nSUB anechoic response

Is it necessary? Depends on how you configure the rear-firing woofer, electronic settings, &c.

Yes, it is necessary for me.
I'm mostly interested in anechoic response at maximum output and highest frequency cut-off.
Do you now good is it in terms of speed against REL Stentor III?

I did extensive home audition of REL Studio in stereo tube setup (on and off) and I found it to be very reasonable -- though I was always against SUBs in hi-fi stereo before. I guess modern SUBs became faster and it changes a game -- at least for REL. REL is not a booming machine -- it produces informative, vibrating and chest penetrating palpable bass in the area where 15" woofers failed to deliver. It's a fact.

Studio III is too big for small room like mine and the volume adjustment is too coarse for the flawless fitting the loudspeakers roll-off. The volume control is step-wise and one click up makes it too much, another click down -- and it goes a bit lower than needed. So you need to decrease the cut-off which results in Q-shape imbalance.
Finicky. I know that nSUB integration in stereo system is very routine and sometimes impossible.

I guess smaller model Stentor III or nSUB can do a more delicate job. Possibly run two smaller subs (like Stentor) each channel individually (obviously with symmetric settings) -- it helps a lot to integrate sub-bass into loudspeaker tonal balance.

I always found that a stereo sub is better than one.

The trouble is that by the time you add that extra box, it might be simpler, certainly real estate wise, to go full range speakers.

That's great, but what's the point? Your room is small, hardly anechoic and subject to room modes. This is everything!

The original inquiry, no offense, resembles a request for comment regarding the suitability of roller skates under water. Better to try the product in place, than to guess-I suspect that you'll find that integration of an n-SUB is a bit more flexible than the REL's options.

Good luck!

AMA,

You might want to fiddle around with a digital EQ device.

I'd be surprised if you could find an anechoic chamber big enough to 'measure' the anechoic response of a sub-woofer. Maybe outside in a large field....

or maybe here

I also think it's unavailable. But there are some manufacturers who do this.

Anyway -- any A/B tests against REL on the forum? Or any experience with REL through high output of the Naim poweramp?

quote:

I always found that a stereo sub is better than one.

The trouble is that by the time you add that extra box, it might be simpler, certainly real estate wise, to go full range speakers.

I agree that big integrated speakers provide better tonal balance than 2.1 -- but they don't work in small rooms. And you have always a chance to integrate sub into a pair of thin-bass 2-way speakers. I would prefer to tune it up with my ears.

Digital EQ is possibly another way to go.
Kuma, do you have a particular device in mind?

quote:

Your room is small, hardly anechoic and subject to room modes.

David -- no live room is close to anechoic chamber. But this fact does not diminish the knowledge provided by anechoic response. I know people who don't care about any figure of a hi-fi gear except possibly a price tag