I finally added a second REL Sub

Yes, Millercarbon, I started the hobby in earnest in the 1990s.  

It is sad and puzzling the these devices got such a bad rep that they have been held back, at least a bit.  For every a-phile who uses one, it seems there's more who cannot stand them. 

I think they are wonderful when executed right. 

@mozartfan, There is absolutely no boom box effect.  What's more, REL subs are (unless they are HT subs) specifically designed for music.  They are more appropriately sub bass systems.  It sounds like you haven't tried modern subwoofers.   Not trying to be edgy but this is just not my experience or what I think of when I think of modern subwoofers. 

Seems like much gets lost in translation.  I do follow the REL method--nearly to spec.  But, even REL recommends fine tuning. What I was saying is that I do the fine tuning by ear listing to actual tracks with actual instruments--i.e. isolated kick drum, isolated stand up bass, and so on.  Then, I also listen to a group setting of those same type of instruments--sometimes the same track where things get busier.  

I tried DSP, mics and software.  Helpful for sure, but I didn't feel it was necessary to get into the very sweetest spot of linking it all together.  Wh


I've owned the CWIVs for 6 months and have experimented with all sorts of placement options, so at this point I'm confident that I cannot get the same low frequency with the CWIV through different position.  Actually, they are not bass monger designs in the first place.  And further, if I try to position them differently I surely can "up" the bass, but that position is not ideal as other things suffer.  

There's more than one way to skin a cat I suppose.  I'm smoking some ribs today.  In nearly all circles, cooking ribs fast is nuts and not appropriate.  I would never do it. But, there are experts who do and there are experts who don't who have tasted fast cook ribs and applaud them.  

I guess I just haven't found measurements as a panacea.  I built a handful of tube amps and a pretty involved preamp design.  Testing was important and shouldn't be ignored.  But just because it tests near perfect doesn't mean (TO ME) that it sounds better.  

Tuning a guitar by ear in seconds took years to master.  I can do it and meet 440hz spec.  With all humility, I'm not saying my ear is as good as a machine.   I also enjoy it. 

Here's to enjoying the journey!

@keelyofmb, REL doesn’t make it too easy to tell the exact settings in numerical terms. I’ll add up the hash marks and non adjustment clicks to get you a better answer. For now, they are set with the crossover at about 9 o’clock and volume slightly higher. 
I’m leaning towards even a lower crossover setting with similar volume. In either range they aren’t stepping on the speakers toes.  
I’m curious to try an active crossover. That does seem like more expense and work though. 

Golfnutz, ?! 
Thanks for saying my thread is pointless. Yes, if going out and buying gear and setting it up as the mfr suggests is novice and not to your liking, the lions share of posts here are just that. 
I must be an idiot along with others and REL to do this when $300 would give me the same result!  Thank you!!! 

@rauliruegas ,  Always good to hear from you Raul.  I think I understand what you are saying. Specifically, you (and your thread) like to hear and see that users allow more overlap on the crossover between what the subwoofer puts out and what the loudspeaker puts out.  I appreciate that.  

I just don't prefer that sound (without using a dedicated external crossover) because I don't want the Class D amps in the subwoofers taking over too much.  I use a tube amp and unless I could cut the loudspeakers off higher with a dedicated crossover, like you suggest, I don't prefer that much overlap.  

Oz,  be careful buddy!  Your subs don't look set up with way some may want so they must sound terrible. HA!!!!