REL R-528SE 12" Active w Passive Radiator Subwoofer

[admin]

The REL R-528SE is a 12" active with 12" Passive subwoofer and 500 watt class D amplifier. REL is a European brand of subwoofers that has earned a reputation for making very musical subwoofers. This will likely be another subwoofer that earns high marks with its fans.

Discuss "REL R-528SE Subwoofer Preview" here. Read the article.

 

[Chuck Darwin]

REL Subwoofer Preview and the REL Kool-Aid Test

"For those primarily interested in bang for the buck, this obviously isn't the subwoofer for you. It's unlikely that the R-528SE is going to outperform (or even be on par) the Aperion Bravus II 12D, despite the fact it costs triple the price. Still, if you value small size, fit and finish, and you're running legacy equipment, i.e. you don't have a receiver/processor with bass management, the R-528SE could be an interesting option. Or, if you just love the REL name and its beautiful aesthetics, than this may be a good option for you. REL has always been known among its fans to produce very musical subs and we have no doubt this product would continue that heritage."

Discuss "REL R-528SE Subwoofer Preview" here. Read the article.

Two points:

1. I appreciate the value comparisons with other subwoofers, but the summary paragraph seems very premature given that the reviewer has not yet auditioned the REL R-528SE.
2. REL has long (from its inception?) maintained that optimal performance from a subwoofer requires that the sub receives its signal from the same source (amplifier) that powers the main speakers. REL has definitely enjoyed a strong reputation for the musicality of its subwoofers and the quality of its integration with main speakers. However, there are, as attested by the reviewer's comments, other subwoofer brands that are considered highly musical. How much has the REL thesis been tested? Will a REL sub inevitably sound poorer when it is connected through its line-level rather than high-level inputs? Does a REL sub connected through high-level inputs always sound more musical and integrated when compared with a different branded sub (of comparable specs) that is connected through line-level inputs? Finally, in cases where a different branded subs allow connection through both high- and line-level inputs, does the high-level input produce better sound? This last item might be more difficult to test as the internal crossovers of REL subs are optimized for high-level inputs. Those of other brand subs are not likely to share this design. The first two questions are, nonetheless, important in considering the suitability of REL subs for use in multichannel systems, and for comparison of REL subs with other subs for both stereo and multichannel operation.

I don't pose the questions in #2 to criticize REL. I have owned REL Strata II and III subs. I have no complaints about their sound when they share a high-level amplifier connection with my B&W Nautilus 805s, but I haven't had the cabling to run my own A/B test between the high- and line-level inputs. I have, however, run a Strata with line-level outputs from a Squeezebox Touch that split between the Strata and active, internally bi-amped speakers (Airmotiv 5s). The sound, in this arrangement, is also excellent, but the subwoofer and the main speakers only receive the same preamplifier output. The subwoofer does not "see" the signal that is generated by the Airmotivs' internal amplifiers.

 

[twoeyedbob]

I've got a rel strata 5
Still got to get to grips with the purpose behind the high level input....on the surface it seems to
A. be amplifying the same signal twice (why..)
B.trying to retrieve and amplify a section of sound thats all ready been removed by the receiver's crossover

I've obviously got this wrong somehow...

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chuck Darwin]

I am not sure what instructions apply to the Strata 5, but, for the Strata 3, I believe that, if you are using a crossover built into your receiver, your choice is to connect the sub output of the receiver to the low-level input on the REL, or disable your receiver's crossover and connect your receiver's full-range speaker terminals to the high-level input of the REL.

Where the latter applies, the REL is filtering and probably attenuating the signal from the amplifier, and then amplifying it again. I agree. This seems an anti-minimalist approach that might work contrary to the goal of reducing coloration and timing error. I guess the proof is in the listening.

REL's explanation for the high-level connection is that it allows the sub to capture the "sonic signature" of the entire amplification chain, thereby keeping the "timing and timbre cues" consistent. This seems reasonable, assuming that the REL subwoofer doesn't do its own subtractions or additions to the sonic signature. But then why are there subs that don't take the REL approach but nonetheless sound good? I understand that, with many matters of audio design, execution is more important than theory. However, for the REL argument to be true, it follows that (1) all other subs sound inferior, or (2) there are compensation effects. That is, there are defects in REL subs that are not shared by other subs, with the result that the other subs sound as good (or better) than REL subs, despite the inability of these other subs to capture the full timing and timber cues of the amplification chain.

 

[twoeyedbob]

The high level connection certainly seems to fly in the face of
Audiophile thinking..i.e straight/pure signal path is better.
Although with 2 channel listening i can see some sense
In it...i think..
Possibly it's more for use with 2 channel amps that dont have a sub out...it would make a bit of sense..
They did make they're name for music based system's .


Slightly unrelated..but..i've hardly heard any mention of rel on this forum and any i have found hasnt been all that favourable... ,rel were/are (?) very well regarded in the uk
Why not in america ?

Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve81]

Slightly unrelated..but..i've hardly heard any mention of rel on this forum and any i have found hasnt been all that favourable...

A couple of RELs, namely a R305 and a Storm 5, were bench tested by Ilkka Rissanen a few years back at Home Theater Shack; suffice it to say their objective performance wasn't awe inspiring. I'd suspect that might have something to do with their lack of popularity on these parts.

 

[Chuck Darwin]

I think REL gets favorable mention in a wide range of forums, but I can think of several reasons for their lack of popularity in the U.S.
1. Sumiko's marketing approach for the brand seems dated, as though they are waiting for the next big review in Stereophile or the Absolute Sound. I don't see many web ads or reviews in newer, on-line only publications.
2. A poor branding effort. Previously, the problem might have been a failure to convey the value of REL products. People would see a REL with a 10 inch woofer and a $1000+ price tag against subs with 12" or 15" woofers at well under a $1000. Until recently, there weren't many RELs available at entry level prices. Unfortunately, the lower end RELs are seen mostly in ebay postings. The subs are still fairly expensive, but the over-representation on ebay turns REL subwoofers into a simple commodity.
3. In their advertising and product features, REL has not appeared to be competitive in the home theater market.
4. At the mass and mid-market level, people might want a sub that constantly reminds the listener of its presence in an A/V system--not a sub that blends invisibly with the main speakers. I have, for example, compared Sunfire subs with RELs. The RELs and Sunfires give the system comparable extension below 20hz. However, I can always "hear" the Sunfires and localize them in my system. I don't notice the RELs until I turn them off and hear the soundstage thin out.

 

[Sheep]

I think REL gets favorable mention in a wide range of forums, but I can think of several reasons for their lack of popularity in the U.S.
1. Sumiko's marketing approach for the brand seems dated, as though they are waiting for the next big review in Stereophile or the Absolute Sound. I don't see many web ads or reviews in newer, on-line only publications.
2. A poor branding effort. Previously, the problem might have been a failure to convey the value of REL products. People would see a REL with a 10 inch woofer and a $1000+ price tag against subs with 12" or 15" woofers at well under a $1000. Until recently, there weren't many RELs available at entry level prices. Unfortunately, the lower end RELs are seen mostly in ebay postings. The subs are still fairly expensive, but the over-representation on ebay turns REL subwoofers into a simple commodity.
3. In their advertising and product features, REL has not appeared to be competitive in the home theater market.
4. At the mass and mid-market level, people might want a sub that constantly reminds the listener of its presence in an A/V system--not a sub that blends invisibly with the main speakers. I have, for example, compared Sunfire subs with RELs. The RELs and Sunfires give the system comparable extension below 20hz. However, I can always "hear" the Sunfires and localize them in my system. I don't notice the RELs until I turn them off and hear the soundstage thin out.

Ehhhhhhh.... you haven't integrated the Sunfire's properly then. The objective numbers on the rel subs puts them at a disadvantage, especially considering their price.

If you like them great, but telling people the problem with them is not related to their performance in parts of the world where the only thing that matters is bang for the buck.... Well, see how that turns out.

SheepStar

 

[Steve81]

Couple of the measurements in question on the R305 (I apologize for the poor quality of the compression sweep, the original images don't seem to be around anymore at HTS):

Ilkka's commentary:

A very compact and a good-looking subwoofer. The overall build quality is high. A natural 12 dB/oct. final roll off shows the absence of HP filtering. Frequency response doesn't go much higher than 60 Hz even with the crossover disabled, so you shouldn't use this sub with small speakers requiring over 60-70 Hz crossover. The shape of the frequency response suits for smaller rooms with lots of deep bass room gain. Mid bass output goes up to 100 dB, but the deep bass output is limited below 90 dB. Subwoofer shows extremely high deep bass output compression. It is also quite a distortion generator; THD is high in upper bass range, but literally skyrockets below 40-50 Hz. THD consists of both low and high order components which is really audible. Group delay stays extremely low at all frequencies. Spectral decay shows only little ringing. Spectral contamination shows much lower than average maximum output capability. The subwoofer struggled even at the lowest 90 dB test level. This subwoofer likes small spaces and is strongly geared towards low level music use.

+ Good shape of the frequency response for smaller rooms
+ Good extension
+ Extremely low group delay and fast decay rate
+ Size and looks

- Extremely high overall distortion
- Really high deep bass output compression
- Low maximum output capability
- Low highest crossover setting
- Price

 

[Chuck Darwin]

Ehhhhhhh.... you haven't integrated the Sunfire's properly then. The objective numbers on the rel subs puts them at a disadvantage, especially considering their price.

If you like them great, but telling people the problem with them is not related to their performance in parts of the world where the only thing that matters is bang for the buck.... Well, see how that turns out.

SheepStar

The immediate context might be more boom for the buck.

Anyway, you mistake my mission. I shouldn’t have done a brand-to-brand comparison. I didn’t want to invite a pissing contest about which brands of subwoofers offer the best value. But I think you missed part of the thread and are changing the question. I don’t know that the European market, where REL is a popular brand, is any less concerned about performance and value than the U.S. market. At the same time, I think it fair to say that success in the audio business is not all about “bang for the buck.” I don’t think it true that the components with the best sound and build quality in a given price range are inevitably the best selling. There are good brands that fail, and I expect many readers of Audioholics can name some popular manufacturers that produce mediocre equipment. Different readers will, of course, have different names on those lists, and, yes, maybe REL, despite their success in Europe, belongs on a third list of manufacturers that offer decent or nearly decent equipment at too great a price.

I do wonder if anyone has further perspective on my original query about the REL argument for having the subwoofer see the same high-level signal that is fed to the main speakers. Does the REL method improve timing and accuracy? Or does it add complexity and coloration to the reproduction chain? Has anyone taken some measurements on this?

 

[Steve81]

Does the REL method improve timing and accuracy?

I wouldn't bet money on it. A modern receiver is a fairly sophisticated piece of equipment, capable of determining speaker & subwoofer distance with a high degree of accuracy (along with any additional delays introduced by a subwoofer's amplifier); as such, I'd expect timing to be a non-issue with a conventional setup. Regarding accuracy, I don't have any reason to believe that REL can apply bass management any more effectively on a speaker level signal than a modern receiver can in the digital domain, even accounting for the possibility of an ADA conversion for an analog source.

 

[Sheep]

The immediate context might be more boom for the buck.

Anyway, you mistake my mission. I shouldn’t have done a brand-to-brand comparison. I didn’t want to invite a pissing contest about which brands of subwoofers offer the best value. But I think you missed part of the thread and are changing the question. I don’t know that the European market, where REL is a popular brand, is any less concerned about performance and value than the U.S. market. At the same time, I think it fair to say that success in the audio business is not all about “bang for the buck.” I don’t think it true that the components with the best sound and build quality in a given price range are inevitably the best selling. There are good brands that fail, and I expect many readers of Audioholics can name some popular manufacturers that produce mediocre equipment. Different readers will, of course, have different names on those lists, and, yes, maybe REL, despite their success in Europe, belongs on a third list of manufacturers that offer decent or nearly decent equipment at too great a price.

I do wonder if anyone has further perspective on my original query about the REL argument for having the subwoofer see the same high-level signal that is fed to the main speakers. Does the REL method improve timing and accuracy? Or does it add complexity and coloration to the reproduction chain? Has anyone taken some measurements on this?

Well yeah, bang for buck isn't the only thing out there, but I would like to say that it applies to everyone minus the 1%. You have a budget of $1000, I have a budget of $700. You buy the most expensive REL subwoofer you can get and I'll buy the most expensive SVS/HSU/something known to be cheap and good. Would you say your extra money was worth it? Do you think you'll be 300 dollars ahead of where I will be, objectively? No. I've read every forums subwoofer measurements, comparisons, and reviews.... 5 years ago. I know that NO REL subwoofer was worth it's money (to me) considering the available competition. I haven't heard any of them, but some good microphones have, with half decent people on the other end recording the show.

As for buying a subpar piece of gear over a better one that is less or the same price... That is no longer objective. Since I only deal with objective, it is ****ing stupid in my eyes. You go right ahead and tell everyone about how good you feel regardless of the loss in performance you took. However, I will be there to tell you off when you try to convince someone else that they need to follow that same path.

SheepStar

 

[twoeyedbob]

Very aggresive post....not really sure who your rant is aimed at,
As no-one here was pushing anything.
It Started off with a fairly sensible question


Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2