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

[Spkrdctr]

The basic answer is yes. The REL being more musical is a myth. 99% of the "more musical" people can't even tell you what "more musical" means.

 

[Hotwetrat]

99% of the "more musical" people can't even tell you what "more musical" means.

I'd wager it's to do with articulation.

I shall now speculate, COULD it be larger drivers which produce lower frequencies with more effeciency and SPL are harder to integrate and can somewhat 'colour' the audio - if not integrated properly, placement, room eq/modes etc

 

[ribosradagast]

At on point I owned an REL R328. It was a very nice looking sub, A+ for ascetics and build quality. Unfortunately it was basically a one note wonder. The frequency response peaked at 80 hz and dropped quickly in both directions.

Your experience with them sounds just like mine:

^ here's my measurement of my Q201E from outside, 1 meter ground-plane response

I thought this might actually be intentional - like they were trying to make the sub not sound "boomy" by actually giving it any low-end? Room gain compensation? "Fast" bass is only 80-100 hz?

Who knows

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Usually "more musical" means "this sub has less low-bass output and since I don't use room EQ like I should, my room modes ruin the low bass if it's loud."

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/10-nonsense-myths

I've only ever seen measurements of one REL sub(T/7i), and it fits that stereotype being an 8" for £850(!? lol what) with a pathetic 68dB 2m peak output at 20hz. The SB-1000 beats that by over 20dB. Now, it is true that SVS sealed subs have more group delay in the very lowest bass than is typical, but so far there isn't too much evidence it's audible. There are plenty of other good sub manufacturers that don't have this problem.

Personally, if I was buying subs with EU distribution right now I would look at Arendal's 1961 or 1723 1S first. For less money than the T/7i you can get a real 12" subwoofer with excellent measurements and fairly convenient dimensions. E: If you are in the US, then you have a million great options like PSA, JTR, Rythmik, Hsu, etc...

Do you remember which site that was for the T7i measurements or magazine review?

Here the new T7X was better than SVS Micro 3000 for output and for music listening. They have HT range for theater use.

Shane from Spare Change did short video review for the new T9X. He also shows some in-room measurement, not deep bass monster but it ain´t marketed that either. Good looking compact subwoofer for lounge hifi system to keep wife happy. Not cheap yep.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Having talked with the lead designer of REL here is what he had to say about the new HT-range and how the design differs from other brands, thoughts about the specs etc.


DSP-based woofer designs can generate impressive specs. DSP can be used to flatten out curves and generate cool looking graphs and, as your question focuses on, deliver very good numerical LF extension results. But it comes down to what values each company is focusing on.

At REL, we're never willing to chase specs at the expense of audible performance. DSP too often, and maybe its simply the engineers that are using DSP chips, not DSP itself (although our experiences working with it suggests at least part of it is intrinsic to DSP itself) don't produce the fluidity and natural tracking of dynamics that a good analog circuit can. There's an aliveness to what the HT delivers that none of the competitors listed deliver. Whenever you're using DSP to, for example, deliver flatter, lower extension specs, something is being robbed to produce that figure.

I can tell you that, having listened extensively to at least one of the competitors you reference, our ability to seamlessly transition up through middle and upper bass regions--areas critical for the baritone male spoken word in dialogue--is streets ahead of the competition. And why is this important? Gosh as a theatre maven and someone who has worked a board in transfer studios aren't I most concerned about the big explosions that shake the room? Of course those matter and, if you actually spent any time listening to a well set-up HT/1205 for instance, you would know that both it and its quality competition handle these aspects almost identically. Both play enormously loud, frankly louder than most normal folks can handle in the average living or drawing room. Both go down deep and rattle things about.

But switching back to the other 1:48 minutes of the movie wherein actual human beings, or droids, or fictitious creatures are interacting with the spoken word reveals a fascinating difference. The Serie HT actually possess many of the aural cues that have made so many customers happy with their T/i and S progenitors-those "shiny boxes" you were on about ; >). Both T/i and HT have an ability to blend and meld almost seamlessly with the main speakers (or center and surrounds in a REL3D set-up, which is modelled on Dolby's own requirements that ALL speakers in a proper theatre be capable of full range sound deliver of lower 20's-20khz)).

In doing so (blending with and becoming one with the speakers being supported by a REL), all kinds of important aural cues are revealed that set physical context for a scene, allow echoes to die away in concert with the visual data your eyes are seeing on screen. In other words, to provide all the thousands of elements of decoding spoken word, space and context within a scene that delivers scale cues. This ability forms the very basis of great theatre sound and helps REL theatre owners to more fully immerse themselves in the full, rich tapestry of sound reproduction that is the very basis for deep enjoyment of great theatre. And please remember this, the big explosions and effects so many of us enjoy in a big scene cannot possibly take their proper place without the small, quiet set-up scenes that ALWAYS preface a big effects-laden scene (it HAS to, otherwise the whole damned movie is just loud and nothing stands out) and almost always culminates in a quiet, small dialogue rich scene for the same reason.

Bottom line? We know a great deal about the art of movie making and our goal is to deliver products that bring out ALL aspects of the movie-making art. Frankly, I'm more than willing to sacrifice a meaningless spec by a couple of Hertz to achieve this result. I hope this better helps you understand our goals and why we occasionally are willing to not follow the herd since they are almost never trying to get to the same place as are we.

 

[sweetchaos]

Do you remember which site that was for the T7i measurements or magazine review?

Brent Butterworth from Wirecutter. It was T/7 (not T/7i). See my spreadsheet for CEA-2010-A data.

 

[Sancus]

Brent Butterworth from Wirecutter. It was T/7 (not T/7i). See my spreadsheet for CEA-2010-A data.

Yes, my bad on that, I've edited the initial post.

Here the new T7X was better than SVS Micro 3000 for output and for music listening. They have HT range for theater use.

I don't have any interest in YouTuber reviews with no proper measurements(CEA2010 minimum), they are not worthwhile or useful.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Yes, my bad on that, I've edited the initial post.



I don't have any interest in YouTuber reviews with no proper measurements(CEA2010 minimum), they are not worthwhile or useful.

I would guess that most people buying REL T-range aren`t intrested in any max output measurements as that doesn´t really tell you how X product sounds. This is RELs "hifi range" so kinda useless to talk about 20hz output as that wasn´t the priority in first place. Also using passive radiator vs. sealed you know it drops like stone similar to ported sub. You can get the sealed 12" REL HT/1205 model cheaper which does better for movies. HT range use class-d amp and the T-range class a/b and typically connected via high level connection which some seem to think still has benefits.

These are expensive, but i have also seen over the years people choosing RELs after hearing them against other brands so T7i/T9X is still option for someone looking wife friendly compact subwoofer for 2.1/2.2 hifi system. Very tough competition in US though with the ID brands!

 

[Sancus]

I would guess that most people buying REL T-range aren`t intrested in any max output measurements as that doesn´t really tell you how X product sounds. This is RELs "hifi range" so kinda useless to talk about 20hz output as that wasn´t the priority in first place. Also using passive radiator vs. sealed you know it drops like stone similar to ported sub. You can get the sealed 12" REL HT/1205 model cheaper which does better for movies. HT range use class-d amp and the T-range class a/b and typically connected via high level connection which some seem to think still has benefits.

These are expensive, but i have also seen over the years people choosing RELs after hearing them against other brands so T7i/T9X is still option for someone looking wife friendly compact subwoofer for 2.1/2.2 hifi system. Very tough competition in US though with the ID brands!

Yes, that's literally the misconception I addressed in my first reply to this thread. Subwoofers don't have "different sound". Your room does, and the way the subwoofer interacts with your room does. If you are not using room correction and taking measurements, and just picking subwoofers based on "sound", then you will pick subwoofers that have poor output and poor extension, because having a lot of bass output and extension excites room modes to a greater degree, which makes the bass sound boomy and bad.

Subs aren't speakers, they are omnidirectional so dispersion isn't relevant and there are no crossovers. It's trivial to produce a relatively flat frequency response in these conditions, and they are playing in the most room-dependent range of frequencies. The only attributes that matter in most cases are sheer output and distortion(which is related to output).

 

[ta240]

....If you are not using room correction and taking measurements, and just picking subwoofers based on "sound", then you will pick subwoofers that have poor output and poor extension, because having a lot of bass output and extension excites room modes to a greater degree, which makes the bass sound boomy and bad.....

So, then it sounds like if someone (gasp) isn't going to do room correction/measurement and (double gasp) doesn't care as much about output and extension then the REL subs are a good option.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Yes, that's literally the misconception I addressed in my first reply to this thread. Subwoofers don't have "different sound". Your room does, and the way the subwoofer interacts with your room does. If you are not using room correction and taking measurements, and just picking subwoofers based on "sound", then you will pick subwoofers that have poor output and poor extension, because having a lot of bass output and extension excites room modes to a greater degree, which makes the bass sound boomy and bad.

Subs aren't speakers, they are omnidirectional so dispersion isn't relevant and there are no crossovers. It's trivial to produce a relatively flat frequency response in these conditions, and they are playing in the most room-dependent range of frequencies. The only attributes that matter in most cases are sheer output and distortion(which is related to output).

They still sound different. You see people finding the Arendal and Monoprice subwoofers sounding drier, different to SVS this has been mentioned many times on AVSF who have had both in same room. RELs faster than SVS. Jim Wilson with 20+ years experience with subwoofers found the JL E112 sounding better with music than SVS SB13U etc. which caused almost forum meltdown cause SVS fanboys couldn`t take that, hah. Lots of examples. It would be foolish to only look numbers, but each to their own.

 

[ta240]

It would be foolish to only look numbers, but each to their own.

 

[txbdan]

Having talked with the lead designer of REL here is what he had to say about the new HT-range and how the design differs from other brands, thoughts about the specs etc.


DSP-based woofer designs can generate impressive specs. DSP can be used to flatten out curves and generate cool looking graphs and, as your question focuses on, deliver very good numerical LF extension results. But it comes down to what values each company is focusing on.

At REL, we're never willing to chase specs at the expense of audible performance. DSP too often, and maybe its simply the engineers that are using DSP chips, not DSP itself (although our experiences working with it suggests at least part of it is intrinsic to DSP itself) don't produce the fluidity and natural tracking of dynamics that a good analog circuit can. There's an aliveness to what the HT delivers that none of the competitors listed deliver. Whenever you're using DSP to, for example, deliver flatter, lower extension specs, something is being robbed to produce that figure.

I can tell you that, having listened extensively to at least one of the competitors you reference, our ability to seamlessly transition up through middle and upper bass regions--areas critical for the baritone male spoken word in dialogue--is streets ahead of the competition. And why is this important? Gosh as a theatre maven and someone who has worked a board in transfer studios aren't I most concerned about the big explosions that shake the room? Of course those matter and, if you actually spent any time listening to a well set-up HT/1205 for instance, you would know that both it and its quality competition handle these aspects almost identically. Both play enormously loud, frankly louder than most normal folks can handle in the average living or drawing room. Both go down deep and rattle things about.

But switching back to the other 1:48 minutes of the movie wherein actual human beings, or droids, or fictitious creatures are interacting with the spoken word reveals a fascinating difference. The Serie HT actually possess many of the aural cues that have made so many customers happy with their T/i and S progenitors-those "shiny boxes" you were on about ; >). Both T/i and HT have an ability to blend and meld almost seamlessly with the main speakers (or center and surrounds in a REL3D set-up, which is modelled on Dolby's own requirements that ALL speakers in a proper theatre be capable of full range sound deliver of lower 20's-20khz)).

In doing so (blending with and becoming one with the speakers being supported by a REL), all kinds of important aural cues are revealed that set physical context for a scene, allow echoes to die away in concert with the visual data your eyes are seeing on screen. In other words, to provide all the thousands of elements of decoding spoken word, space and context within a scene that delivers scale cues. This ability forms the very basis of great theatre sound and helps REL theatre owners to more fully immerse themselves in the full, rich tapestry of sound reproduction that is the very basis for deep enjoyment of great theatre. And please remember this, the big explosions and effects so many of us enjoy in a big scene cannot possibly take their proper place without the small, quiet set-up scenes that ALWAYS preface a big effects-laden scene (it HAS to, otherwise the whole damned movie is just loud and nothing stands out) and almost always culminates in a quiet, small dialogue rich scene for the same reason.

Bottom line? We know a great deal about the art of movie making and our goal is to deliver products that bring out ALL aspects of the movie-making art. Frankly, I'm more than willing to sacrifice a meaningless spec by a couple of Hertz to achieve this result. I hope this better helps you understand our goals and why we occasionally are willing to not follow the herd since they are almost never trying to get to the same place as are we.

Putting it nicely, that sounds like what someone trying to sell an inferior product/technology would say.

 

[Colonel7]

our ability to seamlessly transition up through middle and upper bass regions--areas critical for the baritone male spoken word in dialogue--is streets ahead of the competition.

Buying a subwoofer for male dialogue.

Why not get a 6.5 inch 2-way and with room reinforcement call it a day? Or just get a Dayton 12" sub for $165 because you don't need dsp bc of "art" and "the fluidity and natural tracking of dynamics of analog".

 

[Haint]

I am of the opinion that even if transients, group delay, or DSP artifacts were audible on subs, those differences amount to a flea on an elephant when compared to the room's contribution and the measured specs (Output, FR, and less so distortion). Even ignoringing sighted/brand/pricing biases, I would explain away most end user shootouts as unintentional positional EQ (i.e. size of the boxes and positions of the driver) or obvious differences in the raw output and FR of the units being compared.

 

[AlmaAtaKZ]

Oh, I remember, in the 90s (but not sure of the exact hierarchy)

Strata
Stentor
Stampede
Stadium
Studio
that was the ST range, ‘for music’

Then the was the Q range, ’for movies’
Q100
Q200
Q400

I wanted the Studio, but could only afford the Q100 - and it served me well for 10 years.

Now, I want an 18in sub. Or two.

 

[gvh1234]

Here in the UK the AV forums lean towards the amazing value of our home grown BK subs and then graduate up to SVS.
I've had a BK Monolith for years, corrected by Anthem ARC and it's easily capable of damaging the house but disappears for music.

 

[Sancus]

They still sound different. You see people finding the Arendal and Monoprice subwoofers sounding drier, different to SVS this has been mentioned many times on AVSF who have had both in same room. RELs faster than SVS. Jim Wilson with 20+ years experience with subwoofers found the JL E112 sounding better with music than SVS SB13U etc. which caused almost forum meltdown cause SVS fanboys couldn`t take that, hah. Lots of examples. It would be foolish to only look numbers, but each to their own.

Sorry, but they don't sound different. I'm not interested in appeals to authority either. All the things you are typing are very weak evidence. I've already addressed the one issue with SVS subs in particular that may be audible under some conditions. And which there are clear numbers for... which leads me to your main point.

It would be foolish to only look numbers, but each to their own.

If you can't show audible differences with numbers then you don't have a good understanding of the problem and nobody should listen to you because it may well be entirely in your head. That is the ENTIRE basis of this site. Numbers ARE everything, WHEN measured and interpreted correctly. If you believe you have a legitimate alternate way to measure and analyze subs, please go ahead and spend thousands of hours on research and measurement and prove it.

Otherwise, you sound exactly the same as REL's terrible marketing spiels.

So, then it sounds like if someone (gasp) isn't going to do room correction/measurement and (double gasp) doesn't care as much about output and extension then the REL subs are a good option.

If you've already deliberately chosen bad sound it doesn't matter what options you pick. Room correction is mandatory for good sound.

 

[Chrispy]

They still sound different. You see people finding the Arendal and Monoprice subwoofers sounding drier, different to SVS this has been mentioned many times on AVSF who have had both in same room. RELs faster than SVS. Jim Wilson with 20+ years experience with subwoofers found the JL E112 sounding better with music than SVS SB13U etc. which caused almost forum meltdown cause SVS fanboys couldn`t take that, hah. Lots of examples. It would be foolish to only look numbers, but each to their own.

I think it's even more fruitless relying on subjective opinions on how subs "sound".

 

[Astrozombie]

The basic answer is yes. The REL being more musical is a myth. 99% of the "more musical" people can't even tell you what "more musical" means.

So the same thing for Sealed Subs?