Sub for 2 channel music only setup

Thanks for the reply, Hevac1. During the inital period with my Stadium III, I also noticed a very slight fatness (not sure that I would describe it as slowness exactly). Adding the supplied spikes improved this considerably. It makes me wonder why REL discourages the use of them in the manual. Setting the crossover at the lowest setting (22hz) and increasing the gain setting helped also (my main speakers do 25hz at minus 6db).

I find that the main benefit of the REL in my system is not primarily the bass extension, but the substantial improvement in the dimensionality of images, layering of the soundstage, and bloom of instrumental timbres, especially piano. I think this is a product of the REL "loading the room" with sub-bass frequencies. This would seem to require that it emits frequencies so low they are felt but not heard, which is what seems to bug you about the Stadium III. Does the Aerial SW-12 equal the REL in this respect?

Dlcockrum,
I feel the same as you about the benefits of a sub in the system. There is more overall body and fullness to the music and I think all subs load the room.
The SW-12 is forward firing instaead of downward like the Rel. I think that this helps with the issue of my seat vibration and the quickness I hear from the SW-12. I would think the presure of the downward firing to the floor has to reflect back to to sub and could cause the driver to move longer than it should. This could also be why you like it better with spikes, it sit higher off the floor and also make better contact. When I purchased my SW-12 Rel did not have the new front firing sub as they do now BTW other wise I would have tried one at the fime.

Mjm,

There really is one difference - deepest bass performance. A HT sub must perform well below 20hz to do it's job correctly, while a music only sub doesn't (as a practical matter) require such extension.

I use a pair of Rythmik subs that test great above 35hz but trade away (measured) performance below that frequency. I think this trade-off is worthwhile (others may disagree) since there is so little material in my music collection with any meaningful signal at these very low frequencies.

FWIW, the test results I've seen indicate that most of the REL models are extreme examples of this trade-off with poor measured performance at low to very low frequencies, but excellent results on group delay tests which (arguably) correlate to "speed" in audiophile subwoofer argot.

IMHO, finding the right trade off is a more interesting task for music than HT. Other than this single distinction, I'd agree enthusiastically with each of the points Bob Reynolds makes in his post.

Good Luck

Marty

Marty

Marty,
The Rythmik subs look very interesting. Which model do you have and how do you like them? Also, what do you think is better for 2 channel audio, a sealed unit or vented?

Mjm,

I own a pair of gloss black 12" Rythmik SE subs with the 300w non PEq amps (this saved $100 per unit). I substituted this amp because I use external PEq (Velodyne SMS-1) and don't need the extra 70 wpc with dual subs in my room. They are very, very good subs for music. On high quality program material the overall system response sounds awfully good down to the lowest bass notes. I should add that I use the SMS for low pass and EQ and an NHT X-2 for high pass on the mains. The Rythmik x-over is defeated in my set-up.

The following observations are based on a combo of listening experience, info from informed sub users (including several A'goners) and as much test data as I could get my hands on.

As a general rule, I'd note that well designed ported subs tend to offer higher clean output capability at the lowest frequencies vis a vis similarly sized/priced sealed units. This is very useful for HT applications. OTOH, well designed sealed subs tend to offer a highly damped sound that I prefer for music. Please note the use of the phrase "tend to" - these are not blanket statements and there may well be exceptions to these "guidelines".

Good Luck

Marty