Are big subwoofers viable for 2 channel music?

Tim --

I had stated: "I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. " I believe my statement is generally correct ..

No, you are generally wrong in this specific instance. Why do you maintain to be "generally correct" when you admit the following (and is faced with facts/empirical evidence to prove otherwise):

.. but I’m willing to concede the fact that there is recorded sub 20 Hz bass existing on numerous 4K Bluray discs if individuals are willing to invest the time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back. I’m not interested in doing so but I understand there are other HT enthusiasts that enjoy plumbing the bass depths of their HT systems.

The "time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back" is one to be invested in any endeavor regarding sub(s) implementation, in fact the only difference here is acquiring subs that dig below 20Hz (and having sufficient power). Have your DBA set-up if you so prefer (in your case that’s a rhetorical question), find the proper (bigger) subs to delve into infrasonics, and voila. To boot: as poster @jwmorris referred to there’s the added bonus with bigger subs of having more headroom.

Phusis, your link on your last post to a Spotify site, that you stated lists music recordings containing bass below 20 Hz, did not work and connect me to this list. Can you please correct this and repost the link?

Let’s forward this to @jwmorris as the proper recipient.

You do realize that you conflated several separate but related bass issues when you stated ""This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this.", right?

What I pointed out with named examples was to expose and emphasize the nature of your argument, irrespective of the particularities brought up. You often seek to wrap up matters in a nice bundle of absolutes, or would certainly like to get to where (a fresh example) "anything below 20Hz is hogwash because we can’t ’hear it,’ and moreover there’s not really any source material to support it," because that’s what you’ve gotten into your head. It’s convenient even, and while we’re at it let’s try and have everyone else agree on it.

You conflated the separate issues of whether there are any music recordings in any format that contain bass below 20 Hz with whether this deep bass is recorded in stereo and whether individuals would be capable of perceiving the deep bass as stereo even if the bass below 20 Hz actually was recorded in stereo. My point is that all the following conditions have to be met for you to be correct about the viability of achieving true stereo deep bass in your system: ..

Again, as examples not intended to necessarily strike on a relation between them, going on from here is redundant. We have been confronted with yours and poster @millercarbon’s views in particular on the prowess of the DBA sub set-up ad nauseam (and you’ve learned of my views a couple times as well), and we get it. Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

For this conversation then, let’s focus on the latest subject for you to preferably shave into the size you deem fitting: <20Hz reproduction (and that it, to you, doesn’t amount to anything, in truth because your lack of experience here and theory-laden approach keeps you from knowing about it), which also naturally caters to and reverts our attention to the OP’s inquiry, whether big subs are viable for 2-channel music (and HT).

@millercarbon --

Everything Tim posted is right ...

Obviously it isn’t.

Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.

Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:

Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.

Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.

@millercarbon --

Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.

Let's hone in and focus on what's addressed here with a few excerpts of noble100's:

... your apparent endorsement of employing subs with larger woofers and in quantities beyond 4 subs to reproduce bass well below 20 Hz and even further improve bass performance, both surprises and somewhat confuses me.
    It's my understanding that reproduced bass tones below 20 Hz are not audible, mainly just vibrate things around the room including parts of our bodies, there are very few musical instruments that produce bass below 20 Hz with pipe organs being the only ones I'm aware of and there being virtually no commercially available music recordings containing bass frequencies below 20 Hz.
    I prefer bass that sounds and feels natural like when music is played, heard and felt live in person at smaller venues, not like over-amplified arena rock bass. What am I misunderstanding about music bass below 20Hz?

..and in a later post:

... My main point, which I believe you likely agree with, is that it makes little sense to have an audio system capable of bass down to 6 Hz if there’s no HT or music content that contains bass that deep. Are you sure you’re not listening and feeling bass that’s going down to 20 Hz and just thinking it’s going down to 6 Hz?
In my room, even bass down to only 20 Hz sounds and feels very deep with powerful impact and realism on both HT and music. I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.

And that's just it: "I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.," because he wouldn't know otherwise having no had the actual experience of the impact <20Hz can have. And that's OK if it weren't for the fact that theory trumps experience here, not in the sense of being in the right about it, but by letting theory have its say to presume he's right, when he's not in this case; experience, it seems, is irrelevant, and yet it would tell him, and you, that a rigid 20Hz barrier (or what's "audible") isn't the final word in bass extension. Not to mention the importance of headroom which is a "neat" takeaway with bigger subs, but getting through with that is futile when most would believe what they have is "enough." 

Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:

Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.

You conveniently left out 'experience,' which forms a view. It tells me a thing about you in particular; it's not that you can't listen (or so I presume), but rather that your reliance on theory (or "science and logic," as you so put it) won't get you to where experience could challenge your assumptions on audio. 

Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.

My "word games" are simply trying to express the importance of letting experience (i.e.: listening) have its say, as per above. It's not that I'm oblivious to science and logic, I'm just weary of having it dictate what I'm hearing. 

     As enthusiast enamored with our equipment, in our room, in our opinion we have to be careful not to be closed minded. I do not believe most enthusiast start with a great system. Great systems usually evolve over time. Most enthusiast come to a forum seeking advice and/or to learn from other people’s knowledge and experience.  

     We read, research, hear, or hear about a new way of doing things and we explore the new information. If we are open minded our joy of the hobby and our systems are improved. If we are determined to be closed minded, we do not grow. If we are determined to be closed minded we miss out on possible system improvements.

     If we insist our way is “The” only way we hinder/limit our own growth. If we openly criticize equipment and experiences with no credible experiences we could possibly hinder the growth of others. In those cases we should always remember to include “In My Opinion/Experience” etc.  
 
    I read more than I post. I try not to criticize anyone’s personal preference of speakers etc. I have heard multi-subwoofer setups. I actually considered purchasing a SWARM setup. I have experimented with a third subwoofer in my room. I have also experienced sub-woofer systems capable of Ultra Low Frequencies (ULF). I am very happy with my system but I am also very aware it can be improved.

     None of our systems are perfect. None of us know everything. None of us should attempt to invalidate the experience of someone else based on our own experience. The goal should always be to learn more/understand more. The goal should always be to improve and increase our enjoyment of music and the music playback systems. Some have forgotten this, others never knew it.      

https://www.certifiedautosound.com/basshead-songs-put-your-subwoofer-system-to-the-test/?hilite=%27bass%27%2C%27below%27%2C%2720hz%27

 

We sorted through about 75 tracks using Adobe Audition. Audition allows us to look at the spectral content of a track quickly to find out how low it extends. We’ve included spectral content charts for each track that shows frequency along the vertical scale, time across the horizontal scale and amplitude shown as color intensity from black through purple and orange.... (continued)

The monologue introduction to “Boom Boom Pow” by will.i.am builds to a crescendo from the 45-second mark, peaking with infrasonic information from :50 to 1:03. Content during this time extends solidly down to 7 Hz. There is another drop at 2:18, and the section from 3:13 to 3:42 contains a lot of infrasonic content. If your system is up to the challenge, this track has it all: a solid conventional bass line and enough content below 20Hz to make any true basshead happy!

Another all-time-classic classical recording is Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture. This recording is known for its jaw-dropping cannon blasts at the end. When played back on a vinyl record, all but the very best turntable configurations will result in the needle jumping out of the track as the cannons go off. The first five cannon blasts appear at 12:36 into the track. The second and most impressive group begins at 14:41, with the blast at 14:55 containing low-frequency energy that extends down to nearly DC levels. Call it one to two Hertz if you want – it makes no difference.