I own the Strata III and the Q150e. If space is not a consideration, I would prefer the Strata III over the Q150e for both 2ch and HT. The Strata does a much better job at blending in where it sounds as if a sub is not even present. The Q200, I believe, is similar to the 150e except more power. The Q series has a switch which one can use to give it more "punch" for HT, but I've found if the subs are set up properly, you don't need to adjust for this (if you want more "punch" just turn up the sub-woofer out level on your pre-amp). The Rel subwoofers are fantastic and you won't be disappointed with either.
REL Strata III vs. REL Q201E
Okay, I auditioned these the other day. The problem is, I liked both of them in the store. The Strata III produced a very encompasing bass presence that filled the room and had just a slight linger. The Q201E had some rather impressive punchy bass, that was slightly directional due to its forward firing driver, but the bass died rather quickly. I believe both of them have the ability, aside from home theater duty, to mooch off the amp signal and incorporate into regular 2ch listening. As the listening room I heard these in was more for home theater, I was curious which one everyone here feels would be better for 2ch listening? I took the Srata home for demo, but all I have connected it to is the home theater. The bass was good, precise, but honestly not as full sounding as the sub I replaced, M&K V-125. I hope this is due to a break-in period that the sub might need. If it doesn't get much better I don't know if I can justify the $1200 price. I thought about moving the sub to the side wall or a corner, but won't that kill any proper stereo listening? Tonight will try it out with the main speakers, B&W N804s, for stereo listening. Perhaps I purchased too small a sub? Maybe I need a Storm III? My room size is about 17x15 with carpet, a fireplace, furniture, and is open to the kitchen on one side.
7 responses Add your response