Has Rel fallen out of favor with audiophiles?

Considering the almost infinite differences in systems, rooms, and personal taste, adding any subwoofer/s is quite a subjective subject.

Subjectively, I find the performance needs for my primarily analog music only system much greater than for my home theater. Home theater controllers 80Hz standardization makes the need for an on board digitally EQd subwoofer unnecessary. 

In an in home music only comparison with two other subwoofer owners and their subs the only noticeable difference between digitizing the extra low frequency signal was the ease and preference of system and room integration and their stunningly superior performance. The narrowing sonic differences between analog vs digital doesn't seem to be audibly present at this region of the frequency band especially when considering their equalization and optimization control advantages.

To answer the original poster question, yes it is about the quality of integration. In our comparison the REL Studio III was the quickest to set up as per the manufactures instructions. Unfortunately, it was unanimously the poorest performer in all other aspects. To be fair the most expensive and finely crafted British made Studio III was the oldest sub in the comparison and I haven't kept up with any of the brands current advancements. The other two digitally controlled subwoofers in the comparison are currently using substantially improved second generations of control.

The ultra low Hz is simply icing on the cake.   

dlcockrum

Did you use the hi-level input (mandatory IME) from your amp to the Studio III in your auditions?

Dave

Yes we did. After a side by side comparison with the owners of a Velodyne DD-18, JL Audio F-113v1, and a REL Studio III, the REL's propitiatory speaker/high level connectivity greatly restricted its location within the listening room and affected the imaging of the main speakers.  

Feeding the REL a processed low level signal from the DD-18 removed it from the speaker chain which also allowed for better room positioning and improved its performance a great deal. Even so the other two subwoofers clearly integrated better and provided a more robust well defined presentation in this particular room. 

 artemus_5 OP

I have considered adding a second Storm 3. However, the price they want is near to what I can buy a new SVS. And, the Storm is now 12-15 yrs old. IOW, its old and ready for service or retirement soon. So I am hesitant. However the storm does integrate very naturally. And I use the high level input as per Rel's advice.

My only experience with REL was with our little comparison. The cabinetry was very well done and may have accounted for a large portion of its cost of manufacture but I couldn't say for sure.

As I mentioned above installing the Studio III using the manufactures preferred high level cable connection affected the imaging of the main speakers. The affect was slight but noticeable to me. We used long runs of economical Blue Jeans low level RCA cable in the comparison and Cardas Golden Reference speaker cable to the mains. I've read after market cabling may improve its performance.

You might consider slaveing your Storm from your choice of a newer subwoofer. 


Extra low frequency performance is very room dependent. Add in personal taste and the amount of setup involvement make any subwoofer choice a very personal one. 

dlcockrum
 I also find that my RELs effect the imaging/soundstage but in a positive way in my room/setup and agree that they are fussy about placement and setup.

This is an important point. dlcockrum's room created a different and successful effect than in my room ( by the way it was RELs short cable that limited room placement. It worked better in my predetermined location, no more fussy to locate than the other two subs. )

shadorne
I guess it depends what speakers they are paired with. Given that many audiophile speakers struggle above 95 db and distort and compress heavily then REL actually will integrate much better than other subs.

Another interesting point. Our little comparison was done with a pair of three way floor standing speakers only.


To be clear; the Studio III was compared with the supplied cable  using the high/speaker level connection and following the manufacture location and recording setup suggestions. This method had a slight affect on the mains and we had to reduced its gain to achieve what we agreed was the most acceptable integration. 

We then relocated it to the predetermined room location sourced by low level RCA signal optimized and EQd using Velodyne Digital Drive CD source signal adjusting and visually monitoring the frequency adjustments via a laptop. We all agreed the equalization allowed the sub to play at more realistic gain level, no interference with the mains, and a much better overall presentation IN THIS ROOM.      

dlcockrum, yes that's essentially how we did the initial REL suggested corner setup. My rooms close boundary corner location is horrible for all the subwoofers. The Studio IIIs down firing seemed to make things worse. Lowering the gain became the most effective adjustment for that location but it took a great deal out of the low frequency presentation.

murphythecat, after the more important individual comparisons using low level preamplifier source at the same location we then used the source signal from the Velodyne software to all three subs initially adjusting the gain for the 20, 25, 32, and 40Hz bands for flattest response. A more detailed overview can be found on the Velodyne site for Digital Drive Plus Interface Manual. 

Wood tools? Not only do I own digitally controlled servo subwoofers I own a SawStop. You wanna talk controversy? 

 http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml

Wear a mask and have fun with it.