Best subwoofer for Falcon LS3/5a?

[pankon]

Several months again after the original post about finding a subwoofer for my Falcon LS3/5a, I have to admit that I have not taken a decision. I am reopening my quest. The new piece of information is that SVS have recently introduced a new model, the SB2000 Pro (closed box with 12" driver and DSP, adjustable via a mobile app). The price is in the range of 1,000€.

However, the REL T7/i still remains strong contender in my mind. It has the high-level connection to the speaker binding posts of the amp (which the SVS does not). How important/advantageous is the high-level connection over low-level input? But there is also another caveat. I have Croft monoblocks and that means -according to REL- I can connect the sub only to one monoblock via the high-level input. So, half job, unless I also get a second REL for the other channel as well. And no DSP capability either.
I have also noted the possible locations, where the sub could be positioned within my room (red boxes).

So, what do you guys think? SVS SB-2000 Pro or REL T/7i for my little Falcons?

Thanks for your opinion!

Listening Room.jpg

[Stryder5]

I can answer half of your question, but it raises a question.

High level inputs are much better for SQ than low level in my opinion.......but what is your source of the low level out put?

Gary

Several months again after the original post about finding a subwoofer for my Falcon LS3/5a, I have to admit that I have not taken a decision. I am reopening my quest. The new piece of information is that SVS have recently introduced a new model, the SB2000 Pro (closed box with 12" driver and DSP, adjustable via a mobile app). The price is in the range of 1,000€.

However, the REL T7/i still remains strong contender in my mind. It has the high-level connection to the speaker binding posts of the amp (which the SVS does not). How important/advantageous is the high-level connection over low-level input? But there is also another caveat. I have Croft monoblocks and that means -according to REL- I can connect the sub only to one monoblock via the high-level input. So, half job, unless I also get a second REL for the other channel as well. And no DSP capability either.
I have also noted the possible locations, where the sub could be positioned within my room (red boxes).

So, what do you guys think? SVS SB-2000 Pro or REL T/7i for my little Falcons?

Thanks for your opinion!

Listening Room.jpg

[pankon]

I can answer half of your question, but it raises a question.

High level inputs are much better for SQ than low level in my opinion.......but what is your source of the low level out put?

Gary

Hi Gary,

thanks for your response. Well, if I have understood your question correctly, my sources are a phono stage (ASR Mini Basis Exclusive) and a DAC (LAB12 DAC1 SE). They feed a Hattor BIG passive preamp (with high quality Khozmo attenuators), which in turn feeds a Hattor valve active stage (with ECC82 valves). The valve active stage connects to the Croft monoblocks. If I have to use line-level connection for the sub, I will connect an RCA pair from the line level out from the Hattor valve active stage to the sub's input. I hope to have answered what you've asked.

Cheers,
Panos

[Stryder5]

Hi,

I think I understand your issue, the REL has only one low level input as usually if using an AV amp the R and L channels are down mixed to provide an output to the sub.

So we have a problem that you say REL have identified using mono-bloc’s ( I thought this was only an issue using ‘D’ class amps, could be wrong though) can you clarify this with REL I thought that a positive speaker output from each amp and negative from the case of one of the amps would work DONT TAKE MY WORD ON THAT PLEASE VERIFY. This would be high level.

Your solution using active stage will give you high level outputs into the SVS 2000 sub, which has L and R RCA’s and does it’s own mixing. Does your active have more than one set of RCA outputs, one for power amp and one for sub that are switched at the same.

Hope I understood.

Gary

[pankon]

Hi,

I think I understand your issue, the REL has only one low level input as usually if using an AV amp the R and L channels are down mixed to provide an output to the sub.

So we have a problem that you say REL have identified using mono-bloc’s ( I thought this was only an issue using ‘D’ class amps, could be wrong though) can you clarify this with REL I thought that a positive speaker output from each amp and negative from the case of one of the amps would work DONT TAKE MY WORD ON THAT PLEASE VERIFY. This would be high level.

Your solution using active stage will give you high level outputs into the SVS 2000 sub, which has L and R RCA’s and does it’s own mixing. Does your active have more than one set of RCA outputs, one for power amp and one for sub that are switched at the same.

Hope I understood.

Gary

Hi Gary,

as a matter of fact, the issue with REL is that a single REL sub can connect to either a stereo amp or one monoblock via the high-level input. If one has monoblock amplifiers (like me), it is possible to connect (via the high-level input) only one of the monoblocks to the REL sub, either the left or the right. The high-level output of the two monoblocks CANNOT (MUST NOT) be mixed into a single REL. That's an issue for me.

To connect a REL via the low-level input, one has to mix the two channels into the single-post low-level input of the sub. But that's easily feasible with a Y-connector.

My active tube preamplifier (Hattor) has 4 sets of output connections (2x2 RCA and 2x2 XLR). Currently only one set of RCA outputs is taken to drive my Croft monoblocks. I have 3 sets of outputs free (1 RCA and 2 XLR). I could easily use any of those three to drive a sub. In the case of the SVS, I would be able to use the free set of RCA as input to the low-level input.

I hope to have clarified the situation.

Thanks

Panos

[Stryder5]

Hi,

The svs is the most elegant solution for high level then in your case, and the reports are great.

Mine is in position top left in your diagram I had it in bottom left too try both see which you prefer.

Gary

[Thetiminator]

The secret with subs is having two (massive difference to speed and tone) and turn them down very low...that way they’ll just support the bass below your speakers but more noticeable than the bass is a dramatic change to the soundstage and atmosphere...

[pankon]

The secret with subs is having two (massive difference to speed and tone) and turn them down very low...that way they’ll just support the bass below your speakers but more noticeable than the bass is a dramatic change to the soundstage and atmosphere...

Hi Tim,

two subs are obviously the way to go. However, as we all know, room modes can appear that amplify or attenuate certain frequencies. Many people try to tackle such room modes by changing the placement of the sub(s), others use room treatment panels. Another option might be PEQ (Parametric EQ) to appropriate shape the sub's output in the frequency domain. Is that so or not?

[spendorman]

Some years ago I tried a subwoofer with Chartwell LS3/5a's I found that adding a little extra damping inside the LS3/5a's removed the slight hump in their bass.

Some may say that modifying the LS3/5a's is sacrilege, but it worked.

[pankon]

Alex, which subwoofer have you used with the chartwells? Were you happy with the overall result?

Cheers,
Panos