S888Wheel wrote:

I made my claim about 6 hz with the
assumption that it would be taken within the context of high end
audio and the recording and playback of music.

So far so good.

Clearly some people on
RAHE find 6 hz tones useful for things that exist outside of those
parameters.

The other, non-audio related uses of infrasonic sound are irrelevant. Just
another straw man argument.

Fourier analysis proves that any musical sound can be analyzed and found to
be a collection of tones.

http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/digitalaudio.htm


High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to reduce or
eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible effects on the
rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay. It is discussed whether it is
worthwhile to produce a record/replay chain having uniform

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound that
was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical content, and/or
intentially making alterations that adversely affect sound quality seem to
be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity


Now if you wish to discuss the topic of what I think is
useful in the way of low frequency extension we must establish the
parameters of use.

The stated context of high end audio and recording and playback of music
seems to be just fine.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term. Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical
and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial
content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is neither
exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously think that the basic
list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when it was made? Do they think
that no more recordings of this kind have ever been released?

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutly no need to try to reproduce cannon
shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz range, even though they exist
in nature, even though they exist in live performances, even though they are
reliably perceptible and even though they exist as integral parts of
recordings. Right?

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the lowest
fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio system, and your
enjoyment.

So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are particuarly
irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
content, and/or intentially making alterations that adversely affect
sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably because
the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some kind of
objective standard.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical
and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial
content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is neither
exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously think that the basic
list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when it was made? Do they think
that no more recordings of this kind have ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
that's what we have to use.

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutly no need to try to reproduce cannon
shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz range, even though they exist
in nature, even though they exist in live performances, even though they are
reliably perceptible and even though they exist as integral parts of
recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
to be.

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the lowest
fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio system, and your
enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are particuarly
irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
content, and/or intentially making alterations that adversely affect
sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably because
the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some kind of
objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
scontent is detectable in a real-world dbt. You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when
it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this kind have
ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
that's what we have to use.

If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the recordings
listed had content below 10 Hz.

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
to be.

How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the death
over hedge words?

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
system, and your enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some frequency is a
day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production do it all the time.
People make this choice implicitly when they make choices about their audio
system.

So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
particularly irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
content, and/or intentionally making alterations that adversely affect
sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some
kind of objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the related
audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about DBTs. Anybody
who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that brickwall-type filters are
sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz, even with musical and natural
sounds that are rich in ultrasonic content.

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
content is detectable in a real-world dbt.

Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my guest. I'm
not playing.

You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.

Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence that has
been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you get to make. AES
papers apparently mean nothing to you. Compendiums of related facts from
independent sources apparently mean nothing to you. Relevant PCABX
listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean nothing
to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when
it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this kind have
ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
that's what we have to use.

If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the recordings
listed had content below 10 Hz.

Yes. This is about .000000000001% of *all* recordings.

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
to be.

How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the death
over hedge words?

"number of musical works, both classical and popular, have been
analyzed and found to contain substantial content at frequencies at or
near 6 Hz, and lower".

To me, that sounds like a good quantity of recordings with A LOT of
close to 6 hz content.

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
system, and your enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some frequency is a
day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production do it all the time.
People make this choice implicitly when they make choices about their audio
system.

That doesn't have anything to do with my statement that I didn't think
that your list offered "a number of works" which had "substantial
amounts" of near 6 hz content.

So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
particularly irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
content, and/or intentionally making alterations that adversely affect
sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some
kind of objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the related
audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about DBTs. Anybody
who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that brickwall-type filters are
sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz, even with musical and natural
sounds that are rich in ultrasonic content.

You still haven't posted *your* proof about what you say about the
audibility (or perceivability if you will) of the 6 hz range. And,
since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
content is detectable in a real-world dbt.

Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my guest. I'm
not playing.

I see. Dbts are now "hedges". OK. I fully expect you not to demand
them in the future then.

You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.

Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence that has
been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you get to make. AES
papers apparently mean nothing to you.

Nothing you've posted from AES here addresses the issues that we're
discussing.

Compendiums of related facts from independent sources apparently mean nothing to you.

Hey, just playing by the rules that you've established. There are
*plenty* of "related facts from independent sources" that talk about
the audibility of *all sorts* of things like cables, etc. It's
verifiability that's at issue here.

Relevant PCABX
listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean nothing
to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

You haven't posted the results of *any* such tests of musical
recordings that feature close to 6 hz content.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list
when it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this
kind have ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument.
So that's what we have to use.

If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the
recordings listed had content below 10 Hz.

Yes. This is about .000000000001% of *all* recordings.

Straw man argument since no relevant statistics were provided.

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it
out to be.

How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the
death over hedge words?

"number of musical works, both classical and popular, have been
analyzed and found to contain substantial content at frequencies at or
near 6 Hz, and lower".

Irrelevant since any judgement would be based on Weil's beliefs, not any
reasonble independent source.


To me, that sounds like a good quantity of recordings with A LOT of
close to 6 hz content.

Straw man argument.


This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
system, and your enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some
frequency is a day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production
do it all the time. People make this choice implicitly when they
make choices about their audio system.

That doesn't have anything to do with my statement that I didn't think
that your list offered "a number of works" which had "substantial
amounts" of near 6 hz content.

Straw man argument since Weil's thoughts have not been shown to be relevant
or authoritative.

So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably
audible effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low
Frequencies Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in
the record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder.
Digital recorders now make it practical to remove much of this
group delay. It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce
a record/replay chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
particularly irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original
sound that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating
musical content, and/or intentionally making alterations that
adversely affect sound quality seem to be the opposite of high
fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like
some kind of objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD
players.

Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the
related audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about
DBTs. Anybody who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that
brickwall-type filters are sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz,
even with musical and natural sounds that are rich in ultrasonic
content.

You still haven't posted *your* proof about what you say about the
audibility (or perceivability if you will) of the 6 hz range.

Straw man argument. Irrelevant to a point you yourself raised Weil, being
brickwall filters in CD players. Do try to keep your issues straight! BTW,
in this context, arguing about brickwall filters in CD players is itself a
straw man argument.

And, since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?

Straw man argument since brickwall filters are not about what can be heard
above 16 KHz, but rather about the audible effects of removing content above
16 KHz.

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
content is detectable in a real-world dbt.

Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my
guest. I'm not playing.

I see. Dbts are now "hedges". OK. I fully expect you not to demand
them in the future then.

Strawman argument since the discussion was about "hedge words" not DBTs.

You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.

Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence
that has been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you
get to make. AES papers apparently mean nothing to you.

Nothing you've posted from AES here addresses the issues that we're
discussing.

Inability to read JAES abstracts noted.

Compendiums of related facts from independent sources apparently
mean nothing to you.

Hey, just playing by the rules that you've established.

Strawman argument since the discussion was not about alleged rules.


There are
*plenty* of "related facts from independent sources" that talk about
the audibility of *all sorts* of things like cables, etc. It's
verifiability that's at issue here.

Strawman argument since the discussion was not about cables.

Relevant PCABX
listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean
nothing to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

You haven't posted the results of *any* such tests of musical
recordings that feature close to 6 hz content.

Strawman argument since it is well known that PCABX is for people to use to
develop their own results.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/26/2004 2:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

I made my claim about 6 hz with the
assumption that it would be taken within the context of high end
audio and the recording and playback of music.

So far so good.

Clearly some people on
RAHE find 6 hz tones useful for things that exist outside of those
parameters.

The other, non-audio related uses of infrasonic sound are irrelevant. Just
another straw man argument.

It wasn't an argument. I was simpoly pointing out that some people are
interested in the use of 6 hz tones outside of high end audio and the recording
and playback of music. I thought in consideration of those other interests held
by other people that we should clearly define the parameters of usefulness for
this discussion. I will happily discuss it within the parameters of high end
audio, the recording and playback of music.


Fourier analysis proves that any musical sound can be analyzed and found to
be a collection of tones.

http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/digitalaudio.htm

Indeed it does. Your source also clearly indicates that the lowest tone any
instrument can produce is the fundimental tone. So the lowest tone needed to
reproduce any acoustical instrument in the real world is just above 16 hz.




High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I have never said there are no CDs containing such content. I have said that
such content is of no use. Hopefully you will remember the context in which I
am making that claim. IMO it is unlikely that any of that content is anything
other than cheap effects and garbage, We can be pretty sure none of it is of
any acoustic musical instrument. If you can find the specifics of any such low
frequency content then we can discuss it's merits. For instance, I would be
very keen to know what microphone was used to record any of these low
frequencies. I would be curious to know the levels of such content as well. We
can then figure out if the content was or was not mangled to the point of pure
garbage at the point of recording and we can figure out whether or not there is
audible content or just enough energy to shake the listening room which is in
effect garbage because no such listening room was present at the recording.



Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to reduce or
eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible effects on the
rest of the recording.


This is a bit of a broad assertion. What are those means "generally used" that
you are refering to? What are other means used? What audible effects can we say
for sure these different means of attenuating low frequencies 6hz and below)
have on the recording and playback? Without an investigation of these questions
we cannot say that 6 hz tones are "useful" or not.


The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay. It is discussed whether it is
worthwhile to produce a record/replay chain having uniform

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound that
was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical content, and/or
intentially making alterations that adversely affect sound quality seem to
be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity



I don't see any evidence of "musical" content at 6 hz. There are recordinbg
engineers that seem to think not filtering 6 hz tones and others in that region
will adversely affect the recording. If the mic can't relaibly record such
content without gross distortion that content is simply garbage that does harm
to the final recording if it does anything at all.


Now if you wish to discuss the topic of what I think is
useful in the way of low frequency extension we must establish the
parameters of use.

The stated context of high end audio and recording and playback of music
seems to be just fine.






Excellent. Thank you for your post. My compliments for keeping it about audio.