Has Rel fallen out of favor with audiophiles?

Shadorne
  I suspect REL work best with speakers that have 6 inch or smaller woofers.

dlcockrum
  You suspect wrong as usual shadorne. The strong positive response to REL on this thread once again obviates your delusive opinions on audio

I recently read on Rel's website that they do not recommend using their subs with small woofers such as those found in monitors

From Rel setup guide
REL products are not traditional subwoofers, but true Sub-Bass Systems. A REL is designed to augment the performance of FULL RANGE speaker systems in order to provide, in certain cases, linear response below 15Hz.
https://relsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006046688-Two-Channel-Tuning-Guide

When a driver is driven to extreme levels it can "compress" meaning it limits its own output by no longer responding to dynamics, having zero to do with recorded compression which is simply limiting extremes to squish loudness dynamics generally for higher overall volume...also, I don't care what REL publishes on their website regarding which mains work best with RELs (my main speakers use a "D'Appolito" array with a tweeter surrounded with equal output magnesium/aluminum woofers that are 3.75" with very large magnets in a tuned and ported column…surprisingly good bass within limits…flat to 50 hz, and rated to maybe 38hz which is somewhat misleading) as they have no idea what speakers you're going to use. I've always thought REL's use of "sub-bass" as opposed to subwoofer is silly as all you need to know is what they're doing…taking the speaker signal and filtering out the high frequencies…if you have small monitors that deliver bass to 60hz or 80hz or something, you adjust the REL to that frequency and that's it. The "not traditional" part of their hype is just not an actual thing.

When a driver is driven to extreme levels it can "compress" meaning it limits its own output by no longer responding to dynamics,

Wolf. I thought that is probably what you meant. But I hate to assume. I've always heard that called being over driven. But whatever the case, I agree with what you are saying. 

As for  the use of sub base, I just see that as marketing. Everyone has a gimmick. And many use the Rel with monitors. Their statement  may be nothing more than a CYA IF the sub does not fill the bill or satisfy the customer who may be expecting something which said sub cannot possibly do. If you run sound then you know that one venue takes more speakers and amplification than another. In the same way, one room needs more than another. IE, a T5 may fill my office space of 1400 cu ft. But it won't fill my LR of 5K cu ft. 
When i bought my Rel Storm 3 Rel was the strongest player at the time. the 18" Bag End was popular too. But rel was the Big player audiophile sub.The Storm was quite popular because the specs were pretty good and the footprint is small which is a necessity for me.  

My big question in this thread has been moreso about the integration of the other subs which are now on the market. And from all the answers i get, it looks like the others integrate as well as rel

shadorne,

I think Arte’s recent post quoting the REL setup guide exactly reflects my personal experience, ie the REL is a "sub-bass system designed to augment the performance of full-range speaker systems ...".

In my room, my speakers do not need traditional bass enhancement, but the sound is improved by the sub-20hz sound-pressure loading of my room provided by the REL(s). The REL(s) are more felt than heard, yet imaging, soundstaging, and midrange clarity are all improved by the effect of this ultra-low frequency room loading. Two RELs simply provide a more uniform loading in my room, as I think it would be be with JL, etc. also. 

The REL(s) can also be used in out-of-phase mode to help cancel room-induced bass nodes beyond what is modulated by my sealed corner bass traps, a feature I find useful as my source changes. Each source can be (and should be IMO) optimized by different settings, ie REL(s) off with my TT (subsonic interaction), on but fed via XLR line-level inputs from my HT processor, and on with digital sources fed via the hi-level input from my amplifier(s) with judicious setting of the crossover and gain to optimize integration without adding bass bloat, often by also switching between in-phase and out-of-phase settings depending on the digital source.

I like JL and would unconditionally recommend them to those with the need for true bass enhancement to main speakers with limited low-frequency reproduction or don’t have the freedom to handle room nodes with acoustical treatment, specific placement, etc. The advent/implementation of digital room EQ included in the better JLs is invaluable in those situations and the JLs are great subs regardless IMO.

The RELs still, as they always have, provide a unique solution for those with true full-range speakers, an acoustically treated room, and with the freedom to cater to their placement and setup requirements.

Dave

I have used REL subs for the last 20 years and love em to death. I started out with the Storm series 1, 2 and 3 then jumped to a Stadium ll and couldn't be happier. I use the high level inputs and it is run along side a pair of Vienna Acoustics Beethoven original speakers. I never have to turn up the sub volume past nine o'clock and rarely have to adjust the crossover, basically keeping it at the lowest crossover setting. I have listened to a few newer REL subs (after John Hunter took over) and wasn't impressed, but that's after spending much time with my Stadium ll and a friends Stentor ll run with a pair of Sonus Faber Extremas... that was a kick ass combo. Anyways, I think the point, as stated elsewhere in this thread, is that the top end original REL subs (Stadium, Stentor and Studio) are hard to beat for smooth effortless musical bass. You can still find super clean examples of these subs on the used market for very reasonable prices. Peace.