subwoofers: the bigger the better?


Hi guys, I wonder if a bigger subwoofer would blend in a more satisfying way with the sound of your main speakers. I own a pair of Dunlavy SC-IV's and I'm considering to add a REL subwoofer to the system. I can buy the Stentor III, but maybe the Studio III would sound better in combination with the Dunlavies. The folks at REL say that one Studio subwoofer is better than two Stentor's. I once red that the lower the main speakers go the better the subwoofer will blend with the sound. I also heard during a high end demonstration 8 years ago a pair of Wilson WATT 3/2 with a Pow Wow subwoofer (the size of a large coffee table) driven by Krell KAS amplifiers (+ Audio Research LS-2 linestage), and the sound was the most impressive I've ever heard.
dazzdax
If your goal is music, not just LFE for HT, then I would say you are better off with two subs, in stereo, than one. I've been using stereo subs for over a year now and have been thrilled with the results.
Go for stereo subs if your goal is the best in stereo soundstage reproduction and intergration. I have been bi-amping or have been using stereo subs since 1981. With 2 the soundstage becomes mush wider and much more coherent..I have used 5 different pairs of stereo subs with my Dunlavy SC4's..Currently using a pair of Paradigm Servo15's on Sistrum SP1 platforms..The Dunlavys run full range the Servo 15's roll out at about 45hz. Tom
I also agree with stereo subs. Added a 2nd Vandersteen 2wq about a year after the 1st. Improvement all the way around...