How low can you hear?

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Okay, I know. 20hz.

But (I presume) that’s come from listening to test tones at individual frequencies.

If I tell you an experience I had, it might help the question. I had a pair of stand mounted speakers which went down to 75hz +/-3db. And I had a sub that went down to 40. I had them set up with an A/V amp, and after a basic positioning set up, I had a listen.

It sound a bit bass-lite, and I had a quick look and found I’d not selected a setting in the AV amp correctly. Once switched correctly there was far more bass. I did a few tests, position, different tracks, flicking the setting it was clear immediately. And not just in an A/B test, you could tell which it was set to with just listening to one.

It got me thinking, I know I’ve heard lots of talk about 70s music mixed for radio only going down to 50hz, and other stories about things not being mixed right down to 20hz, and even ‘feeling’ below 20hz. And the lowest pipes in church organs (why did they do that?).

Anyway, whilst you might be able to hear a test tone at 20hz, at what cut off point would you immediately be able to spot your music being bass-lite? In normal listening, would you be easily able to spot the difference between 20hz and 50? 20 and 40? 20 and 30?

All views and experiences welcome, along with associated notes on the type of music, etc. But please remember, this isn’t about the lowest test time you can hear, it’s about what you’ve actually notice was missing in your music in normal listening.

 

[Digby]

Bass was a big problem on records (think bass is always cut mono?), too much might make a needle skip, so probably the low end was tamed/reduced somewhat. Save for movies/organ music, you might not notice a huge difference between flat to 40hz and flat to 20hz, except where there is a lot of music in the very low notes.

 

[sarumbear]

Okay, I know. 20hz.

But (I presume) that’s come from listening to test tones at individual frequencies.

If I tell you an experience I had, it might help the question. I had a pair of stand mounted speakers which went down to 75hz +/-3db. And I had a sub that went down to 40. I had them set up with an A/V amp, and after a basic positioning set up, I had a listen.

It sound a bit bass-lite, and I had a quick look and found I’d not selected a setting in the AV amp correctly. Once switched correctly there was far more bass. I did a few tests, position, different tracks, flicking the setting it was clear immediately. And not just in an A/B test, you could tell which it was set to with just listening to one.

It got me thinking, I know I’ve heard lots of talk about 70s music mixed for radio only going down to 50hz, and other stories about things not being mixed right down to 20hz, and even ‘feeling’ below 20hz. And the lowest pipes in church organs (why did they do that?).

Anyway, whilst you might be able to hear a test tone at 20hz, at what cut off point would you immediately be able to spot your music being bass-lite? In normal listening, would you be easily able to spot the difference between 20hz and 50? 20 and 40? 20 and 30?

All views and experiences welcome, along with associated notes on the type of music, etc. But please remember, this isn’t about the lowest test time you can hear, it’s about what you’ve actually notice was missing in your music in normal listening.

It depends on the music you are listening. Listen to an organ concerto and you will notice immediately if your limit is higher than 30Hz. Listen to a baroque trio and you won’t notice until 60Hz.

 

[AdamG]

Bass was a big problem on records (think bass is always cut mono?), too much might make a needle skip, so probably the low end was tamed/reduced somewhat. Save for movies/organ music, you might not notice a huge difference between flat to 40hz and flat to 20hz, except where there is a lot of music in the very low notes.

I recall reading somewhere (I will try to find the article) that low bass was limited on Vinyl Albums because the lower the bass notes the Deeper and wider the cut needed. This could severely reduce the amount of music space and literally cut into the play time of each side. I think I recall the article saying that they avoided anything below 50 hz to maintain play time per side. I could be recalling this incorrectly so until I find the article I can’t back this statement up.

On edit: I found this article that sort of supports this space usage problem.

Does Vinyl Have Less Bass? (Record Frequencies Explained) | Amps & Audio

We've all met that music fanatic who is adamant that the sound of vinyl is far superior to any other way audio format. Although there…

ampsandaudio.com

About the third paragraph down: https://www.rpmrecords.dk/blog/vinyl-record-length/

“First and foremost, the playback time on vinyl records is strictly limited to the disc diameter. Since grooves inscribed on a vinyl record are analogous to audio wave-forms – the wider and deeper cuts means louder music, and vice versa.

It also means, that continuously loud and heavy bass music will eat the available space on a record in a shorter period of time. While dynamic audio material with loud and silent parts results in dynamic cut, with narrower grooves at quiet places and wide deep grooves at loud passages. Consequently, saving available space on a record and allowing longer sides to be cut in good quality.

Stereo information will always cut deeper, and hence wider – occupying more space than for example a monophonic recording.”

How To Decide On Vinyl Record Length? | RPM's Vinyl Blog

A musician's guide to playback time on a vinyl record. Learn how to decide on a vinyl record length and what effects it will have on the final album.

www.rpmrecords.dk

 

[gamerpaddy]

if i cant feel the music, it doesnt go low enough.
i dont mean having everything bass only, boost to destruction.. if a percussion instrument plays in real life, you feel it, not just hear it.

i found after getting a pair of powerful subs that go down to 15hz , i cant listen without them anymore.
ive set them to a very low crossover point, so they only come in at frequencies that are on the edge of being audible. my headphones are way out at this point.
it seems to add depth, some moments sound much better with their non audible counterpart. hard to explain.

That vinyl problem may be the reason most 70's tracks sound so thin. just listen to led zeppelin 70's tracks. its missing so much.

 

[MRC01]

The often quoted range of human hearing, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, is a rough approximation. A more accurate or common range is closer to 16 Hz to 16,000 Hz. That is, under ideal conditions, most people can hear below 20 Hz, and very few can hear 20 kHz. As we age, we lose some of the highs but we usually retain the ability to hear the lows.

That said, achieving musical transparency is easier than percpetual transparency. Very little music, even bass heavy dance or organ music, goes as low as 20 Hz. Clean bass reproduction down to about 30 Hz is sufficient for most music.

 

[ocinn]

This could severely reduce the amount of music space and literally cut into the play time of each side. I think I recall the article saying that they avoided anything below 50 hz to maintain play time per side.

I DJ vinyl (electronic music) and there is absolutely deep bass <30-40hz on any record I have that actually has that fundamental frequency as a part of the music. Obviously comes down to the genre, format, and amount of space needed. The mastering/cutting engineer makes these calls and it is a specialized job (they also adjust EQ across the record, as the inner grooves tend to be darker than the outer rim).

Two 3:50 songs on one side of a 12" single (45rpm) can be cut far louder, with wider gaps between grooves, and with more bass, than let's say a full 22min on a side of a 12" 33rpm record, where space saving and worries about needle jumping to adjacent grooves, etc...

 

[sarumbear]

I recall reading somewhere (I will try to find the article) that low bass was limited on Vinyl Albums because the lower the bass notes the Deeper and wider the cut needed. This could severely reduce the amount of music space and literally cut into the play time of each side. I think I recall the article saying that they avoided anything below 50 hz to maintain play time per side. I could be recalling this incorrectly so until I find the article I can’t back this statement up.

While working at Abbey Road I worked at cutting lacquer. It is true that bass requires wider tracks, however we used a separate head on the tape player, which fed a circuitry controlling the lathe, temporarily increasing the track distance. That way only bass heavy parts of the track took space on the disk, hence optimised the available time.

The other trick was mixing the left and right channels below 60Hz which also reduced the track width.

Otherwise, bass frequencies were not limited above 20Hz.

However, there had been exceptions for some albums with large number of tracks on one side or some EPs.

 

[MRC01]

... That vinyl problem may be the reason most 70's tracks sound so thin. just listen to led zeppelin 70's tracks. its missing so much.

IMO, Led Zeppelin intentionally made their albums sound edgy and distorted. That was the sound that they thought suited the music artistically. It wasn't limitations of recording equipment, as many other great sounding albums were made during those years.

 

[MRC01]

... Anyway, whilst you might be able to hear a test tone at 20hz, at what cut off point would you immediately be able to spot your music being bass-lite? In normal listening, would you be easily able to spot the difference between 20hz and 50? 20 and 40? 20 and 30?
...

I have a harp recording in which a very low frequency can clearly be heard below the lowest strings. Analyzing the track, it's 25 Hz and seems to be a natural resonance. If it weren't there, I would notice!

 

[Digby]

The other trick was mixing the left and right channels below 60Hz which also reduced the track width.

summing to mono?

 

[Killingbeans]

And the lowest pipes in church organs (why did they do that?).

Church organs were for a long time one of the most technologically advanced man made objects on earth. They were literally designed to give the illusion of being in the presence of a deity.

Anyway, whilst you might be able to hear a test tone at 20hz, at what cut off point would you immediately be able to spot your music being bass-lite? In normal listening, would you be easily able to spot the difference between 20hz and 50? 20 and 40? 20 and 30?

Depends a lot on the music. Some tracks have also been processed with plug-ins that make use of the missing fundamental effect.

 

[fineMen]

Okay, I know. 20hz.
... about what you’ve actually notice was missing in your music in normal listening.

I've been missing bass for long. Today I equalize for full range down to 30Hz whilst meticulously preventing intermodulation in the range of 200Hz .. 1KHz. In case the sub/bass speakers are switched off (by accident) I won't take note too early. Bass is boring, and I say that as a bass player ;-)

 

[GaryH]

It's a commonly held myth that our ears cannot detect sound below 20 Hz, when in fact it's only tonal/pitch perception that ceases around there. Here's a review of the research on infrasound perception. Key quotes from that paper:

The hearing becomes gradually less sensitive for decreasing frequency, but there is no specific frequency at which the hearing stops. Despite the general understanding that infrasound is inaudible, humans can perceive sound also below 20 Hz.

For pure tones the tonal character and the sensation of pitch decrease with decreasing frequency, and they both cease around 20 Hz. Below this frequency tones are perceived as discontinuous. From around 10 Hz and lower it is possible to follow and count the single cycles of the tone, and the perception changes into a sensation of pressure at the ears.

Degradation [of low-frequency hearing] with age takes place only above 50 years.

Connected to the issue of the perception pathway is the question, whether the same thresholds are obtained if the whole body or only the ears are exposed. Yeowart and Evans (1974) measured thresholds in a whole-body chamber and with a binaural earphone...It is seen that the agreement between the two data sets is very good. This supports the assumption that also these low frequencies are actually sensed by the ears.

Thresholds are the same, whether the whole body or just the ears are exposed, thus it can be concluded that the sensation takes place in the ears even at frequencies below 20 Hz. However, it is not totally clear, whether the sensory pathway for infrasound is the normal pathway for hearing. The observation that deaf people can only detect infrasound through vibrotactile sensation - and for that they have the same threshold as normal-hearing persons - suggests that the normal auditory system is used.

That the sensation at low levels is auditory is further supported by the fact that perception thresholds for deaf people are much higher than for people with normal hearing.

In addition to direct detection, infrasound may be detected through amplitude modulation of sound at higher frequencies. This modulation is caused by the movement of the eardrum and middle-ear bones induced by the infrasound, which results in changes of transmission properties.

The perceived intensity of the sound rises more steeply above threshold than at higher frequencies. This is especially pronounced for frequencies below 20 Hz, where a sound only a few decibels above threshold may be perceived as quite intense.

Measurements of MAP [minimum audible pressure] may in principle be carried out in any sound field. However, they are usually done either in a pressure-field chamber that encloses the entire body of the listener, or with the sound created in a cavity that is coupled to the ear (or to both ears). If, in the latter case, the cavity is very small, e.g. like that of a supraaural audiometric earphone, physiological activity around the ear seems to result in noise under the earphone that elevates the threshold, in particular at low frequencies.

And there are many examples of sub-20Hz content in music, as well movie soundtracks.

Spoiler

For example:

Green: peak, red: average:

More movie soundtracks listed here, some reported down to 2 Hz.

Here are a couple more random tracks:

Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture

The Chemical Brothers' We Are The Night

Harman's research has found bass extension contributes a huge ~30% to preference in their blind listening tests. Low-frequency extension is important!

 

[Elder]

The often quoted range of human hearing, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, is a rough approximation. A more accurate or common range is closer to 16 Hz to 16,000 Hz. That is, under ideal conditions, most people can hear below 20 Hz, and very few can hear 20 kHz. As we age, we lose some of the highs but we usually retain the ability to hear the lows.

That said, achieving musical transparency is easier than percpetual transparency. Very little music, even bass heavy dance or organ music, goes as low as 20 Hz. Clean bass reproduction down to about 30 Hz is sufficient for most music.

I would classify Techno as bass heavy dance music and see very high levels of 20hz in most tracks I own.

Not sure about other genres.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Anyway, whilst you might be able to hear a test tone at 20hz, at what cut off point would you immediately be able to spot your music being bass-lite? In normal listening, would you be easily able to spot the difference between 20hz and 50? 20 and 40? 20 and 30?

As a few others already have stated, it depends on the music/content. And it also depends on listening volume, because even if there is low bass on the recording, it can not be heard if the level falls below threshold of hearing, and when that happens, it makes no difference if it is reproduced or not.

As mentionend in previous posts, we can hear well below 20hz, or, rather, the ears can detect pressure changes below. But does that mean a 20hz high-pass is audible? Indeed, it can be. Even a 10hz hp can be detected, but still, hard to find any program material with sufficient energy so low in frequency. This was tested some time ago, using test signals designed for that purpose, and it was possible to verify with abx that a 10hz hp had audible impact.

 

[dasdoing]

we have a topic over here somewhere where people tried to find the deepst tracks. the vast majority has no audible(!) energy below 30Hz-ish even if you play them loud.
below 20Hz is has to be even louder. The old saying we here nothing below comes probably because back than they couldn't play these frequencies loud enough.
you know that unpleasant pressure wave you hear when you open a backwindow in a car a little at high speed. that is below 20Hz and everybody can hear it, because it is louuuuud

 

[dasdoing]

when people say a system has good bass, it is mostly because it has power around 50Hz. that's what shakes us. the stuff below that is more subtle. unless we are talking about electronic music and synth bass pop, where we can have strong fundamentals in the 30-40Hz range.

 

[Casper]

For reference, the low E on a bass is 41.20Hz. Some orchestral players will have a C extension that takes it down to 32.7Hz. The lowest note on most pianos is A at 27.5Hz.

 

[GaryH]

And the lowest MIDI note is ~8Hz. Of course percussive sounds can consist of even lower frequencies than that.