What is the order of rel subs?

Can't tell you as I am only repeating what they told me. Obviously, they have purchased the company and can sell what they want where they want. If they felt the Stadium III were better than the B series, they could sell it or offer it in addition to the new series. I have heard the argument that the B series might be "less musical" or "more for home theater" but it seems like most who hear the B series like what they hear. I do, and find it quite musical--far more so than my old Velodyne (which I only used for HT), but you have the advantage of direct comparison. Seems like good subs can be build downard firing or forward firing. I wish there were more reviews out there from independent sources. The only one I know of is the Absolute Sound Mag which raved about the B3, but I have not seen a single review of the B1. For me, the measure was whether I could integrate the sub relatively seamlessly into my two channel listening (which I could). The fact that it also works well in my HT setup is a bonus. I imagine the higher power levels of the B series may allow for better integration into HT, but I am not convinced that having more power in reserve is necessarily a detriment for two channel. Still, it is interesting to read of someone that prefers the Stadium to the B1 in direct comparison.

Okay, you guys seem to know you REL subs and I am hoping you can share some of your expertise with me. I have purchased two REL Q108 small subs to go with a pair of Totem Arros and to serve in both 2-channel stereo and less importantly in HT. Since I have two, instead of using the three wires for the Neutrik cable with two into one speaker hook-up at the amp and the other wire into the second speaker hook-up, I decided to attach the third wire to the center channel speaker hook-up (I do not use the center channel speaker for stereo). Anybody using two subs? Was this is a similar connection or what did you do?

Should I still be tieing each sub into just the two main speakers instead for stereo in the same manner as if I were only running one sub?

With the LFE, my amp only has one output so I am going to only one REL for HT via the LFE. The other REL is then driven in the same manner as if I were running stereo (via the high level and neutrik cable. Anybody have comments on this?

Also, since I have an AV receiver for running stereo in zone one, I had always used the LFE output, even in stereo mode to drive the sub. I have not changed the programming from this, should I? If I don't, isn't my amp/receiver still sending the LFE signal to the REL when I am just running stereo?

Believe it or not, the Q108s actually provide pretty good bass support for the Arros which are lacking in the bottom end. The Qs certainly don't go as deep as the better models, but compared to the B&W sub they replaced, there is a huge improvement in speed, accuracy and musicality with no negative impact on the soundstage and imaging with the Arros (running two subs).

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Here's my two eurocents:
I owned the Stadium 3 and 'listened' often to the Stentor 3. After moving to a bigger house, I decided to go and look for a Studio, merely based on the specs and reviews but expecting comparable results in larger listening areas. This would complement my Avalon Eidolons.

Now that the B series is here, I am confused (or rather: concerned) about the positioning of these models on the hi end market. This is why:

The 'old' models seem to go and be replaced with new models such as the B3, B2 and 'flagship' B1 which are considerably lower priced. I would assume that also REL is continuously looking for product improvement.

The lower priced new models would suggest that either the older models are hugely overpriced or that REL is leaving the hi end niche. The positioning that Luvwine points out supports this. I share this concern with 9RW.I do hope however the REL brand will continue their present top position (IMHO).

Apart from this, in general it is my conception that downfiring models should be better able to 'spread' sound and equally fill the room with sound waves. Frontfiring models are easier to 'locate' when enjoying 2 channel audio (and, I presume, HT audio). I am still not sure about this, but after reading many reviews I suspect that many reviewers find front firing models a 'better' choice for home theater than for hi end 2 channel audio. Did REL introduce the B series to convince us otherwise?

Please comment on this.
If true, I will definitely go for a Studio in stead of a B1

Greetings from Amsterdam, Holland

Here's my two pennies:
I owned the Stadium 3 and 'listened' often to the Stentor 3. After moving to a bigger house, I decided to go and look for a Studio, merely based on the specs and reviews but expecting comparable results in larger listening areas. This would complement my Avalon Eidolons.

Now that the B series is here, I am confused (or better: worried) about the positioning of these models on the hi end market. This is why:

The 'old' models seem to be replaced with new models such as the B3, B2 and 'flagship' B1 which are considerably lower priced. I would assume that also REL is continuously looking for product improvement.

The lower proced models would suggest that either the older models are hugely overpriced or that REL is leaving the hi end niche. The positioning that Luvwine points out supports this. I do hope that I am misunderstanding something here and that the REL brand will continue their present top position (IMHO).

Apart from this, in general it is my conception that downfiring models should be better able to 'spread' sound and equally fill the room with sound waves. Frontfiring models are easier to 'locate' when enjoying 2 channel audio (and, I presume, HT audio). I am still not sure about this, but after reading many reviews I suspect that many reviewers find front firing models a 'better' choice for home theater than for hi end 2 channel audio. Did REL introduce the B series to convince us otherwise?

If true, I will definitely go for a Studio in stead of a B1

Please comment on this.

Greetings from Amsterdam, Holland

Hi Piet,

I will not be able to shed much light, I am afraid. Given the high quality of your main speakers, and if cost is not a major factor, I would suspect that the venerable Studio III would likely be superior to the newfangled B1 in your application. I have no facts to justify this opinion, but given that Sumiko still offers the Studio III, and given its much higher price tag and lower extension, I cannot imagine that it would be inferior to the B1.

Having said that, I remain pleased with my B1 and it fit my budget better than a Stentor or Studio. I am not sure that downward firing is "better" than forward firing woofers nor do I believe that home theater woofers are always forward firing. Look at the fairly inexpensive, but hugely powerful SVS line of subs made to shake rooms in HT. They have downward firing woofers and are ported to the side. "Directionality" or the ability to locate where the sound is coming from is, I believe, related more to the pitch than whether the woofer is forward or downward firing. I set my B1 on two channel music to only engage around 38 hz. At that pitch, it is not "directional" to me. Also, some claim that forward firing woofers are easier to "dial in" location wise than downward firing.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the company that bought Rel is Sumiko. Sumiko is the U.S. Importer for Vienna Acoustics and Sonus Faber. They sell very high end gear. Seems like Rel is in pretty good hands. I would be very surprised if they did not want to sell subs that complemented high end speakers like the SF Amati Homage and others they sell. Also, they were pretty responsive when I called. You might do the same and see what they tell you. At least you will be talking to them directly and may be able to get some useful information/insight. I was trying to decide whether to buy a Stadium II or III or get the new B series. I did not ask many questions relevant to your higher class inquiry. :)