Is REL being more 'musical' than SVS a myth, or is there some real science behind this?

[DonH56]

Class AB amps can be (and often are) bridged as well...

I have no direct experience with REL; have not looked at them in years and they were not high on my list back then so I have not researched further. Thanks for the info on their connections.

For other systems I have used a simple "H" attenuator to create an isolated line-level signal from a bridged (or unknown) amplifier. That way nothing gets shorted.

A crossover is required to provide all the usual benefits of adding a subwoofer. My "Why subs?" post from many years ago is copied below. People can do what they what, I just try to make them aware of the trades.

---

Why Subs?

I use subs, and have for decades, for all the usual reasons:

- Very (perhaps extremely) few "large" speakers actually play well below 40 Hz let alone 20 Hz. They distort heavily when presented with large bass signals (which most are -- see Fletcher-Munson) and driving them hard down low robs headroom for higher frequencies and causes distortion well above the fundamental signal frequency (harmonic and nasty intermodulation). Subs typically enable the mains to operate with much lower distortion.

- Very rare is the room setup such that the best place for stereo imaging and soundfield is the best place for the subs (or deep bass drivers) to counter room modes and such. Having independent subs provides placement options to smooth the in-room response. It is almost impossible to counter a null without subs (typically must move the MLP or change the room's dimensions though there are purpose-built panels that can also work). This is one of the things that led me to subs despite having quite capable mains.

- Powered subs offload the main amplifiers of the need to provide deep bass energy, providing more headroom and cleaner sound from the amplifiers.

- Music (let alone action movies) often contains deep bass content even if it is not real obvious. Kick drums, tympani, organ, sure, but also piano hammer strikes, plucked strings, beat patterns from instruments playing together, etc. May not really notice when they are there but usually obvious when they are taken away. Having subs fill in the bottom octave or three can make a difference.

- Purpose-built subs can provide high output cleanly at relatively low cost. The amplifiers and drivers need only cover a fairly limited frequency range so have fewer constraints upon them than woofers in a full-range system.

I do prefer main speakers with fairly deep bass and always have. Crossovers are not brick walls so a fair amount of energy still comes from the mains an octave below the crossover frequency. Higher-order crossovers allow you to reduce the overlap, but I still like having the capability. I have never really understood the idea of running "passive" bi-amping as implemented by an AVR (sending full-range signals to multiple channels and letting the speaker's crossovers separate frequency bands -- wastes amplifier headroom and seems to me of little benefit). Nor do I agree with the "plus" setting putting subs and mains in parallel; again, my idea has always been to isolate the two for the reasons above.

My first sub was a DIY design using an Infinity IRS woofer with my own control box to provide the crossover and a servo circuit using the second voice coil of the woofer. I had a Hafler DH-220 around so also incorporated a circuit to bridge it for use as a subwoofer amp. It worked well and the -3 dB point was ~16 Hz. I now run four small (F12) Rythmik subs using a similar (but updated) servo design with my Revel Salon2's and am happy with the result.

FWIWFM/IME/IMO/my 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don


Stereo subs:

I have gone back and forth on stereo subs over many years (since ~1979/1980 when I built my first sub) and ultimately decided it is not worth it. It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

 

[jsilvela]

Class AB amps can be (and often are) bridged as well...

I have no direct experience with REL; have not looked at them in years and they were not high on my list back then so I have not researched further. Thanks for the info on their connections.

For other systems I have used a simple "H" attenuator to create an isolated line-level signal from a bridged (or unknown) amplifier. That way nothing gets shorted.

A crossover is required to provide all the usual benefits of adding a subwoofer. My "Why subs?" post from many years ago is copied below. People can do what they what, I just try to make them aware of the trades.

---

Why Subs?

I use subs, and have for decades, for all the usual reasons:

- Very (perhaps extremely) few "large" speakers actually play well below 40 Hz let alone 20 Hz. They distort heavily when presented with large bass signals (which most are -- see Fletcher-Munson) and driving them hard down low robs headroom for higher frequencies and causes distortion well above the fundamental signal frequency (harmonic and nasty intermodulation). Subs typically enable the mains to operate with much lower distortion.

- Very rare is the room setup such that the best place for stereo imaging and soundfield is the best place for the subs (or deep bass drivers) to counter room modes and such. Having independent subs provides placement options to smooth the in-room response. It is almost impossible to counter a null without subs (typically must move the MLP or change the room's dimensions though there are purpose-built panels that can also work). This is one of the things that led me to subs despite having quite capable mains.

- Powered subs offload the main amplifiers of the need to provide deep bass energy, providing more headroom and cleaner sound from the amplifiers.

- Music (let alone action movies) often contains deep bass content even if it is not real obvious. Kick drums, tympani, organ, sure, but also piano hammer strikes, plucked strings, beat patterns from instruments playing together, etc. May not really notice when they are there but usually obvious when they are taken away. Having subs fill in the bottom octave or three can make a difference.

- Purpose-built subs can provide high output cleanly at relatively low cost. The amplifiers and drivers need only cover a fairly limited frequency range so have fewer constraints upon them than woofers in a full-range system.

I do prefer main speakers with fairly deep bass and always have. Crossovers are not brick walls so a fair amount of energy still comes from the mains an octave below the crossover frequency. Higher-order crossovers allow you to reduce the overlap, but I still like having the capability. I have never really understood the idea of running "passive" bi-amping as implemented by an AVR (sending full-range signals to multiple channels and letting the speaker's crossovers separate frequency bands -- wastes amplifier headroom and seems to me of little benefit). Nor do I agree with the "plus" setting putting subs and mains in parallel; again, my idea has always been to isolate the two for the reasons above.

My first sub was a DIY design using an Infinity IRS woofer with my own control box to provide the crossover and a servo circuit using the second voice coil of the woofer. I had a Hafler DH-220 around so also incorporated a circuit to bridge it for use as a subwoofer amp. It worked well and the -3 dB point was ~16 Hz. I now run four small (F12) Rythmik subs using a similar (but updated) servo design with my Revel Salon2's and am happy with the result.

FWIWFM/IME/IMO/my 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don


Stereo subs:

I have gone back and forth on stereo subs over many years (since ~1979/1980 when I built my first sub) and ultimately decided it is not worth it. It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

had not seen that post before. Should be in a "Sticky" section or similar at ASR.
Bookmarking so I can refer sub-curious friends to it.
Agree that bass-management is a big plus of getting a sub. Just had the REL instructions fresh in brain...

 

[Farajido]

You have to be careful with high-level connections to subs. On most balanced/bridged amplifiers, and some tube amps (like my old ARC D-79), the (-) speaker output is not ground but driven (active amp output stage or transformer winding/tube coupling). That means if you connect to a grounded high-level input on a sub you can destroy the amp, or at least send it into protection and shut down mode.

A better way to add a sub would be to add a crossover before the power amp, splitting off the low frequencies to the (line level) sub input, and higher frequencies to the SET (or whatever) amp. That way you reduce the load on the high-frequency amp and speakers. Easier integration and better sound.

Hello, This is my 1st post on this forum.

I have a Vandersteen 2W sub with Acoustat 1+1 speakers and have used this system for 25+ years. I recently changed power amps from a NAD 7600 receiver (died) to a Nakamichi PA 7Aii (Nelson Pass design). This change reduced the bass output drastically due to the high capacitance of the Nak relative to the NAD. The mid and high range improved much to my surprise. I have been pondering a subwoofer upgrade anyway so I have looked at literally dozens, if not hundreds of subs online. I really like how the Vandersteen system reduces the signal to the main speakers. It improved the Acoustats mid range significantly. (Even with the sub disconnected, but with the X2 filter between the pre-amp and power amp the Acoustats perform better, albeit with little below 100 Hz.) The sub takes the reduced signal and boosts it back to "normal" level. The bass is very good but maybe a bit dampened when operating correctly.

I am looking at the Vandersteen Sub 3 as a replacement. Around $4k all in. I am considering a different configuration with a less expensive sub. I am considering using pre-out 1 on my NAD C165BEE pre-amp for the Acoustats and pre-out 2 for the new powered sub. I would add an analog filter between the pre-out 1 and the Nak at 80, 90, or 100 Hz. I would use the subs filter at a similar setting. Are there any filters you would recommend for the pre-out 1 to Nak connection? On the high end the SPL Crossover and the JL Audio CR-1 both look good. I can get either at around $1500 used. An audio designer recommended the Rolls SX45 or SX95. Another recommended passive Harrison Lab filters. These solutions are in the $80-160 range. There are many other options. I am looking for something simple, cost effective, and flexible. Any of these options work? Is there something better that is affordable?

Oh, and on my short list of subs are the REL E/510 and the SVS SB 3000.

thanks

 

[bodhi]

Oh, and on my short list of subs are the REL E/510 and the SVS SB 3000.

I'll make it shorter, drop the REL. If I could go back in time I would get two of those SB-3000.

The sub is one of the simple pieces of equipment, just get one from the known quality brands that matches your SPL and extension requirements.

If you go full objectivist you can also solve your amping problems with one of the better AVRs with Dirac or Audyssey room correction, multiple sub outs and be done with it, you can still use the power amps if you like. But it is harder pill to swallow, even here many people think those sound bad with music (without proof ofc).

 

[Farajido]

I'll make it shorter, drop the REL. If I could go back in time I would get two of those SB-3000.

The sub is one of the simple pieces of equipment, just get one from the known quality brands that matches your SPL and extension requirements.

If you go full objectivist you can also solve your amping problems with one of the better AVRs with Dirac or Audyssey room correction, multiple sub outs and be done with it, you can still use the power amps if you like. But it is harder pill to swallow, even here many people think those sound bad with music (without proof ofc).

I do have Dirac on the AVR system (7.1 with 5 B&W -side-center-rear, old Rogers clones up front and an Axiom sub). Great for movies and such. Even with the Dirac the pure music is better through the 2.1 system (different room). The Dirac does a nice job providing surround sound, but does not compete with setting the stage. It lacks depth and placement on the stage. I have compared it with good and great speakers (of those available to me). To my ears analog, or a good DAC pretending to be analog, presents better music only. I guess that is why there are so many options. We all our personal preferences on what correct is.

I have heard Santana in many venues (stadium, outdoor amphitheatre, arena, large music hall, and a large club) and each was a different experience with varying "quality" of sound. Surprisingly, I found the "music" was best in the indoor arena. It shouldn't be, but in my mind it was.

REL must be a love it or leave it brand. I am leaning toward the SB-3000 or larger. Thanks!

 

[A Surfer]

I'll make it shorter, drop the REL. If I could go back in time I would get two of those SB-3000.

The sub is one of the simple pieces of equipment, just get one from the known quality brands that matches your SPL and extension requirements.

If you go full objectivist you can also solve your amping problems with one of the better AVRs with Dirac or Audyssey room correction, multiple sub outs and be done with it, you can still use the power amps if you like. But it is harder pill to swallow, even here many people think those sound bad with music (without proof ofc).

I think that your statement about subs being pretty darn simple is actually quite correct. That doesn't mean that there can't and will not be differences in implementation, sometimes that affect the actual quality of the audio reproduction fidelity; however, once the basics are done well enough to be audibly transparent (not as hard with lower frequency information) your point about buying your SPL and extensions requirements is sound advice. No pun intended there.

I once had a pair of small REL T-Zero's, I never considered them true subs for obvious reasons, but I certainly did find that they made a positive difference in my system, all things being considered. Now I have a pair of SVS SB2000 Pros. They certainly do everything better than the REL's that I owned, orders of magnitude better, which is to be expected, and they offer extension and SPL that I could never have gotten from the REL's, even assuming they did what they could perfectly. My point is you are very correct, I needed more SPL and more extensions, that was evident, it wasn't REL versus SVS, it was solving a problem with the right solution. To your point.

 

[Farajido]

I think that your statement about subs being pretty darn simple is actually quite correct. That doesn't mean that there can't and will not be differences in implementation, sometimes that affect the actual quality of the audio reproduction fidelity; however, once the basics are done well enough to be audibly transparent (not as hard with lower frequency information) your point about buying your SPL and extensions requirements is sound advice. No pun intended there.

I once had a pair of small REL T-Zero's, I never considered them true subs for obvious reasons, but I certainly did find that they made a positive difference in my system, all things being considered. Now I have a pair of SVS SB2000 Pros. They certainly do everything better than the REL's that I owned, orders of magnitude better, which is to be expected, and they offer extension and SPL that I could never have gotten from the REL's, even assuming they did what they could perfectly. My point is you are very correct, I needed more SPL and more extensions, that was evident, it wasn't REL versus SVS, it was solving a problem with the right solution. To your point.

Thanks Bohdi and A Surfer.

You combined help clarify my issue with the Vandersteen sub, it is missing appropriate SPL and it is not adjustable. I believe the Vandersteen Sub 3 addresses the issue, but with a high cost.

 

[A Surfer]

Thanks Bohdi and A Surfer.

You combined help clarify my issue with the Vandersteen sub, it is missing appropriate SPL and it is not adjustable. I believe the Vandersteen Sub 3 addresses the issue, but with a high cost.

Well, being in SoCal you have access to a pretty extensive array of subwoofer's so there are many excellent choices you can make. SVS is certainly high in that mix and generally still well known for a decent cost to performance ratio.

 

[alaios]

You can turn any quality "monstrosity" subwoofer to be as "fast", "accurate", "musical", "insert audiophool adjective", as a REL, by applying an HPF bellow 30Hz. And in doing this, it will have way less distortion than a tiny 8" overpriced, "fast", "accurate", "musical", "insert audiophool adjective" REL.

Please see data-bass.com myths

does minidsp flex allow you to low pass and high pass your subs?

 

[LBL]

Well, being in SoCal you have access to a pretty extensive array of subwoofer's so there are many excellent choices you can make. SVS is certainly high in that mix and generally still well known for a decent cost to performance ratio.

It's super easy. Both SVS and REL have a trial period with free return shipping. Why not try both and see for yourself? I did, and I will disagree with the REL naysayers. The T9/x blew away the SB-3000; at least for me personally. Way tighter bass, all the way down to what you physically feel, even with bass heavy recordings like the Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack. Much more enjoyable with jazz, especially with an upright bass. Personally, measurements don't mean as much to me as my ears.

 

[morpheusX]

^^
Sigh ...

 

[Sal1950]

It's super easy. Both SVS and REL have a trial period with free return shipping. Why not try both and see for yourself? I did, and I will disagree with the REL naysayers. The T9/x blew away the SB-3000; at least for me personally. Way tighter bass, all the way down to what you physically feel, even with bass heavy recordings like the Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack. Much more enjoyable with jazz, especially with an upright bass. Personally, measurements don't mean as much to me as my ears.

I put that down to differences in configuration than any real difference between the two sub's abliity to correctly reproduce the bass range..

 

[Tangband]

It's super easy. Both SVS and REL have a trial period with free return shipping. Why not try both and see for yourself? I did, and I will disagree with the REL naysayers. The T9/x blew away the SB-3000; at least for me personally. Way tighter bass, all the way down to what you physically feel, even with bass heavy recordings like the Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack. Much more enjoyable with jazz, especially with an upright bass. Personally, measurements don't mean as much to me as my ears.

I dont distrust your opinion. But the fact is: The crossover in REL subwoofers are only 12 dB/oct - its called a bass reinforcement speaker.
This concept works well If the main speakers are closed with no HP crossover filter. Such loudspeaker drops 12 dB/oct below box resonanse, acoustical. This makes for a 12/12 LP and HP acoustical crossover, were one speaker is inverted.

If it was this way you compared those subwoofers ( using no HP filter for the main speakers ) , the REL would have an integration advantage when listening.

The results might be completely different with a 12 dB/oct HP crossover for the main speakers, in that way the 24 dB/oct inbuilt crossover in the SVS might have sound better than the RELs.

Integration is alpha and omega in subwoofer installation . One must find the right place in the room, the right crossover frequency, the right gain , and the right crossover slopes to have a good sound. Most important is correct placement of the main speakers to begin with - No subwoofer can make bass sound any better with unarticulated bass coming from the main speakers.

We perceive pitch from overtones.

Overtone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LBL]

I dont distrust your opinion. But the fact is: The crossover in REL subwoofers are only 12 dB/oct - its called a bass reinforcement speaker.
This concept works well If the main speakers are closed with no HP crossover filter. Such loudspeaker drops 12 dB/oct below box resonanse, acoustical. This makes for a 12/12 LP and HP acoustical crossover, were one speaker is inverted.

If it was this way you compared those subwoofers ( using no HP filter for the main speakers ) , the REL would have an integration advantage when listening.

The results might be completely different with a 12 dB/oct HP crossover for the main speakers, in that way the 24 dB/oct inbuilt crossover in the SVS might have sound better than the RELs.

Integration is alpha and omega in subwoofer installation . One must find the right place in the room, the right crossover frequency, the right gain , and the right crossover slopes to have a good sound. Most important is correct placement of the main speakers to begin with - No subwoofer can make bass sound any better with unarticulated bass coming from the main speakers.

We perceive pitch from overtones.

Overtone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I appreciate all the in depth information, even though I don't understand half of it. I have other hobbies that I can obsess over in a secluded area (metal shop, garden, etc.) but we don't have a dedicated listening room and I don't have the bandwidth to get super deep into the science of sound reproduction. And if I tried to down that rabbit hole, I'd be thrown out of the living room along with my toys. I have a simple 2.2 (just recently upgraded form a 2.1) setup with some new and some pretty old components. It's strictly music as we don't have an AV receiver (just a couple of powered bookshelf speakers I got on sale).

The system sits in one half of a L25' x W22' x H20' space with a mezzanine over half of the space in the long direction. The other half, in the long direction, is for the wife's grand piano (which takes priority over everything else in the space). The front wall (double height) is all wood, the two short side walls are 9' glass sliders + 5' wood wall + 5' clerestory windows. The back wall, under the mezzanine is a combination of sheetrock and steel clad sliding barn doors. I'm guessing that's not the optimum space for acoustics. That said, we have roller shades that come down and cover the full height of the side glass walls which provide a noticeable improvement when fully down, with bass heavy recordings.

I'm running a pair of Triangle Australe Ez (down to 35hz per specs), 9ft apart and 30" from the wall, with a T9/x behind each speaker powered by a Unison Research Unico Secondo, a very old Unico CD and a Bluesound Node for streaming. When I was auditioning the first REL, along with the SB-3000, I tried both in exactly the same locations (next to one then the other speaker, to side and slightly forward of each speaker, slightly off from the corner but next to a glass slider, toed in, straight, etc). I don't have any measuring equipment or Dirac, so it's all based on what I thought sounded best. Even with extensive tinkering, I couldn't get the SVS to match the overall sound that I was getting with the REL (a single sub at the time).

Reading your comment about the HP filter, I'm guessing that's what was giving the REL the edge.

What I like most about the sound I'm getting with the pair of REL's is that it's almost as good up in the mezzanine as in the sweet spot, and much better than it used to in the kitchen, some 25' away in a semi open space. We have an inner courtyard between the living room and kitchen with the dining area in between, aligned with the mezzanine, and even with that narrow connection, you can 'feel' the bass all the way in the kitchen.

If any of you sound phd's live in the Bay Area, come on over and tell me what you think and I'll treat you to some kick ass food & drink. Maybe I just don't know how much better everything can sound if I work hard at dialing it in, and tinker with room correction.

 

[A Surfer]

I know with my SVS SB 2000 Pro subs that I can select between 12dB and 24dB/Octave and when I was using ported mains, I selected 24db and now that I have non-ported mains I am using 12dB/Octave. That flexibility is certainly useful. I have owned a pair of smaller REL subs and while I enjoyed them while I had them, I would never make any claim that they were more musical because that seems unsupportable objectively, or even subjectively for that matter.

 

[stevenswall]

It's super easy. Both SVS and REL have a trial period with free return shipping. Why not try both and see for yourself? I did, and I will disagree with the REL naysayers. The T9/x blew away the SB-3000; at least for me personally. Way tighter bass, all the way down to what you physically feel, even with bass heavy recordings like the Blade Runner 2049 soundtrack. Much more enjoyable with jazz, especially with an upright bass. Personally, measurements don't mean as much to me as my ears.

Sounds like you should correlate what you are hearing with measurements to find things that fit your preferences better, more efficiently.

Imagine having to try on each piece of clothing in a store because you didn't want to use measurements, or anything besides the subjective feel of the clothing while you tried to fit into it. You'd be willfully crippling your ability to make a valid decision even by your own standards, because you wouldn't be able to narrow down the options.

This is fine if the first "good enough" thing satisfies you and you don't care that there's something better for 2/3 of the cost, but it's not an effective means to find a good value.

Back to the REL: tighter bass is typically associated with not having bass peaks. If the REL doesn't go as low, then it won't have a peak down low. The SVS may go low enough to create peaks at much deeper frequencies, and also has the ability to EQ them down to make it both tight and deep.

If bass isn't tight you likely need room correction, and at that point if there's a +40dB peak at 18hz, it's irrelevant, and superior to something that won't get as low like a REL sub which frankly seems to take the easy way out by not going as deep and trying to sell people on musicality and not going deep as being tight, because they don't have an integrated solution for correcting deep bass peaks.

To be fair, you might not value any of that if you are a satisficer when it comes to these kinds of decisions, and that's certainly a simpler way of looking at things. I'm a maximizer more than most, and I value moving away from supporting companies the refuse to advance the state of the art and don't offer the best performance for the price.

Glad you bought and returned what you didn't like, that is much better than making a single selection and sticking with it.

 

[Sal1950]

This threads run it's course for me, nothing left to say.
Unwatch.

 

[Andysu]

not certain i need small sub that claims 24Hz i sure it can do 20Hz
i mostly have passive JBL professional subs with their own DSP crossover class d amplifiers
thinking of mounting this above on the ceiling ( securely into ceiling joists ) for use with JBL overhead surrounds

 

[Andysu]

i was about 99% seriously thinking getting a rel sub just for the ceiling but my cat convinced me , JBL professional will suffice , seriously i brought all my JBL professional subs cheap and the behringer class d cheap , yet these manufactured made subs are just so screwy and pricey with marketing hype i just can't believe them . they are just sub bass drivers in MDF box with amp , i actually prefer purrferrr passive with DSP crossover and class d amplifier that come in far cheap .
i'll look for another solution for sub mounted on the ceiling

 

[fpitas]

i was about 99% seriously thinking getting a rel sub just for the ceiling but my cat convinced me , JBL professional will suffice , seriously i brought all my JBL professional subs cheap and the behringer class d cheap , yet these manufactured made subs are just so screwy and pricey with marketing hype i just can't believe them . they are just sub bass drivers in MDF box with amp , i actually prefer purrferrr passive with DSP crossover and class d amplifier that come in far cheap .
i'll look for another solution for sub mounted on the ceiling

View attachment 282010

I could probably live with the JBL pro subs. But yeah, consumer subs just scare me, especially when I get a peek inside. And plate amps are a mare's nest. So, I built my own and use an outboard amp.