Don't know how many speaker systems i 'd have gone through by now ...if i hadn't acquired a REL.
Ahhh--Problem solved. Adding a REL sub-bass unit...
I'm wondering how many audiophiles have given up on loudspeakers preamturely, or have gone down the rabbit hole of cable swapping to "fix" an issue with their speakers.
I grew up hating subwoofers and home theatre. I still haven't come around fully to home theatre. I've warmed up though. I've had my own issues with otherwise great loudspeakers, including a pair of Klipsch Forte IIIs. I was very frustrated as I'm feeding them from a respected tube integrated, I've tried them with a 300B amp, and I've toiled over positioning.
The issue that I was having was the mids and highs were dominating in my room--despite the size of the woofer and passive radiator. Some recordings were just too bright. Sometimes I felt the speaker, however "alive" and dynamic was not imaging well, needed soundstage help, and so on.
I hate to say the REL T9i I threw in the mix today is a panacea because there's always stuff to tweak. Yet I have experienced this before with a Sumiko subwoofer. Adding one to the mix and dialing it in so that it's barely audible has brought everything into focus. Everything is more relaxed and energetic at the same time.
I'd say that the REL is a room tuning device above all. I have a larger room (I think it's 15 wide, 24 long and 10 high--in feet). I'm not sure how much I'd have to spend or what different choices would solve this otherwise. From a guy that used to reject subwoofers out of hand (my bias came from the 90s home theatre craze) I think that they might be necessary in the lion's share of systems with the lion's share of speakers. To say, "you don't need a sub" with speakers might be true depending on your room, but I also think in most situations you are missing out on what they can do for so many criteria that are not necessarily in keeping with adding bass--e.g. soundstage, focus, imagine, fullness, taming treble, etc.).
Finally, I really wish that I could try some other brands as many audiogon members recommended so many respectable names. I ultimately went with REL because of its philosophy, my similar experience with a Sumiko sub (within the family of REL or somehow related), and the high frequency input connections.
I grew up hating subwoofers and home theatre. I still haven't come around fully to home theatre. I've warmed up though. I've had my own issues with otherwise great loudspeakers, including a pair of Klipsch Forte IIIs. I was very frustrated as I'm feeding them from a respected tube integrated, I've tried them with a 300B amp, and I've toiled over positioning.
The issue that I was having was the mids and highs were dominating in my room--despite the size of the woofer and passive radiator. Some recordings were just too bright. Sometimes I felt the speaker, however "alive" and dynamic was not imaging well, needed soundstage help, and so on.
I hate to say the REL T9i I threw in the mix today is a panacea because there's always stuff to tweak. Yet I have experienced this before with a Sumiko subwoofer. Adding one to the mix and dialing it in so that it's barely audible has brought everything into focus. Everything is more relaxed and energetic at the same time.
I'd say that the REL is a room tuning device above all. I have a larger room (I think it's 15 wide, 24 long and 10 high--in feet). I'm not sure how much I'd have to spend or what different choices would solve this otherwise. From a guy that used to reject subwoofers out of hand (my bias came from the 90s home theatre craze) I think that they might be necessary in the lion's share of systems with the lion's share of speakers. To say, "you don't need a sub" with speakers might be true depending on your room, but I also think in most situations you are missing out on what they can do for so many criteria that are not necessarily in keeping with adding bass--e.g. soundstage, focus, imagine, fullness, taming treble, etc.).
Finally, I really wish that I could try some other brands as many audiogon members recommended so many respectable names. I ultimately went with REL because of its philosophy, my similar experience with a Sumiko sub (within the family of REL or somehow related), and the high frequency input connections.
- ...
- 61 posts total
| Post removed |
I was driving a pair of Dynaudio Excite x32 speakers with a Rega Elicit-R. I listen to mostly '70's rock and reggae vinyl. Sounded very good but somehow lacking. I added a pair of REL T5/i's. The RELs, once adjusted properly, added a certain "weight" to my system, while correcting for my non-optimal listening environment. I am quite happy with them. |
I was using a pair of original Rogers LS3/5a with a Hafler SS or Marantz 8B tubes. There was no real bass without a sub. REL T2 was a gorgeous addition at a reasonable investment. I'm now using Adam Audio powered studio monitors (I always enjoy hearing what engineers hear) and though they have good bass down to 30-40 hz and sound great alone, the REL still fills out the deepest notes. REL recommends corner placement and I've always moved mine back there after experimenting. The polarity switch comes in handy for a final check of where the waves are interacting relative to your seat. And the variable crossover and volume provide endless tweaking opportunities.;-) |
(I always enjoy hearing what engineers hear)Almost no one ever will. The room and electronics are vastly different. Nowadays, by the time the label gets done ’improving’, any similarity between what was mixed and what’s on the disk is quite small. Doubly so for ’remasters’ See http://ielogical.com/Audio/#ReIssues A system without the bottom octave is a pale simulacrum and loses more that ½ the immediacy of a live performance. IMO, most systems with subs are egregiously awful. It’s often not the fault of the sub, but the set up: 1. 0-180° Phase controls are only valid at one frequency. If the phase is not correct, the system is likely better w/o the sub. Filters change the phase response making the two controls interactive. Given that small subs have large EQ curves built into their amplifiers, the phase pot marking is next to worthless in terms of absolute phase. 180° phase switches are next useless except when used in concert with a 0-180° phase control. 2. A system with powered sub should use a XOver to remove the lowest frequencies from the mains and is preferrable ot trying to ’blend’. Doing so reduces main power requirements, driver excursion and distortion. Feeding the sub first and then the sub feeding the mains is bollox. A simple single capacitor will give a 6db/octave filter which will give a nice blend with a 18db/octave sub rolloff, provided the sub phase is inverted. Getting the phase and frequency correct is tedious. It can be calculated if one knows the amp EQ, driver response, crossover type and slope. Having a close starting point is vastly preferrable to most of the ’instructions’ 3. Many systems crossover an octave too low. IMO, speakers should be crossover an octave above where they start to fail badly. In the case of small monitors like LS3/5a, Spica TC-50, that’s around 100Hz. The problem is then to find a sub with similar sonic characteristics to the mains. If the mains are capable of true 30Hz, IMO there is almost no need and even less probablity that adding subs will improve the system unless the mains are placed for WAF rather than sonics. 4. Ported subs? Never! When properly set up, pop bass is focused and does not stroll. Tympani and bass drum become focused. The sense that one is there is out all proportion to the measured delta. See http://ielogical.com/Audio/SubTerrBlues.php for a bit of a primer on integrating a small sub and small monitors. |
- 61 posts total