Not real drums, they were electronic. The loud low frequency thumping created a pressure in my head. I didn't really enjoy that part of the music.
I used to do NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness) work in automotive in the 90s. I remember back then a course instructor at an SAE seminar said that older people do not like low frequencies but young people do not mind them so much. When gas prices started rising and cars started shrinking, the stiffness of chassis went down. Late 70s to late 80s saw a trend away from body on frame moving towards unibody for weight savings and better fuel economy. The NVH of cars worsened. I think cars made in the 50s and 60s rode quieter than 70s and 80s cars if compared as new to new. Boom was prevalent in unibody cars. Remember one design solution? They added speed sensitive volume to radios. By the early 90s automakers started using better steels, weld joint designs and stamped in patterns to increase body stiffness. They also added constrained layer damping materials and e-coat to reduce Boom and rattles. But I remember what that instructor said and I think I have reached that point where I don't really want the low, low frequency material at the same comparative loudness as mid bass and mid tones.
That what I was saying before- many people love their Maggies and Quads for their mid range magic and don't mind not having the bottom register.