I will add the best bass in most rooms , requires multiple subs and usually not the way we 2-ch audiophiles likes it, i-e one sub or two subs flanking symmetrically the main speakers ... Ok The discussion was about the Alexandria XLF.. Sorry
My OCD disease can be very expensive. I originally had placed my two subs symmetrically (like OB's) near the front main speakers. They looked great but measured poorly. So we ended up putting one in the front left corner and the other in the right rear. Much, much much flatter but I couldn't stand the look --- so I bought two more. Problem solved
I will add the best bass in most rooms , requires multiple subs and usually not the way we 2-ch audiophiles likes it, i-e one sub or two subs flanking symmetrically the main speakers ... Ok The discussion was about the Alexandria XLF.. Sorry
I remember that some time ago a promising thread was started about using several subs in the back wall and the same amount along the front wall to create a bass wave, but unhappily there was no followup ...
Actually Steve, the REL G1's have a stacking template so that one can stack the Sub-bass systems on top of another so I would put 3 stacked on each side with the speakers. I got to see it and hear it at Sumiko with The Sonus Fabers and it was very, very impressive.
Actually Steve, the REL G1's have a stacking template so that one can stack the Sub-bass systems on top of another so I would put 3 stacked on each side with the speakers. I got to see it and hear it at Sumiko with The Sonus Fabers and it was very, very impressive.
Doesn't raising a subwoofer alter the floor-based boundary interactions of the low frequencies? JL Audio told me that raising their subwoofer off the floor smooths the response.....
I was not suggesting anyone move away from what they have. I was simply stating what I would do if I was looking to add a sub-bass system to their system. If someone is happy with the system that they have then by all means they should stick with it. I have listen to both JL and to the REL's and I personally find the REL's to be quicker and more musical with tone and texture of the JL's. Every JL I've heard seems heavy and just more about pure SPL output. REL's, when set up properly, will also show that bass is indeed directional. The stacking of the REL's works by daisy chaining the subs together and them working as one. So instead of having 2 -13" drivers, I would have 3 - 12" drivers on each side. That's just from my experiences between the two.
I own RELs and have integrated quite a few JLs. As far as the JLs go, I've gotten them to be as seamless as any other sub. I should add however that doing it manually with a basic Phonic has always worked better than the onboard calibration suite. I've found the same to be true of the Audyssey in my Pre-Pro.
No I have not heard triple stacked RELs or anything else triple stacked. Nor am I suggesting that JLs are superior but since Steve already owns 2 JL Gothams, why switch to another brand.
As for stacking vertically or having multiple subs in various places in the horizontal plane, I always start moving them horizontally first since there are more (and easier to manipulate) options. Then when I have optimized them horizontally, I can experiment putting a sub (or more than one) on a 24" to 36" stand to see if it helps!
My honest question concerning the XLF .. Do you believe that the X-2 XLF will surpass the combination of "normal" X-2 paired with JL Audio Gotham in the Lows? More features to tailor the lows than any passive approach can dream of plus placement flexibility with the X-2 plus subS. Allow me to have my doubts...
Exactly the question i asked on another post! Exactly! BFlowers said he found it hard to believe Alexandria plus 2 JL F113 could be beaten, except perhaps in a larger room that might require Gothams. Having heard for myself what the Wilson X1/Grand Slamms can do on their own...and then adding a Velodyne DD-18 with the Auralex...i am stunned and frankly find the X1/Grand Slamms [almost] anemic in comparison. Hard to believe in many respects but true...
...would love to hear Gothams...or Wilson Thor. would be interested to hear the XLF...good integration...but equal slam?
If the XLF is not meant to replace the x2 but actually stand above it...then Wilson had better make a really good case for having BOTH speakers. Replacing the older X2S2 is one thing...marginal to medium improvements sometimes happen to keep sales running.
...but both models? One must be clearly better to justify 2 models, 2 price points and effectively 2 competing speakers (or, i suppose, the 2 speakers dont compete because they occupy such different levels of performance)...
...in which case, i wonder just how much the XLF will compete with X2 + Thor which must have been the benchmark. Otherwise, whats the point?
Almost everyone I know reports that tuning the subwoofers with large speakers took months and plenty of effort, some never managed to integrate them and give-up. If using the new adaptable bass tuning the Wilson people can fine tune the whole speaker with excellent bass in a few hours this will be a big advantage in terms of marketing and user happiness, two very important aspects in high-end.
As far as I know, a similar feature of the Focal Grande Utopia EM, was very well accepted. The EM used a variable intensity electromagnet to get a variable efficiency and damping of the bass section.
Hi Micro...yes, convenience (and space) are important...though at $200K, i would have to imagine most buyers are driven primarily by performance. To keep both speakers running, the XLF (Extra Low Frequency?) must equal or better the kind of third party add-on sub most X2 owners are going to use (JL, Thor, etc)...i am curious if the performance gets to this particular level.
For roughly $40K more, i would have thought it really should.
XLF looks to be a cabinet about 6-8 inches deeper...fair bit more volume to play with, and given that the width extends nearly the full height of the unit, could the combined extra space in both speakers in effect come close to replicating the internal volume of a single Thor?
As for Focal Grande...i read very interesting description in the review by Roy Gregory about the woofer technology. Instead of a convention fixed magnet (the time-tested model for cone speaker)...they powered the fixed magnet in order to increase the damping and electro-magnetic field multiples over. And by using electricity instead of a gargantuan magnet, they managed to keep the cone lighter/more responsive as well....so super high sensitivity, powerful magnet, high damping.
Interesting...what is the qualitative description of the benefit to multiple subs properly setup? Thanks for any guidance on the matter, as subs are important to me, and having lived with them for over a dozen years (only 1 at any time...Velodyne DD18 at the moment), i would appreciate knowing for future consideration.
I feel lazy right now, else I would have pointed toward the threads about multi-subs. This has been discussed very much in this very site. .. Multi subs result in smoother and of course more powerful bass in the room .. There are different schools one is the Harman School which prescribes definite positions of the subs in the room and the Earl Geddes to which I suscribe which prescribe to place different subs in a quasi random positions ( in the front plane , the "main" sub in a front corner)... The results at least in my personal experience, I used three (cone) subs with Magnepan MG 20.1 were superior to anything I have heard to date ...
Interesting...what is the qualitative description of the benefit to multiple subs properly setup? Thanks for any guidance on the matter, as subs are important to me, and having lived with them for over a dozen years (only 1 at any time...Velodyne DD18 at the moment), i would appreciate knowing for future consideration.
