Rel sub vs B & W subs

Just because I sell NHT doesn't mean I'm biased. I sell what I like, I don't "like" what I sell. I know N804s VERY well, having traded in a few sets and have spent many hours listening to them, not to mention the fact that I worked for a B&W dealer before striking out on my own. I'm not saying the bass is bad as that might be offensive to some, but the term "Bass and especially subwoofer is not B&W's strong suit" is an accurate and fair description, even perhaps a little overly PC, to be honest. You'll note that the N804s have a strong bass peak at around 80Hz if I recall and then roll off after that with bass below about 50Hz largely consisting of port noise. However, many people seem to like this sound and, I'm sure, partially accounts for B&Ws popularity. Regardless, the comment was absolutely fair and you'll note I didn't even mention NHT in the post, recommending something I don't sell. I think that's fair and honest.

Quote:
I've had the same experience. REL makes a pretty box and a nice crossover. However, IMO the performance / $$$ isn't there when compared to other offerings (ACI, Paradigm Servo-15, etc.). A 10" ported enclosure with 150W (Storm III) is not going to be able to compete when compared to a quality 15" driver driven by 400W+ (servo-15). BTW, I'm referring to extension and quality (the ACI and servo-15 easily outpace the REL in terms of output).

Hi Lynn,

Well, I guess I thought that I was being upfront and not being a "stealth" poster. I could say the exact same things without pointing out that I could be interpreted as biased. Also, I don't slam B&Ws as much as put them in perspective. There are a LOT of exaggerations tossed around about their performance and so I occasionally will try to put a perspective on that. Many people tend to make statements regurgitated from marketing materials rather than stick with reality. The other thing that I try to get people to understand is that price is NOT an arbiter of sound quality. Many people consciously or subconsciously give the more expensive product the edge even if they conceptually like the idea of a less expensive product. It's human nature. A story about old John Dunlavy as I understand it goes that he played a speaker for a reviewer and the person wasn't that excited. So, he said, "here, let me put some better cables on the system" and then the guy says "WOW, that really did it, what did you put in?" and the answer was "nothing. I changed nothing." The mind is a very gullible device. When asked by a customer one time, "what, don't you trust your ears?" after making a quick listen to something and saying I'd have to listen some more and I said "No. And the only ears I trust less is everyone else's"


What bothers me is that a lot of people put their faith in reviewers when most reviewers have no more 'experience' than most of the beginners on this list. They may have started out as an intern (some have) and they gradually work their way into reviewing. There are enormous biases in the reviewing field. I know, I know many of these guys that you read. This is my professional job. As normal, I'll probably get discouraged and leave the forum as I often do. But, look, reviewers are mainly trained monkeys and trained monkeys that don't toe the corporte line get fired. Most of these guys do this as a second job. That's why it takes months for a review. They listen a little here, a little there. They don't live near the facility normally and listen in their own homes, don't have access to similar producst from other manufacturers, don't have good room acoustics normally, etc, etc. Many of them have CLEAR biases. One guy in WSR believes that Vandersteens are THE best speakers PERIOD. John Atkinson believes B&Ws are THE best speakers PERIOD. Jonathon Scull makes a living telling you how good JMlab Utopias are. These are the guys you trust over guys who work in the field everyday and listen to many different products in many different situations. That's fine, I can live with that. If you read reviews of Bose speakers, they are always positive. Klipsch, Cerwin-Vega also. Stuff that is clearly substandard. Bose gets about the same review as a B&W. What does THAT tell you? Now, I ride a Honda Hawk GT motorcycle. It's not the fastest or the best handling or anything. It just appeals to me. I like the design (and the price). I don't like Harleys. Why? They're overpriced and have low performance and, quite frankly, design that limits handling enough for me to consider it dangerous. So, while you'll never hear me claiming that Honda or the Hawk or NHT is "the best", if someone tells me that a specific brand IS or starts going down the road of reading me lines from the marketing manual, it's hard to remain silent. My comment about bass not being B&Ws strong suit remains a valid and accurate representation regardless of what you may think of your speakers. Tape decks are not NAD's strong suit either and so I stress the products they do well. Not everyone can be good at everything. Huge soundstaging isn't NHT's forte so if someone were looking specifically for that as the priority, I'd recommend something else. They're good at it and to me, sound extremely natural, but they don't pull off 20' wide miracles as they have other things they're concentrating on.


As for the peak in the response, it could be down around 50 or 60, I saw the graph, just didn't bother to memorize it and did say "as I recall". I believe the peak on the similar CDM-9NT is at 70Hz, so I may be off by 10 or 20. Your room response will absolutely affect the peak and is a bigger determiner than the speakers. Even a flattest speaker could have a huge peak or dip because of the room. That's why DSP speaker and room correction is the next frontier of speaker design. I know quite a few B&W guys that swear that REL subs are vastly superior to B&W subs. Given that they love B&W, I'd have to take them at their word. Heck, even reviewers equivocate when trying to recommend B&W subs. Geez, a guy asked for an opinion, are only REL fans or B&W fans allowed to weigh in? I wasn't apprised of this in advance. If putting my website address in my signature is a violation, I'll be glad to remove it, but it didn't seem to be.