Has Rel fallen out of favor with audiophiles?

REL's are the top choice amongst 2 channel and accurate theater reproduction. 2 REL 212's would be amazing so will the new REL No 25.
www.sunnyaudiovideo.com
626-966-6259

Using a pair of T9i RELs, connected via their high level Neutrik cabling. Corner placement per REL instruction.
These are the first subs I have auditioned that I can actually stand to listen to because they integrate so seamlessly with my Dynaudio floorstanders. 
With my room gain, they measure flat to @ 22hz, but with visceral impact at 16 (I forget the measurement there).
They actually improve the imaging and lowest octave of my floorstanders, but I deviated from the REL guidance this way: I reduce the crossover point to the bottom of the Dynaudio's "flat down to" response (35hz), and increased the REL volume setting.
I am amazed at how well phasing works with the bottom octaves of the Dyn's - which is a significant problem with all other subs I have tried over the years.
Placement took a while - I used the Stereo Review test signals - but this was to get the loudest and most effective room coupling.
But with or without fine-tuning sub placement, integration with the mains was easy and surprisingly nice. Fine-tuning placement only extends the bass.
Other listeners comment that they are pleasantly surprised at the impact AND INTEGRATION of the sub. 2 channel or soundtrack.
They just augment and extend the bass, without calling attention to themselves. 

I agree with this recent review of the REL T9i
https://2y2ro62wfbas3svllg2i0s1t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/HIFI-142-Awards_...   
They certainly haven't fallen out of favor.

The adjustability of RELs, especially the older ones like mine (certain newer models dispense with some knobulation) , enables you (or, in my case, me) to easily "tune" them to the listening environment. My main speakers, although rated to 38hz or something (lame rating..they’re Silverline Preludes with 3.75" woofers) barely make a peep at 38hz. The sweet spot is around 50hz for the RELs step in. The wireless thing (Longbow?) they offer with new RELs might be a selling point for them, but REL is missing out on a pile of sales to current owners of their older stuff by not making one of these work with RELs like mine (it is, after all, all about me)…I’d buy one immediately, which would seriously free up placement options.

...

Now, there is SVS, Rhythmic, PSA etc which have much better specs than the Rels for less $$$. But the question for me is whether they actually integrate with the main speakers as well as the Rel? I use mine for music 95% of the time. Music doesn’t need to plumb the 16hz range as much as HT does. And most of the reviews seem to come from HT sources, IE AVS forum and the various HT magazines. From what I can tell, then Rhythmic seems to cater to the audiophile more than HT. But how about a sealed SVS ?. And will they both integrate as well as the Rel with the high level speakon input?

So, for audipophiles, do you sacrifice the ultra low hz for the good integration of the Rel? Or do you go with then SVS, Rhythmic, etc with their lower octave output? IOW, do the integrate as well?

arte --

You touch upon something I went through myself in trying to find a proper sub for my all-horn main speakers. Horn bass typically exhibits very little smearing/overhang of the sound they create, helped along by light(er) diaphragms + voice coils that move very little and therefore has less inertia. I then opted to look for sealed subs (or variants hereof) exclusively to emulate as closely the sonic nature (transient speed) of my main speakers, but moreover had to consider the latter’s high efficiency, large radiation area and sheer output capabilities. Horn subs were naturally included in my thoughts, but eventually discarded due to practical constraints (i.e.: size issues). OB subs were discarded for the same reason, at least in my interiors. Classic sealed subs it had to be then, with 15" driver minimum size, and powerful ones at that (driver + amp). A larger driver needs less cone movement for the same output compared to a smaller unit, the added mass of the larger diaphragm I believe still outweighing the drawbacks of inertia (and more violent air displacement) from more cone movement via smaller drivers. Still, what amounted from these considerations led to circling subs using large drivers that could rightly be viewed as the antithesis of the more classic horn bass drivers, with their typically smaller and lighter voice coils + diaphragms, and considerably inferior power handling (which is not needed with horns), and limited cone travel. Here are sub bass drivers with 2-4" more or less linear cone travel, large voice coils (if not in diameter then in height and winding thickness) and huge magnets. And yet, for a 1,500 watts powered 16" driver with an 8"(!) voice coil, the sealed SVS SB16-Ultra sub - which I ended up buying and has used in my setup for now 4 months - I got me both 16Hz (in-room even below that number) and up to some 63Hz (low pass cut) with brutish control, excellent integration and unstrained performance at any desired output level (had space permitted I might even have added a 2nd SB16-Ultra, but in my current listening room is not strictly needed). I guess there is something to be said about the advancement in this particular area of sound reinforcement that defies typical wisdom of driver implementation, output level and the desired frequency span. In other words, from what I can gather, you can have your cake and eat it too with the present state of subwoofers.