Should I bother to try a subwoofer?


My speakers are listed as going down to 40 HZ (Dynaudio 1.3 MkII monitors).
There is an REL Strata III available locally that I might snag, try out and re-sell if I don't like/need it. My question is this: since I would not be using this for movies, do I even need this? I mostly listen to classical music, more chamber than symphonic, and occasionally listen to rock, jazz and other pop styles.

Am I likely missing something without that lowest octave? I'm thinking that 99% of the time the sub might not even be in use if it kicks in at 40 Hz.

Any comments, purely theoretical or from experience, will be welcome.
128x128tostadosunidos
NO! Say it ain't so! In spite of what "REL" says (what the hell do THEY know anyway?)...mine sounds great for music, which is all I use it for. Now I have to go look that up...damn...
"06-28-11: Rrog
According to REL their downward firing subwoofers are designed for music and their forward firing subwoofers are designed for home theater."

Where exactly REL did say that?
Thank you.
If you don't believe a subwoofer can sound good with music, you can go strait to REL!
Think I just wrote their next ad slogan.
Has anyone tried a sub with Sonus Faber monitors?
I have to say, so far I have never heard a subwoofer that I thought I could deal with permanently. It kind of makes the speakers more omnidirectional to my hearing, less point-source, and confuses things a little. But I'm keeping an open mind on this.
The older SF monitors (like my Minuettos) are a tough match for a sub because their upper bass was both elevated (relative to the mids) and a bit ragged. It's hard to find a good place to get a crossover that is both seamless within the mid bass and not too high in overall bass level.

I understand that more recent SF models are quite a bit more neutral in that region, so my comments should not taken as relevant to those circumstances.