rel acoustics live subwoofer demo

[sigbergaudio]

I'm not sure I would go with any subwoofer if my main speakers had a full-range capacity, I would just position them optimally in the room and call it a day.

Why would I be missing the ability to EQ below 100 Hz, that is perfectly doable no matter the crossover point and should preferably be done at the source. It is a bad idea to have the EQ built into the subwoofers as that would limit the EQ-able range severely, it's way better to do that externally so that you can use the EQ full range or at least up to 500 Hz.

Our systems have it built into both the speakers and the subs. But if you are in a situation where you have it externally, you likely have crossover capability too, so then you are no longer in the situation I am discussing.

Please also note that I am not challenging your choices or saying your choice is wrong, I am talking in general terms.

 

[Bjorn]

I have to ask, are REL engineers complete morons, just scammers, or do they know something other engineers don't? They insist that subs must be connected via high-level w/o any DSP or bass management. Their demo sounds good, but I'm guessing the rooms are acoustically well-treated.


They claim that when using DSP to calibrate dual subs, you're only correcting for steady-state responses by adding time delays, but such time delay added to the signal path of the subs causes bass misalignment for transient sounds. Is there any truth to this?

Their high-level approach is a band aid solution compared to using a DSP for the mains and subwoofer(s) where one can:
- Properly time align
- Add the optimal crossover for the specific setup (which can greatly vary)
- Even out the frequency response for a wider area
- Achieve lower distortion
- Have better capacity with ability to play peaks without compression

Saying it's a problem to use DSP because of added delay while recommending a solution with no real time alignment and thus far more time delay issue, and also adding phase issues since mains can operate in the same frequency area is very misleading IMO.

Using a DSP by a competent person for subwoofer integration is obviously much better.

 

[Spkrdctr]

What brands of sub would u suggest? I'm looking for a sub just for stereo music and I have bookshelf speakers.

If possible you can look at SVS speakers. They are very nice and have nice controls too. There are other nice subs out there. I take it you are in the UK. So I don't know what brands are available and in your price range List off some of the brands and I can take a look at them. Plus the budget for your sub. I am here to help along with many others. I tend to look on the less expensive ones if possible. Some of the guys on here (Sigberg Audio) make very, very nice stuff but the pricing is for me in heart attack territory. I wish I could get audio equipment, speakers and sub for 80% off, but I think I will be waiting years. LOL

 

[WillBrink]

I'm not getting alot of love for REL here? I've always thought they are a decent brand, what's the story?

I think the simple answer is overpriced for what they are. A Legacy brand that was early with subs focused on 2ch when there were not many choices, relying on good looks and tech we don't need any more, like their high level connection.

 

[WillBrink]

In my opinion, going with main speakers that try to go lower in bass than what the physical size of the speakers allows without generating a high level of distortion, is simply a bad choice of loudspeakers.
Almost all loudspeakers on the market need additional subwoofers for a full-range sound without having high level of distortion, so there is very little point in looking for too small speakers with low bass extension.

Which sums up the very design goals of the Sigberg audio SBS.1 active speakers!

 

[antcollinet]

I have to ask, are REL engineers complete morons, just scammers, or do they know something other engineers don't? They insist that subs must be connected via high-level w/o any DSP or bass management. Their demo sounds good, but I'm guessing the rooms are acoustically well-treated.


They claim that when using DSP to calibrate dual subs, you're only correcting for steady-state responses by adding time delays, but such time delay added to the signal path of the subs causes bass misalignment for transient sounds. Is there any truth to this?

No, it's (to be blunt) complete bollocks.

 

[Hear Here]

I'm not sure I would go with any subwoofer if my main speakers had a full-range capacity, I would just position them optimally in the room and call it a day.

Why would I be missing the ability to EQ below 100 Hz, that is perfectly doable no matter the crossover point and should preferably be done at the source. It is a bad idea to have the EQ built into the subwoofers as that would limit the EQ-able range severely, it's way better to do that externally so that you can use the EQ full range or at least up to 500 Hz.

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. I too have full-range main speakers that don't needs subs. I have recently bought 2 x REL S812 subs hoping they would provide support for my mains where their response may be adversely affected by room features. I've not found the subs offer anything worthwhile so far!

However your second point about there the DSP should be located, I'm less sure about. If it's in the main amp, then the entire signal has to pass this processor and I believe this is detrimental to the top end, despite the DSP probably not adjusting these high frequencies. However (as you point out) it will adjust the signal to both main and sub speakers, so perhaps better than being located in the sub where it cannot adjust the main speakers' response.

Personally, I've found that my main speakers' top end loses a little of their "sparkle" and excitement factor after enduring a Dirac Live (or RoomPerfect) filter, even though these DSPs don't adjust frequencies about 500 Hz. That's why I prefer No Filter from my main amp, even though it may iron out a few minor peaks and troughs in the bass. Who cares as long as it sounds as close to the original performance as you're likely to get at home?

 

[Titurel]

Personally I would not consider a speaker that roll off at 40hz to be full range or large, unless one is very unlucky with the room. But that is somewhat besides the point. The point, or at least additional point, is that you're missing out on EQ ability below 100hz, which is a vast improvement in almost all rooms.

The claim of a loss of eq-ability below 100Hz is not necessarily true. While Rel has, if I remember correctly, suggested leaving their subs out of the room correction eq loop, one doesn't need to take their advice. In my case, I used Dirac not only to correct the sub-100Hz range of my mains, I also used it to tailor the bottom end response of the mains (using REW) to better integrate with the subs, correcting the subs' crossover freq. and level as needed.

So, the Rels were eq-ed by implication outside the loop (via hi-level), rather than direct application (via line-level) inside the eq-loop. That's a far piece from totally losing the ability to eq below 100 Hz, which your posts suggest. Not intuitive or exactly easy, but do-able. BTW, as the LFE signal was inside the room correction loop, data from those measurements helped guide tuning the sub response outside the loop, i.e., the response supplementing the mains.

 

[sigbergaudio]

The claim of a loss of eq-ability below 100Hz is not necessarily true. While Rel has, if I remember correctly, suggested leaving their subs out of the room correction eq loop, one doesn't need to take their advice. In my case, I used Dirac not only to correct the sub-100Hz range of my mains, I also used it to tailor the bottom end response of the mains (using REW) to better integrate with the subs, correcting the subs' crossover freq. and level as needed.

So, the Rels were eq-ed by implication outside the loop (via hi-level), rather than direct application (via line-level) inside the eq-loop. That's a far piece from totally losing the ability to eq below 100 Hz, which your posts suggest. Not intuitive or exactly easy, but do-able. BTW, as the LFE signal was inside the room correction loop, data from those measurements helped guide tuning the sub response outside the loop, i.e., the response supplementing the mains.

First: In case it has been unclear, this whole discussion, I haven't said that REL subwoofers can't be EQed or is bad because of this or that. I am merely talking about the configuration choice of not using high pass filters, and crossing the sub over very low, regardless of brand.

Second: I am not sure I understand your configuration. Are you saying you had the RELs connected via high level (same outputs as the mains), and then you used Dirac to EQ them as one? That sounds like a very complicated way to do it. If you had Dirac I assume you also had low level outputs available. Here I am either misunderstanding what you're saying, or I fail to see the point of doing this instead of using LFE/PRE outputs and activating crossover and EQ in the "normal" way. Either way this sounds like a configuration people are not typically utilizing when putting their RELs (or whatever else) on a highlevel output, so it doesn't feel very relevant. My apologies if I misunderstand you.

 

[Titurel]

First: In case it has been unclear, this whole discussion, I haven't said that REL subwoofers can't be EQed or is bad because of this or that. I am merely talking about the configuration choice of not using high pass filters, and crossing the sub over very low, regardless of brand.

Second: I am not sure I understand your configuration. Are you saying you had the RELs connected via high level (same outputs as the mains), and then you used Dirac to EQ them as one? That sounds like a very complicated way to do it. If you had Dirac I assume you also had low level outputs available. Here I am either misunderstanding what you're saying, or I fail to see the point of doing this instead of using LFE/PRE outputs and activating crossover and EQ in the "normal" way. Either way this sounds like a configuration people are not typically utilizing when putting their RELs (or whatever else) on a highlevel output, so it doesn't feel very relevant. My apologies if I misunderstand you.

I'll admit it was a bit complicated, but not cripplingly so. A had a pair of Rel subs, each connected hi-level to one of the mains; the main-sub pairs were run full range (no support via LFE). The subs were also both connected (line level) to the LFE, where they would support the center and surrounds.

1) I ran Dirac with the hi-levels disconnected.
2) I ran REW on the subs, to use as references.
3) I attached the subs hi-level to the mains and ran REW on the mains + subs.
4) Based on the above REW, I adjusted the response curve (curtains, etc) inside Dirac and the x-overs and levels on the Rel. Essentially, I cut a hole in the Dirac curve into which I could insert the subs' outputs.
5) Retested mains + subs, and iteratively adjusted Dirac curves and Rel x-overs and levels and phase until I liked what I was seeing and hearing. I tinkered.

The net result was decent bass extension and (in my room) a smooth hand off between the subs and mains. I would have stayed with this sort of configuration if I hadn't replaced the mains and started coveting a little more bass extension. I also upgraded my pre/pro to one that supports multiple sub channels (4) plus LFE. Out with the old, in with the new, empty goes the wallet.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I'll admit it was a bit complicated, but not cripplingly so. A had a pair of Rel subs, each connected hi-level to one of the mains; the main-sub pairs were run full range (no support via LFE). The subs were also both connected (line level) to the LFE, where they would support the center and surrounds.

1) I ran Dirac with the hi-levels disconnected.
2) I ran REW on the subs, to use as references.
3) I attached the subs hi-level to the mains and ran REW on the mains + subs.
4) Based on the above REW, I adjusted the response curve (curtains, etc) inside Dirac and the x-overs and levels on the Rel. Essentially, I cut a hole in the Dirac curve into which I could insert the subs' outputs.
5) Retested mains + subs, and iteratively adjusted Dirac curves and Rel x-overs and levels and phase until I liked what I was seeing and hearing. I tinkered.

The net result was decent bass extension and (in my room) a smooth hand off between the subs and mains. I would have stayed with this sort of configuration if I hadn't replaced the mains and started coveting a little more bass extension. I also upgraded my pre/pro to one that supports multiple sub channels (4) plus LFE. Out with the old, in with the new, empty goes the wallet.

Interesting approach. I am not sure I see the benefit if you have the option of just connecting them via a low level output though.

 

[Titurel]

Interesting approach. I am not sure I see the benefit if you have the option of just connecting them via a low level output though.

Two things, the ability to do stereo subs on a pre/processor (now retired) which didn't support them and a little bit more control of the x-over region. The results were better, but not earth-shakingly better.

 

[CapMan]

Went to St Eustache, Paris to hear an organ recital yesterday (audition for their new organist) - it made the case for sub woofers pretty clearly

 

[goat76]

Our systems have it built into both the speakers and the subs. But if you are in a situation where you have it externally, you likely have crossover capability too, so then you are no longer in the situation I am discussing.

Please also note that I am not challenging your choices or saying your choice is wrong, I am talking in general terms.

Yes, and I’m also talking in general terms where a subwoofer connected with a high-level and a low crossover can be all that is needed. This is an easy and uncomplicated solution for anyone seeking bass extension for an otherwise capable system.

When it comes to my setup, I don’t need to lower the distortion as it’s already low enough, and I don't need a higher SPL capacity as my system already plays way louder than I ever want to play it.



So the easy and uncomplicated way of just adding bass extension suits me well, and the integration is well-thought-out.

• I prefer my subwoofers set up in stereo configuration. They are positioned close by each main speaker and are therefore acoustically both time- and phase-aligned.
• My speakers are asymmetrically positioned in the room which unavoidably will lead to some differences between the channels in the bass frequency response. To tackle this, each left and right speaker/subwoofer combination has a different crossover and level setting where I apply a little bit of overlapping which gives me some “free" fill-up in the higher bass frequency region, a region where my and most setups will have a little loss in energy due to boundary interference. By “free" fill-up I mean that I don't have to raise this frequency area with EQ adjustments which would otherwise lead to higher distortion, instead the “cost” is just a minor adjustment of the crossover point for a small overlap and with just a little higher volume output from the subwoofers. REW measurements were used to determine how much overlapping and what gain is needed individually for the left and right channels to get a comparable frequency response at the main listening position.
• I use an equalizer to flatten the frequency response, mostly for the range under 100 Hz but also one at 118 Hz and another very small adjustment at 359 Hz. I only use subtractive EQ to keep the distortion level down as the subwoofers handle the raising that is needed.

So all in all, I use the REL subwoofers and the way they are connected to my advantage in more than one way. The same thing could of course also be achieved with a high-pass/low-pass system, but I don't feel the need as the above works great without requiring any additional gear as there is no need for me to lower any distortion or achieve more SPL capacity.

 

[EJasonC]

To listen to this demo, I used a brand new set of Adam Audio H200 headphones with a frequency response of 2 Hz to 23.5 kHz. There's unquestionably a clear and distinct difference in bass performance particularly; of course, I was not at all surprised. However, for the main speakers, microphone placement very close to the midrange driver & significantly further away from the bass driver is not ideal. Depending of course on the type of microphone, this may not convey the full range performance capability of the mains. In the future, I would like to see this same demo with only two microphones placed at the LISTENING position. Doing so would include the acoustics of the room and would likely show how much better those SF speakers are in real world settings. It would also convey the full scale of bass dynamics from the Rel Sub just as much if not more. As an owner of a pair of Rel HT/1510 Predators, I can attest to the differences with and without; there's no way to really appreciate how much better both music and home theatre is in full frequency range inclusive of a really good pair of subwoofers!

 

[antcollinet]

Adam Audio H200 headphones with a frequency response of 2 Hz to 23.5 kHz.

I just had to look that up 2Hz seems unfeasably low. Are we sure they haven't missed a zero on that spec?

 

[EJasonC]

I just had to look that up 2Hz seems unfeasably low. Are we sure they haven't missed a zero on that spec?

I had the same thought initially, until that is, when I actually listened to them for the first time. For the lowest bass I have ever heard on any content to date, I played "Vinland Saga" Original Soundtrack CD on my main 2 channel system; a pair of Dali Euphonia MS5's & Sunfire True Sub Signature 13 that goes down to 16 hz; it quite literally startled me! I then played the same content on my HT that consists of all ADAM Audio Active monitors & a pair of Rel HT/1510 Predators; same effect of being rather startled. Only this time in the HT, it was quite a bit more startling. So of course I had to listen to the same material on my newly acquired H200 HP's; again, same startling reaction. The bass on the headphones is so low and so defined, I feel it just as much as when hearing it from my speakers which I actually prefer over headphones anyway! So yes, I do believe based on listening to them that they do indeed go down to 2 Hz and not just 20 Hz. Perhaps one other really good test would be to listen to the opening sequence of "Edge of Tomorrow"?!

 

[antcollinet]

So yes, I do believe based on listening to them that they do indeed go down to 2 Hz

Listening isn't going to tell you anything. Your hearing doesn't detect anything that low.

 

[EJasonC]

Listening isn't going to tell you anything. Your hearing doesn't detect anything that low.

True that, but I would prefer any set of cans especially to have the headroom at both ends of frequency extremes. I also own a set of Yamaha HPH-MT8's that spec out as 15Hz - 28kHz and I can hear or more accurately, feel the difference between the two cans in the bass response. In the end what matters is that they sound absolutely fantastic to my ears specs notwithstanding. Of course, HP's don't give me the same satisfaction of listening and enjoying music as do speakers. After all, our ears are not really designed to hear naturally through a set of cans in the first place. Which is why I posted initially that Rel/John Hunter should do that demo differently with mics placed at the listening position and not directly in front of the drivers.

 

[goat76]

To listen to this demo, I used a brand new set of Adam Audio H200 headphones with a frequency response of 2 Hz to 23.5 kHz. There's unquestionably a clear and distinct difference in bass performance particularly; of course, I was not at all surprised. However, for the main speakers, microphone placement very close to the midrange driver & significantly further away from the bass driver is not ideal. Depending of course on the type of microphone, this may not convey the full range performance capability of the mains. In the future, I would like to see this same demo with only two microphones placed at the LISTENING position. Doing so would include the acoustics of the room and would likely show how much better those SF speakers are in real world settings. It would also convey the full scale of bass dynamics from the Rel Sub just as much if not more. As an owner of a pair of Rel HT/1510 Predators, I can attest to the differences with and without; there's no way to really appreciate how much better both music and home theatre is in full frequency range inclusive of a really good pair of subwoofers!

I also thought that the microphones where too close right up to the midrange driver. They should've put them further away but not as far as you suggest as that would give a recording with way too much reflections from the room as microphones would pick up everything our hearing wouldn't “register”. I think 1-1.5 meters away would probably enough for the sound from all the drivers to sum up good enough acoustically for at least hearing the differences in bass output.

But anyway, such test would only be useful to determine if the sound is more or less bassy, but we already know that adding subwoofers will add more bass, so what's the point?
To hear what we'll integrated subwoofers bring to the system, the only real thing left to do is demo the difference in person.