Rel Subwoofer experiences

[Sigberg Audio]

I suggest you search the forums more. I spent a good 2 weeks reading every post I could on subwoofers and the consensus is, that your subwoofer will be out of sync with your main speakers, if the calibration of the subs is done separate from the calibration of the speakers.

Do you have like one reference / link?

To clarify a bit:

That a subwoofer has DSP doesn't mean you have to use it. If you have Dirac or whatever centrally, you might as well do all calibration there (including for the subwoofer). But it doesn't matter to Dirac if the subwoofer has DSP built-in.

If you insist on doing both, you can still avoid timing issues, simply do the subwoofer calibration with the subwoofer DSP first, and then the central calibration. The central calibration process will measure the latency of the subwoofer and correct for it. The latency is also typically the same no matter if you use the subwoofer DSP or not.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I'm not "against" subwoofers with DSP, but there's a pretty good chance an EQ adjustment is needed above the subwoofer's limited working range. It's likely more useful for most people to have a full-range EQ earlier in the audio chain, as it is for me, who needs an EQ filter at 117 Hz.

No argument there.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Another clarifying point might be the fact that the reason almost all subwoofers have DSP built-in isn't just to allow you (the end user) to do calibration or EQ, it is used by the manufacturer to tune the subwoofer.

 

[marked sound]

Do you have like one reference / link?

To clarify a bit:

That a subwoofer has DSP doesn't mean you have to use it. If you have Dirac or whatever centrally, you might as well do all calibration there (including for the subwoofer). But it doesn't matter to Dirac if the subwoofer has DSP built-in.

If you insist on doing both, you can still avoid timing issues, simply do the subwoofer calibration with the subwoofer DSP first, and then the central calibration. The central calibration process will measure the latency of the subwoofer and correct for it. The latency is also typically the same no matter if you use the subwoofer DSP or not.

It's not hard to find the info. I believe even someone posted in one of my threads that calibration for subs and speakers should be done all at once. Subwoofer DSP is for people too lazy to implement full room / system EQ. This is coming from a guy who used to be pro sub DSP, but the more I read the more I was convinced otherwise.

The bottom line is only you can decide your preferences and what works for you, however that doesn't mean there isn't a better way of doing things.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

It's not hard to find the info. I believe even someone posted in one of my threads that calibration for subs and speakers should be done all at once. Subwoofer DSP is for people too lazy to implement full room / system EQ. This is coming from a guy who used to be pro sub DSP, but the more I read the more I was convinced otherwise.

Well, again I highly doubt that there is a general consensus against DSP subwoofers, since you'd have to remove 95% of all subwoofers from your purchase list.

But there may be a general consensus that it's better to just use room / system EQ if this is available to you, I have no problem with that.

The bottom line is only you can decide your preferences and what works for you, however that doesn't mean there isn't a better way of doing things.

Not sure what this means or implies.

 

[marked sound]

Well, again I highly doubt that there is a general consensus against DSP subwoofers, since you'd have to remove 95% of all subwoofers from your purchase list.

But there may be a general consensus that it's better to just use room / system EQ if this is available to you, I have no problem with that.



Not sure what this means or implies.

They are not against using a supwoofer that HAS DSP, they are against USING the subwoofer's DSP, instead of doing a whole system room correction. Just because subwoofer HAS DSP doesn't mean it has to be USED. For example I am looking at an Arendal sub that has DSP. If I can find other options for whole system room correction, then I likely won't use the DSP on the sub.

What I meant in my last comment was, even though the science suggests which method of doing things is better, that doesn't mean you aren't free to do what you want if it makes you happy.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

They are not against using a supwoofer that HAS DSP, they are against USING the subwoofer's DSP, instead of doing a whole system room correction. Just because subwoofer HAS DSP doesn't mean it has to be USED. For example I am looking at an Arendal sub that has DSP. If I can find other options for whole system room correction, then I likely won't use the DSP on the sub.

Then I guess we're saying the same thing. This was pretty unclear from your initial statement.

What I meant in my last comment was, even though the science suggests which method of doing things is better, that doesn't mean you aren't free to do what you want if it makes you happy.

Good to know.

 

[Krit]

The more ir read about subs, the more i use subs the more i like 2.0 over 2.1 for small/medium sized rooms. Putting more money in 2.0 is a safer bet for Hi-Fi.

 

[goat76]

The more ir read about subs, the more i use subs the more i like 2.0 over 2.1 for small/medium sized rooms. Putting more money in 2.0 is a safer bet for Hi-Fi.

You have just not been able to get your subwoofer to integrate seamlessly with your main speakers. That can be hard to get right, but when a seamless integration is achieved, I’m sure everyone will prefer the sound of a truly full-range system over a limited one.

 

[Head_Unit]

any experience with this sub or REL subs in general?

A friend has a set of REL, two 10" and then under his center channel and 8" running from the high level inputs. However his mains are large towers. My basic objection to REL is pushing high-level inputs for everyone. Yes fewer variables so definitely simpler to integrate. BUT unless your mains can run bass heavy music full crank without distortion, it is just silly dumb to not have a highpass filter to reduce the bass load on the satellites.

So his REL system sounds really great; I remain unconvinced it is due to any "special REL sauce" especially for the money.

 

[Hans Boorsma]

I'm using the REL No. 21 Black Label with my Dynaudio Confidence 30 loudspeakers. Most people will think the Dynaudios don’t need any bass extension, and they are partly right.
The REL adds pressure and physical impact — you can actually feel the bass it adds, though never in a negative way. It’s simply an overwhelming experience, and once I switch off the REL, I can no longer enjoy the Dynaudios as much as I did before adding it.
Anyone who argues otherwise probably hasn’t experienced this combination properly.

 

[dolynick]

I have an S/510 integrated into my living room system via the high level connection. I do really quite love the sound of the system with it.

I will say though that I don't think the REL high level connection is really optimal in a higher-end system without the use of system-wide room correction/EQ. The high-level connection is basically just supplementing your main's bass out put with no cross over or filter (as others have pointed out). So chances are that in order to get the bass extension you want, you'll end up with some bloat higher up in the frequency range. Once you apply room correction, you can tame down that additive bloat where needed. While not offloading the load entirely, the signal reductions at those frequencies are also removing some of the load from the amplifier to the mains (as the sub's amp fills in the rest) so you are getting benefits on that front too.

I have a bedroom system with a little REL T-Zero in it that isn't using any room correction. It sounds good but looking at a REW graph, it clearly has some issues. I quite enjoy it anyways though but it's not meant to be a critical listening system.

So yes. I firmly believe that you can get a great sounding system using REL subs and their recommended high-level connection. If you're chasing good or well-managed bass though, you still shouldn't forego bass management and the high-level connection requires that you do it via room correction/EQ on the mains rather than just simple bass management system cross-over. In a way, I'd say they're actually more complicated to optimize than others.

The criticisms about RELs being overpriced and not offering as deep of extension compared to others in their range are valid though. They do market most of their lines as more music-oriented (which usually doesn't require going as deep) but outside of their more home theatre oriented models you'll probably find better value in deep bass output (for HT LFE) elsewhere.