@ctsooner I think you mistake me for the anti-Vandy crowd. :) Not taking issue with your liking and recommending a brand, and certainly not trying to start a flame war or even a debate. But my general sense is there is a tendency here (and on the internet, and in society in general) for people to take a perfectly legitimate personal perspective, e.g. "I've tried Brands A, B and C and I really like A for these reasons, maybe you will like it too," and begin pushing it into the realm of "THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST FOR YOU IT WILL FIX ALL YOUR PROBLEMS."
This is by no means limited any particular "crowd," and my observation is it leads to polarization and ultimately less helpful information for people like the OP. When we start obsessing over brands, we stop talking about the concrete pros and cons of the products (keeping in mind that EVERY product has tradeoffs) and it becomes hard to process anything useful. Of course we assume a "YMMV" caveat on what people say here, but I do feel this tendency is rampant and detracts from the quality of discussion. So I might be (over-)reacting here and trying to adjust for that.
(I'm a reviewer on the side, so I try to hold myself to a pretty high standard in terms of providing a useful, balanced perspective - I blog @
www.taww.co. But ultimately of course this is just a forum, and people are free to say what they like. )
That all said, I do take a bit of issue with this notion that a subwoofer is not worth the trouble. I agree this is the case with the vast majority of traditional subwoofer setups. At the risk of contradicting my anti-fanboy rant, I wouldn't lump REL subs into the same bucket as others. I really have found my REL T-9 very versatile - much more so than an earlier REL model I tried and returned maybe 15 years ago - and with very little downside with a wide variety of speakers. I also use a single sub and it works just fine. Maybe my standards for bass are a little lower, but keep in mind, bass-limited speakers have advantages over full-range ones too. The larger, more resonant cabinets and/or more complex crossovers of floorstanding speakers require a lot of skill (and usually expense) to tame vs. smaller monitors. I find when one goes from the 2-way to 3-way/floorstanding offering in a manufacturer's line, many aspects of sound quality (particularly speed and coherence) actually take a step backwards, and it can take a lot of money to get those back in the larger format. That's why the 2-way monitor format continues to thrive and is often the best compromise in a wide variety of circumstances, the key operating word being "compromise" - everything is a tradeoff. In my own case, I'm only now starting to look at floorstanders more seriously now that I can stretch my budget closer to the $10k range (e.g., I'm interested in hearing the Vandy Treos/Quattros). But given OP's ~$1200 budget (I think?), finding a floorstander with the focus and crispness of a good monitor may be tough, even on the used market. In that context, I wouldn't rule out a sub, it could potentially add a lot of enjoyment to his system.
@nrenter I agree, dealing with the Ayre is not that bad, and just one of the things you have to live with given the balanced architecture. I don't think the OP is necessarily "missing" that, just hoping for a better solution. I do think Ayre could have made life easier by providing a ground post (I'm guessing they did not do this because people don't understand what a ground post is for and would just hook up the wrong things to it and muck up the sound). Also the hum when putting the amp in standby is annoying, it means I have to burn ~60w continuously leaving the amp powered, or go turn of the sub every time. I use the sub for the TV as well so that's not an option.
