Do you think you need a subwoofer?

Thanks SirSpeedy and Raul, for continuing to address the one sub/two sub question.

Of course I am in the ideal position to mediate, since I have NO sub! I can expostulate from a position of pure innocence, err, ignorance. ;-)

My decision is: you're probably both right. Assuming proper implementation, one sub is better than none, and two subs are much better still.

I don't for a second doubt Raul's statement that two subs make a huge improvement. He's done the work, he's heard the results.

SirSpeedy is probably correct that my speakers and his are similar in bass performance. Audiophiles who visit occasionally miss a bit of bass slam, but they are universally impressed with its articulation and tunefulness. As Raul said, there are quite a few excellent main speakers that will go down solidly and cleanly to 40 Hz or so. It's that last octave (and below) that's so difficult.

Hey,Raul!!I'm not arguing with you!My only real point was to sort of indicate to Doug,or anyone else interested,that if money is an issue,as well as space limitations,for two subs,you can get great results with one.That's it!

As for the stereo option,to my way of thinking,if one is crossing over as low as I am(and Doug's main speakers will most likely need),then any low frequencies are perceived in "mono" anyway!Now Raul---"THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE REAL FACT!!

The only advantage of the second sub(and one has to understand that there is a difference between how we configure a sub set-up.How low the crossover point,will have a huge impact on whether a stereo set will perform.EX:As I'm sure you know,a higher cutoff point will sound better with 2 subs.What you don't seem to grasp,Raul,is that if the main speakers are quality performers down to "nearly" the low octave,and you crossover "LOW",like 25-35 hz,since everything is already mono,at that point,the only advantage of the second sub is for evening out the acoustic energy(response),which may or may not be such a big problem,as the ROOM DETERMINES THIS!!

Now,before you kill me on this,which I know is coming,you have NOT heard every room,or mine,so give some consideration to this.Some hobbyists may be able to extend listening pleasure,and save a few bucks too!That is why Sumiko(Sterling Trayle,actually)argued I try one first.They were not out to ONLY sell product.Rare in this hobby.Best wishes!!

Dear Sirspeedy: +++++ " then any low frequencies are perceived in "mono" anyway!.. " +++++

I don't know at which frecuency you are cutting your REL. But, for example, if the crossover is at 27-30Hz and if the low pass filter is of second to fourth order then your REL is reproducing frecuencies as high like 80-100Hz that does not percieved in " mono way " and that are interfering with the same frecuency range of your main speakers.

Any way, as I already told you what you or I " think " is irrelevant: only the " facts " count.

+++++ " ,you have NOT heard every room,or mine.. " +++++

You are right and I agree with you.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Here's the official statement from REL on their "crossover" (called that for convenience since it is technically not a crossover as it does not have a highpass):

"The crossover is not a fixed low pass, but rather a more complex sloping rolloff. If you set the rolloff to 30 Hz, for example, it will play everything 30 Hz and below with no intentional rolloff. It will also play above 30 Hz, rolled off at 12dB per octave, until 80 Hz, where it will continue to play, but with an even steeper rolloff. This allows the REL to integrate as seamlessly as possible with your main speakers."

Thus with a 25dB crossover at 100Hz the signal is down at least 24dB, probably much more. However, the only way to know for sure what is going on is to measure which we are hopefully all doing.

I think Doug would be surprised at the benefit from a single REL Stentor III crossed at 25Hz, but only by listening would he know for sure.

I think Doug would be surprised at the benefit from a single REL Stentor III crossed at 25Hz, but only by listening would he know for sure.

Thanks, George_a. Of course the REL methodology bypasses one of the advantages espoused by Raul, reducing the LF load on your main amp and speakers to allow them to produce the midbass and up with lower distortion. Which method is better? One could only know by trying both in the same system.

I've actually heard a Stentor, though not in my room or system. It wasn't dialed in properly so I didn't learn much. The system actually sounded cleaner without it.