Wanted: REL Studio III

Ron Resnick said:

I don't understand. What happened to the new REL?

I think the No. 25 looks great.

Click to expand...

Ron Resnick said:

The new REL No. 25 according to REL's information does not go as low as the transmission line dual 10" driver Studio III. I do believe that, for a state of the art result, left and right subwoofers are required (so two Studio IIIs are required). Maybe, however, at literally 20Hz and below, the bass truly is non-directional and a single Studio III, operating at its lowest low-pass frequency of 27 Hz, with a 12 dB slope, would work very well.

Click to expand...

SCAudiophile said:

Ron,


Good Morning! I definitely agree; this is true whether we are talking about 2-channel blending in of subs or LFE home theater approaches. REL's approach is my favorite as from a temporal point of view, there seemed to be no method more accurate than the high-pass approach off the amp mains as the sub 'sees' the EXACT same signal that reaches the stereo amp's (or mono-blocks') Left and Right channels right before the amp itself versus line-level where there (theoretically) is some (possibly minute) difference in the two copies of the signal leaving the pre-amp and following different paths. Your point about line-level requiring (under best circumstances) preamps that support dual dual simultaneous outputs is well noted; one alternative for pre-amps that don't is to use a y-splitter (never optimal IMHO) or possibly other method.


Having done both single-sub and multi-sub installations and usage, I found the sword always seems to cut two ways either fortunately or unfortunately depending upon point of view. With a single high-capability sub (various RELs over the years), I've been able to get various configurations to sound extremely good and well-integrated using the high-pass method REL follows. It's true in theory and unconstrained spaces that sub-bass / some bass frequencies are non-directional but where you have situations where the Left and Right channel both have a portion of 'the note' being played at a point in time, a single sub approach while easier to integrate inherently seems (to me, no expert) to have us taking the best compromise rendition of 'the note' at that point in time from the single driver or set of drivers in the single sub representing both the left and right channel's share of 'the note'. Obviously there are a lot of variables here, what is the instrument, how far into the recording space does it project 'the note' where are the mics placed, etc....etc....etc....


The alternative of course is (for 2-channel) subwoofer integration using the high-pass (or any other) method. The benefits of using this method are that the 'averaged rendition' problem above for representations of 'the note' at a point in time are handled much more accurately when you have a left and right sub each playing exactly what each channel has for information for that note at that point in time. The problem I faced that required more time was trying to determine the level (as in playback level) of both subs in that configuration so that there was no incorrect over-loading of bass/sub-bass output levels from both subs for bass/sub-bass signals that were almost equally present in both left and right channel simultaneously for bass frequencies that did not seem to be truly omnidirectional, i.e. especially true when you are blending in multiple (2+) subwoofers with speakers that require you to blend in "high". While it is true that bass frequencies do in fact radiate in all 3 dimensions and in an unconstrained space, are non-directional, the problem is that we are using bass/sub-bass drivers in listening rooms that are not unconstrained so in theory bass is non-directional, but more often than not, in our listening rooms it is not so you can get a situation with multiple subs where sub notes' outputs are artificially high possibly due to how those drivers are interacting with the room, how the material was recorded specific to that instrument, etc… (note this refers to problems of exciting room nodes, etc...but it also references simply how that much bass coming from 2 sets of drivers interacts with the room...)


When it’s all said and done, ignoring the cost factor of dual-subs, power cords, connecting wire/interconnects, etc..as a consideration, even though dual-subs are best, for 95-98% of recordings out there if not more, if done properly, I would also choose a single high-capability sub like the REL Studio III, the old B1 Britannia, possibly the REL G25 or G1 MkII if they go deeper in-room than the specs suggest, the Legacy Audio GOLIATH (not often mentioned but a bass monster that goes deep) and possibly some of the JL’s or SVS’ but I have a hard time finding compelling specs on the latter two (any help here would be appreciated).

On the REL G25 versus G1 MkII; they both seem to be spec'ed the same (15 Hz -6db) with different amounts of power driving. Have you found that the G25 goes deeper?

Remembering my B1 Britannias,....I prefer front-firing subs over downward firing but the Studio III still captivates me as it was the one downward firing sub that did not seem to care it wasn't front-firing.....let me know your thoughts on this please.


I’m sure there are gaps/holes in my analysis and personal results above; will gladly accept feedback from anyone more knowledgeable than I am on this subject.

Click to expand...

sbo6 said:

Just thought I'd say thanks for your great information wrt bass and 2 vs. 1 sub. I've experimented with many subs and 2 vs. 1 but never thought or read about the bass note stereo decay / timing differences that you speak of which make a lot of sense to me. Good stuff.

Click to expand...