2. speakers
  3. 130647-2693

Has Rel fallen out of favor with audiophiles?

I own a Rel Storm 3. which I've had for 10 yrs or so. My new hardwood floor has really opened things up, especially in the bass area. much more pronounced bass and excellent sound stage.  I was planning on upgrading my sub after completing the floor. My Rel Storm 3 is pushing at its max to keep up in a 5k+ cu ft  room. Ten yrs ago the Storm 3 was one of the best on the market. It integrates very wall into the 2 channel system. 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?
Thanks for your help

arte
128x128artemus_5
okeeteekid's avatar
okeeteekid
142 posts
 

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/
m-db's avatar
m-db
985 posts
 
Considering the almost infinite differences in systems, rooms, and personal taste, adding any subwoofer/s is quite a subjective subject.

Subjectively, I find the performance needs for my primarily analog music only system much greater than for my home theater. Home theater controllers 80Hz standardization makes the need for an on board digitally EQd subwoofer unnecessary. 

In an in home music only comparison with two other subwoofer owners and their subs the only noticeable difference between digitizing the extra low frequency signal was the ease and preference of system and room integration and their stunningly superior performance. The narrowing sonic differences between analog vs digital doesn't seem to be audibly present at this region of the frequency band especially when considering their equalization and optimization control advantages.

To answer the original poster question, yes it is about the quality of integration. In our comparison the REL Studio III was the quickest to set up as per the manufactures instructions. Unfortunately, it was unanimously the poorest performer in all other aspects. To be fair the most expensive and finely crafted British made Studio III was the oldest sub in the comparison and I haven't kept up with any of the brands current advancements. The other two digitally controlled subwoofers in the comparison are currently using substantially improved second generations of control.

The ultra low Hz is simply icing on the cake.   

kennythekey
593 posts
 
I have no thoughts about REL, so have not heard them. And, I have read excellent reviews about them.

To deal with a specific issue of lost bass energy due to a large room with open front wall corners, I purchased a pair of semi - DIY GR Research/Rythmik open baffle subs. More like a kit than complete DIY. With help from others here, I would find out that the way these subs load a room, would work best for my situation.

it's also about your taste. I have been working towards a very relaxed sound that is also wide open, detailed, and natural. My system is analog, but many who have built these have digital front ends. With the addition of these subs not only did the combo maintain my taste in sound, but my system plays louder and the soundstage is big and full.

As for the bass, it's completely natural and added focus. In combination with my Horning speakers there are zero coherency issues, so the combo works seamlessly. The subs are capable of dropping down to 14Hz, so I have wound up with a truly full range system that is also completely relaxed. I never thought I could get this without spending what I absolutely cannot afford on ultra hi end speakers.

With that said, this may not be the best option for you. You need to look at the physics of your room before deciding on the type of subs to use. My sub project was a leap of faith, because you cannot listen to them since they are DIY. You may find them at a Show, but that may be rare. IMO- The most important part is matching subs to your system and space. Or, just get better speakers to handle the job.
Kenny

dlcockrum's avatar
dlcockrum
2,190 posts
 
Good feedback m-db.

Did you use the hi-level input (mandatory IME) from your amp to the Studio III in your auditions?

Dave
artemus_5's avatar
artemus_5 OP
1,969 posts
 

m-db
To be fair the most expensive and finely crafted British made Studio III was the oldest sub in the comparison.

I have considered adding a second Storm 3. However, the price they want is near to what I can buy a new SVS. And, the Storm is now 12-15 yrs old. IOW, its old and ready for service or retirement soon. So I am hesitant. However the storm does integrate very naturally. And I use the high level input as per Rel's advice.


Kennythekey
To deal with a specific issue of lost bass energy due to a large room with open front wall corners, I purchased a pair of semi - DIY GR Research/Rythmik open baffle subs.

Rythmik is one of the contenders in my search. I am a woodworker so the DIY kits are interesting. My only question is whether a kit will be cheaper? IOW, if you count your labor as worth something, can you really save any $$$ over a comparable production Rythmik sub? Often this is not the case unless you don't count your time and labor in the equation.

Oteekeekid.  I read one user review on AVS forum which put the SVS SB 13 against the Rythmik E15 (?). The E15 was more nuanced and detailed than the SB13. The SB13 was no slouch and was considered extremely close in its bass quality

Thanks for your responses
More to discover