I have a REL Storm subwoofer in my system. The REL subwoofer gets a full range signal from the amp. The subwoofer presents a very high impedance load to the amp, the amp acting mainly as a voltage source here. That is why the signal cable from the amp to a REL subwoofer has thin wires. The main speakers have the full power and full range of the amp, no loss to the tiny trickle taken by the subwoofer. The subwoofer gets exactly the same signal as the main speakers, so integration occurs naturally. I positioned my REL Storm near my listening position. It integrates like mad. I asked an experienced audio listener at my house if he thought I had a subwoofer in my system. He did not think so, even though that huge downward firing Storm was standing four feet in front of him. When I told him I did have a sub, he could not point to the source of bass. I am very happy with that arrangement.
Does a REL subwoofer make the speakers' job easier?
Gentlemen,
Let’s assume we are following REL’s recommendation by connecting the sub to the amp instead of the preamp through the high-level connection. Then which one of these two would be true?
1. The sub would make the speakers’ job easier by not sending the low bass signal (i.e., below the crossover point) to them.
2. The signal sent to the speakers would still include the low bass even when the sub is used. Therefore the speakers would still receive the full range signal.
If (1) is true, how is it accomplished electrically? I am asking this as someone who has little knowledge about how the signal flow between amp and speakers works.
Thanks in advance!