Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
We had a very thought provoking discussion at NAMM with Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson CEO about how much more important the lower frequencies were rather than the HF that people obsess about. He's really clued in to this stuff and approaches it from a perspective that factors in the physiology of the human ear.

 
I think a lot of people realize this instinctively and that is why there are so many high quality preamps on the market that offer adequate power supplies that can translate the details and nuance of low frequency dynamic response.
 
 
With regards to people who speak of the notion of "subsonics", they are simply spreading misinformation. Here in Tallahassee we have a gentleman who has developed a "woofer" that can produce low notes down to 1Hz. Once you hear discrete sine waves such as 1Hz, 4hz, 10Hz etc. played back on his woofer you realize that people who describe a hearing threshold at the low frequency simply do not know what they are speaking about. 
 
 
edit grammar 

mike_mccue

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
We had a very thought provoking discussion at NAMM with Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson CEO about how much more important the lower frequencies were rather than the HF that people obsess about. He's really clued in to this stuff and approaches it from a perspective that factors in the physiology of the human ear.

 
I think a lot of people realize this instinctively and that is why there are so many high quality preamps on the market that offer adequate power supplies that can translate the details and nuance of low frequency dynamic response.
 
 
With regards to people who speak of the notion of "subsonics", they are simply spreading misinformation. Here in Tallahassee we have a gentleman who has developed a "woofer" that can produce low notes down to 1Hz. Once you hear discrete sine waves such as 1Hz, 4hz, 10Hz etc. played back on his woofer you realize that people who describe a hearing threshold at the low frequency simply do not know what they are speaking about. 
 
 
edit grammar 

Do I understand you? Are you saying one can hear frequencies below 20 Hz? 

He is. And it's true, 20hz is an approximation, some people would get down a bit further under ideal conditions. However, whatever Mike thinks he's heard, he has not heard a 1hz sine wave.

At those low frequencies it is probably more "feeling" than hearing and I have a hard time believing there is any way to relate such low frequencies to any sort of actual pitch (ie, a C note). Maybe 16Hz, but surely not 8 or 4 Hz. Also I really don't think whoever produced the music even had an idea that such low frequencies existed in their song so if it is there it is probably by accident. So if anything you probably don't want to hear it as it is just noise.
 
The only time I can think where such low frequencies matter is in the movie theatre where you are supposed to "feel" something, like the dinosaurs approaching in Jurassic Park, or whatever.

Well, I keep circling back to how good all of the music from the late 60's and 70's still sounds, having had none of the level of technology that exists today, and regardless of the mathematics and research, and whatever, I am going to simply use 48 K, at 24-bit depth, and do the most I can within that - including spending quality time to create quality compositions.
 
The above is only an expression of how I choose to proceed, at this point.
 
Bob Bone
 

Jeff Evans
I have just mastered a very high quality Jazz CD. The mixes came to me at 24 Bit 88.2 Khz and yes they sound great. But even after mastering and dithering down to 16 Bit 44.1Khz the difference between the two sounding formats is so miniscule. It is really inaudible in fact. I did a little test and just changed down the original mixes from their original format to 16 Bit 44.1KHz and did no mastering, just compared the two and believe me I would challenge anyone to hear anything between them! The issue is the music is just so good and the moment I hear either of those formats I am off listening to the playing so once that happens I think there is no hope of hearing anything much else!

I had a similar experience with the last project we recorded. It was tracked in PT at 96K, mixed at 96K in SONAR and mastered to at  96K and finally downsampled to 44.1 for the CD master. I did a test loading up both a 44.1K and 96K track in SONAR (in a 96K project). Then I phase inverted the two tracks and bounced the result down to a new track. I was surprised with the result. What was left was some noise that was completely inaudible even if I cranked the volume all the way up :)
So unless something went wrong during the capture or mastering process that I was unaware of, this probably means that there was nothing significant in the recording that took advantage of the 96K range. I can't generalize here since its definitely possible that you may get different results with other music that has more HF content - however in my case this didn't make anyy diffference for all  practical purposes at all.

LOL... just imagine if you could sit Mozart, Bach, Beethoven in front of X3!
 
No wait... after the initial euphoria, they would say is "What's up with the Staff View????"
 
Edit: That figures... Noel posts as I am typing that  [duck and cover]

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencychecklow.php A test.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

Jeff Evans
I have just mastered a very high quality Jazz CD. The mixes came to me at 24 Bit 88.2 Khz and yes they sound great. But even after mastering and dithering down to 16 Bit 44.1Khz the difference between the two sounding formats is so miniscule. It is really inaudible in fact. I did a little test and just changed down the original mixes from their original format to 16 Bit 44.1KHz and did no mastering, just compared the two and believe me I would challenge anyone to hear anything between them! The issue is the music is just so good and the moment I hear either of those formats I am off listening to the playing so once that happens I think there is no hope of hearing anything much else!

I had a similar experience with the last project we recorded. It was tracked in PT at 96K, mixed at 96K in SONAR and mastered to at  96K and finally downsampled to 44.1 for the CD master. I did a test loading up both a 44.1K and 96K track in SONAR (in a 96K project). Then I phase inverted the two tracks and bounced the result down to a new track. I was surprised with the result. What was left was some noise that was completely inaudible even if I cranked the volume all the way up :)
So unless something went wrong during the capture or mastering process that I was unaware of, this probably means that there was nothing significant in the recording that took advantage of the 96K range. I can't generalize here since its definitely possible that you may get different results with other music that has more HF content - however in my case this didn't make anyy diffference for all  practical purposes at all.

 I am not surprised, Noel.  

John
http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencychecklow.php A test.

I just downloaded that mp3 and put SPAN on it, the LF peak where he says "10 Hz" is well over 20Hz and spills over all the way to 80 Hz.