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

[raindance]

I did a quick A/B and I did note an increase in bass with the crossover point cranked up.

I know it was actually a little bit more even, but subjectively it felt a bit heavy at the spot I was listening (not the measurement point). This is a bedroom/office and very little about how the speakers are positioned or the main listening positions are in relation is optimal. There isn't going to be a set of room EQ values or crossover points that is going to work the entire room so I'm not going to fuss too much over it.

Having said that, I do enjoy a healthy dose of room gain in my systems. This room is a bit much in the nodes, but it's tight and textured enough that I don't hate it. Maybe the dip in there is keeping it from feeling as amped up (or are hitting just the right ranges) as some of the peaks measure? The peak at 180 Hz has taught me that I actually prefer a little more in the presence region there - I EQ'd it out using REW calculations in JRiver DSP and found the sound to be too dull. This peak is higher than you'd want, but it actually doesn't bother me overly much either.

I have set it back to the original crossover as I like the balance better at the working position (vs the measurement position which is more central).

I've ordered some Lumina II Amators which should be coming sometime in January. They're front ported and I expect they're going to interact with the corners differently (better?) than the Paradigms. I know thay have more of a voice, so I'm curious to see if I like them or not (I took a bit of a leap of faith as I've alwasy wanted to try some Sonus Fabers). For now I'm generally happy (for the most part) with the way the current set up is working so I'm not going to muck around too much with changes right now.

What the T/Zero has done is make me think that there might be something to REL's idea of a smaller, lighter, faster woofer with a low latency high-level connection. I find I quite enjoy the tighter, articulate and textured base the Zero puts out. Enough so that I've decided to give a larger REL a shot in place of the aging Engergy EPS 150 in my living room system (which ARC says is struggling to even keep up with the mains curently). I'm running paired SB-1000s at the front corners of my theatre and a JL Fathom v12 at the rear and things sound pretty good down there under the music tuned profiles for listening. I'm very curious to see how the new REL compares in the other system. I expect it to be different, the question is will be if it's subjectively better and more pleasing or not.

I realize that that last statement may not sit all that well with some of the others commenting in this thread. I do find ASR a useful tool with its data-based measurements approach, but I'm also not entirely convinced that measurements always tell the full story either in terms of what we enjoy the most. So I'll try it and see. My backup choice would likely be a JL e110, or an SVS-SB2000 Pro as a less costly alternative.

You do mean modes, not nodes ... How far are the main speakers from the wall behind them? The null may be an SBIR effect and you could try moving the mains. But if you're not listening from the measurement position there's probably no point in trying to optimize it.

 

[dolynick]

You do mean modes, not nodes ... How far are the main speakers from the wall behind them? The null may be an SBIR effect and you could try moving the mains. But if you're not listening from the measurement position there's probably no point in trying to optimize it.

Thanks for the correction. And yes, they are stuck in the corners. The clutter in the room doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility. I could move one out a bit but not the other, so they stay where they are now. Being rear-ported doesn't help either.

I could room correct them now. The 50v does support earlier ARC correction. I recently picked up a Topping D70 Pro Sabre dac though and my madness if feeding an pure bitstream to it and then passing that all analog direct through to the amp to preserve as much of the dynamic range as possible. I'm rather enjoying the results, even if I know I'd prefer to slope in the room gain more rather than have the leading peak. But that requires additional digital <> analog conversions, which is counter to what I'm going for right now. And even still, neither of the main positions I tend to be in when using the system is central between the speakers and far enough apart that the modes shift between the two. This system was never really intended for serious, critical listening though - even if the sound of the system has come a long ways recently.

Again though, the point of sharing the measurements was more to demonstrate the diminuitive T/Zero doing more in-room (this room at least) than the specifications might suggest it's capable of.

 

[polmuaddib]

Maybe the dip in there is keeping it from feeling as amped up (or are hitting just the right ranges) as some of the peaks measure?

I doubt that. But it would be interesting to find out if you could discern the difference when that dip was filled.
I would imagine filling the dip would be beneficial, but I have no way of being sure.
Maybe another T zero, placed somewhere else in the room could fill it? Or changing location of your current one, even.

Anyhow, congrats on your Rel. It seems it's doing a fine job. I also own Rel, but two T9s, which are enough for me, bass wise, but I hate the fact that they don't have balanced input.

 

[keenly]

REL is a a religion full of the usual nonsense that comes with it.

 

[alaios]

REL is a a religion full of the usual nonsense that comes with it.

Amen!

 

[sweetchaos]

Today, Audioholics published CEA-2010-A results for Monoprice SW-15.

So let's quickly compare that with REL's measurements (by Audioholics again), shall we?
Both of them are 15" subs.

Regular Price:
-Monoprice SW-15 (which goes for US$300) beats REL Acoustics HT/1510 Predator II (which costs US$2421 equivalent) in terms of output.
-Which means that if you pay 8x more for REL subwoofer (vs Monoprice), you don't get anything more for your money, since the output is still less than Monoprice.
-In other words, REL's subwoofer should cost slightly below US$300, just to be competitive...certainly not US$2421.

Sale Price:
-If you take into account that Monoprice has sales from time to time, and the SW-15 subwoofer was recently US$240. Then the price difference becomes 10x.
-In other words, REL is exponentially more expensive than it should be.

 

[polmuaddib]

So let's quickly compare that with REL's measurements (by Audioholics again), shall we?

I agree REL is overpriced, but your conclusion is over simplistic, don't you think?
- In the measurements, REL showed more even response then Monoprice, which might be more important then pushing more SPL. You can see that in a graph where REL has more output at 15 Hz.
- REL has balanced input, which is a big deal for subs. Ground loops are often and hard to deal.
- The design, build and finish is not comparable, and while the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, REL looks more sturdy and better build, just looking at the pics alone.
- REL has better group delay, for what it's worth.

So, even though I agree with you that Monoprice is a much better deal then REL, I do think that REL is a better sub then Monoprice in this particular case.

 

[volteon]

I think perhaps my problem is with the term "musical"

From my understanding, its just a marketing buzzword which is supposed to sound cool (aka no definition for a straight up comparison).
Since SVS is mentioned in the thread title, it looks like they are into the magic sauce as well.

Meanwhile at the showroom:
„Sir, I am looking for a subwoofer which is 20% more musical than my current one.“

 

[cavedriver]

I agree REL is overpriced, but your conclusion is over simplistic, don't you think?
- In the measurements, REL showed more even response then Monoprice, which might be more important then pushing more SPL. You can see that in a graph where REL has more output at 15 Hz.
- REL has balanced input, which is a big deal for subs. Ground loops are often and hard to deal.
- The design, build and finish is not comparable, and while the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, REL looks more sturdy and better build, just looking at the pics alone.
- REL has better group delay, for what it's worth.

So, even though I agree with you that Monoprice is a much better deal then REL, I do think that REL is a better sub then Monoprice in this particular case.

The difference in "levelness" appears to be less than 2 dB down to 20 Hz, I would not say this is a significant difference. Your other points are well made except of course with the whole "eye of the beholder" thing where I'm one of those people that think the REW subs are garish, too shiny and distracting. A sub should "disappear" amongst the furniture of the room, not call attention to itself. But other than contributing to sighted confusion about the performance of the sub this has little to do with performance of course.

 

[TurtlePaul]

- In the measurements, REL showed more even response then Monoprice, which might be more important then pushing more SPL. You can see that in a graph where REL has more output at 15 Hz.

Rel subs often have wonky frequency response (but not all models). You can’t see this in the CEA data because CEA isn’t frequency response, it is maximum output. Ideally you want a sub to have perfectly flat frequency response between the elbow where it loses low end extension and all the way up to 200-300 hz to cover the crossover region.

 

[3125b]

- REL has balanced input, which is a big deal for subs. Ground loops are often and hard to deal.

Both subs are IEC Class II devices without ground, so it doesn't make a difference.

- REL has better group delay, for what it's worth.

Not much really, they both have low group delay at less than one cyle in the audible band.
The REL does have significantly higher distortion in the audible band though. Probably not really audible either.

The design, build and finish is not comparable, and while the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, REL looks more sturdy and better build, just looking at the pics alone.

The REL does have some bracing and a decent paint job, that's certainly better.
But the woofer itself is rather basic (albeit still better looking than the Monoprice). They didn't spend a cent more than they absolutely had to on that. Well, I guess the customer doesn't see it.

 

[Palmspar]

I like Arendal the most from any brands i have a 1961 series atmos setup, sounds verry good and is wel bould.
The svs SB2000 is replaced for a diy dual opposed 12 inch scanspeak with hypex amp.
But the Arendal 1723 2S is in my top list for subwoofers, and jl audio e112, Arendal 1723 1s or svs sb 4000/sb16.
For me only the rel ht 1510 looks good, But its indeed a stampend steel basket woofer and no dsp.
If a small sub is needed for music, i think the Sigberg 10d is better then any small Rel sub.

 

[WOLFAGRAM]

What do the guys on here think, are REL subs generally more 'musical' than SVS? (I personally deem this to mean, more articulate and accurate, why anyone would want a less accurate sub for movies I can't understand but that's me personally)

Interesting thought. I would approach it more practical. Yes, I strongly believe overwhelming majority of people would prefer more articulate and accurate bass. However, that is in theory.

Now some of the practical points:

-A sub that is more articulate and accurate, on average (other things, like the size or wattage, being equal) cost more than less articulate and accurate sub.
-Movies, on average, have more acoustic energy in the sub bass band (roughly <40 Hz) than music normally have. Therefore, for the given price, a movie fan should prefer lower and louder bass, instead of articulate and accurate bass.
-Once you get into sub bass territory, it gets harder and harder to tell difference between "more musical" and "less musical" bass. Once at the very bottom (near 20 Hz), one does not even "hear" bas, but rather "feels it". Our body is less sensitive acoustic sensor than are ears are, hence "bass musicality" is more of an abstract thing there.
-One can argue that it is less important how exactly some movie effect sounds, than how exactly a performing artist sounds. For example - in a movie, a car explosion is a car explosion. As long as it is loud and not completely unrealistic, almost no one would notice how the sub in question reproduces it in terms of articulacy and accuracy. On the other hand, in music, one usually expects that a certain artist or certain song have a certain sound. That is primarily because we heard our favourite songs many times on many different audio devices. Besides, one more or less knows how a guitar should sound, while I doubt there are many experts on how a car explosion should sound (I, for example, have played different guitars, but I have never heard a car explosion in person).
-It seams to me that, on average, music fans invest more money and consideration into their equipment and overall experience than movie fans. Since it is easier (cheaper) to make a big deep and loud sub than, let's say, a very competent studio monitoring sub, I believe most of these high fidelity subs find they way into music fan homes.

To resume: An average movie fan with an average budget and an average movie room would probably be more happy with a huge, deep and loud sub for the given price, while an average music fan with an average budget and an average listening room would probably be more happy with a smaller, more articulate and accurate bass for the given price. In ideal world, they both have enough money and appropriate rooms to buy and accommodate really big, deep, loud, articulate and accurate subs (with a design that makes their partners want to say: "Let's stack up the room to the celling full of these wonderful expensive subs!").

 

[ahofer]

I think "more musical" was and is practically meaningless, but turned into a lucky marketing accident.

I say that as an owner of speakers that very often get the same description. In that realm, if it means anything, it means more rolled-off at the top end and possibly more pleasing harmonic distortion or background noise (turntables). I was advised that I should pair my "musical" speakers with a more "analytic" amplifer for "synergy" reasons. Of course, I did pair it with a "cold" class D amplifier, but discovered that I couldn't tell the difference between that and a "warm, musical" Nelson Pass MOSFET space heater.

 

[Haskil]

If Rel was not the first to introduce subwoofers on the market, and if it is not the only one to have high-level inputs (in the early 1980s Yamaha did the same), it succeeded the feat of selling them by entering the small group of British audiophile brands whose marketing discourse is based on the idea of musicality, on distrust of measurements and very clearly on the lowest technological bid, conservatism . Reason for the fact that this brand favored high-level inputs so, she said and the hifi journalists in unison, that the subwoofer harmoniously extends the music reproduced by the speakers powered by amps which in any case did not have sub output: vade retro satanas: at Naim, Rega... we weren't likely to find that...

 

[keenly]

Subwoofers do sound different. A driver with high Qts will sound drier than the one with low Qts. The same with the Fs. If a driver has an fs of 35hz it wil not go down at 20hz. The driver that needs 70l of volume will not play the same at 20l. A 4th order bandpass will not play the same as a sealed one.A sub with dsp will have higher latency than a diy sub with no filters at all.

Give an example of 2 subs that sounds different when playing 40hz?

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

Well, I think that this is a far simpler issues. A lot of home theater subs are "too flat". Their LF corner frequency is something like 15-20 Hz and in boost rooms, you're getting 10+ dB of boost down there, so the in-room response becomes tiled up towards the bottom end. A lot of subs have an LF contour or extremely LF cut where you can dial this back 6-10 dB but "sane defaults" are very important. A lot of customers aren't savvy or geeky enough to do measurements EQ etc.

Even though the anechoic extension is only 35-40 Hz on a lot of REL subs, it's typically a 2nd order roll-off to 20 Hz and so this leads to flat extension to 20 Hz without an exaggerated deep bass that can make things sound muddy on music. Other sub manufacturers are too concerned with the paper spec saying 15-20 Hz flat extension when, in fact, this isn't what you want for all but the largest rooms.

I think that some DSP compressor limiters don't sound completely natural and so REL having none of this (while allowing a lot more distortion) can sometimes sound a bit more natural as well.

They are far from perfect but I think that those are a couple of things working in their favor.

I think that Mark Seaton did a great job with his subs too (and understand the effects of rooms). Take a look at the response of this sub - https://seatonsound.net/product/js-12-subwoofer/

It is a 3rd order roll off and has a 20 Hz filter you can move up and down in level to account for room size. In part because of this target curve, his bigger stuff sounds tight and musical (like people describe RELs) but has a much better amp and limiter than REL and way more dynamic headroom.

 

[ahofer]

“Real speakers in real rooms” then.

 

[keenly]

Well, I think that this is a far simpler issues. A lot of home theater subs are "too flat". Their LF corner frequency is something like 15-20 Hz and in boost rooms, you're getting 10+ dB of boost down there, so the in-room response becomes tiled up towards the bottom end. A lot of subs have an LF contour or extremely LF cut where you can dial this back 6-10 dB but "sane defaults" are very important. A lot of customers aren't savvy or geeky enough to do measurements EQ etc.

Even though the anechoic extension is only 35-40 Hz on a lot of REL subs, it's typically a 2nd order roll-off to 20 Hz and so this leads to flat extension to 20 Hz without an exaggerated deep bass that can make things sound muddy on music. Other sub manufacturers are too concerned with the paper spec saying 15-20 Hz flat extension when, in fact, this isn't what you want for all but the largest rooms.

I think that some DSP compressor limiters don't sound completely natural and so REL having none of this (while allowing a lot more distortion) can sometimes sound a bit more natural as well.

They are far from perfect but I think that those are a couple of things working in their favor.

I think that Mark Seaton did a great job with his subs too (and understand the effects of rooms). Take a look at the response of this sub - https://seatonsound.net/product/js-12-subwoofer/

It is a 3rd order roll off and has a 20 Hz filter you can move up and down in level to account for room size. In part because of this target curve, his bigger stuff sounds tight and musical (like people describe RELs) but has a much better amp and limiter than REL and way more dynamic headroom.

LF corner frequency? What?

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

LF corner frequency? What?

I just mean the cutoff or corner frequency of the shape of the highpass filter behavior of the low frequency roll off of the woofer/box/EQ. Some of REL's subs like the HT1510 has a 4th order roll off of about 4th order at 27 Hz. (again, a bit higher than many HT subs).