Ahhh--Problem solved. Adding a REL sub-bass unit...


I'm wondering how many audiophiles have given up on loudspeakers preamturely, or have gone down the rabbit hole of cable swapping to "fix" an issue with their speakers.  

I grew up hating subwoofers and home theatre.  I still haven't come around fully to home theatre.  I've warmed up though.  I've had my own issues with otherwise great loudspeakers, including a pair of Klipsch Forte IIIs.  I was very frustrated as I'm feeding them from a respected tube integrated, I've tried them with a 300B amp, and I've toiled over positioning.  

The issue that I was having was the mids and highs were dominating in my room--despite the size of the woofer and passive radiator. Some recordings were just too bright.  Sometimes I felt the speaker, however "alive" and dynamic was not imaging well, needed soundstage help, and so on.  

I hate to say the REL T9i I threw in the mix today is a panacea because there's always stuff to tweak.  Yet I have experienced this before with a Sumiko subwoofer.  Adding one to the mix and dialing it in so that it's barely audible has brought everything into focus.  Everything is more relaxed and energetic at the same time.  

I'd say that the REL is a room tuning device above all.  I have a larger room (I think it's 15 wide, 24 long and 10 high--in feet).   I'm not sure how much I'd have to spend or what different choices would solve this otherwise.  From a guy that used to reject subwoofers out of hand (my bias came from the 90s home theatre craze) I think that they might be necessary in the lion's share of systems with the lion's share of speakers.  To say, "you don't need a sub" with speakers might be true depending on your room, but I also think in most situations you are missing out on what they can do for so many criteria that are not necessarily in keeping with adding bass--e.g. soundstage, focus, imagine, fullness, taming treble, etc.). 

Finally, I really wish that I could try some other brands as many audiogon members recommended so many respectable names.  I ultimately went with REL because of its philosophy, my similar experience with a Sumiko sub (within the family of REL or somehow related), and the high frequency input connections. 
128x128jbhiller

Showing 3 responses by jbhiller

Very interesting comments to my OP.

I have to say that in my system (with two different sets of speakers and 3 different amps--tube, class D and class G), the system always sounds better using REL/Sumiko’s recommended way of sending the signal from the speaker terminals on the amps to the High Frequency Input on the REL or Sumiko. I’ve tried 2 other ways and the most musical was HFI and not using a crossover on the main speakers--i.e. running the mains full range.






@bstatmeister, 

I go by sound more than specs.  I can tell you the T9i sounds musical and integrates well.  

I tune the REL by ear more than anything.  I have software and a mic to tune it but I get to ideal integration by tuning by ear.  I sometimes use a track like Neil Young's Out on the Weekend to make the kick drum sound real--not bloated.  Then I'll use some Ray Brown Super Bass stuff to get a standup bass to sound real too.  

MusicDirect and AudioAdvisor both allow in home trial periods.  I would go that route with your ears, your system and your room. 

By the way, I heard the SVS system at AXPONA.  The top end loudspeakers sounded great for the money. But and this is a HUUUUGE "But", the SVS subwoofer sounded terrible to me. It may not have been dialed in properly.  I didn't ask to play with the settings.  I can tell you my REL sounds like music.  That thing sounds or was tuned to sound big and bloated.  It was monosodium glutamate phony bass.  I'm not knocking SVS.  I'm just saying SVS stuff has amazing specs and prices and I'm not convinced their stuff is more musical than REL.   

Finally, I need tight musical integration because I use a 300B amp most of the time.