REL S/510 Subwoofer Review & Comments

JacobatREL

Novice Member
Are you with REL? Would you care to comment on why RELs ship with 6 dB potential that has to be realised through a very complicated break-in process? Surely there is a huge risk that only a fraction of your customers get it wrong and are stuck with a sub that only plays half as loudly as it could. Why did you choose this approach?
Break-in of speakers and other electrical components is a fairly common practice, and is widely recommended throughout the industry. It is not necessarily a requirement to use our recommended break-in procedure in order to get excellent performance from a REL subwoofer, however, we find that this procedure works well and offers the most consistent results for loosening up the components of the subwoofer’s drivers (for example the rubber surround which is stiff out of the box but loosens up to allow for longer driver stroke) and for warming up the electrical components in a controlled manner. As long as you do not immediately play a new subwoofer at loud levels first thing after taking it out of the box, since the physical moving parts of drivers require time to loosen up, there is no way to get it wrong per se. We have just found that our recommended process is easy to follow and yields consistently positive results.
 

hestepare

Member
As long as you do not immediately play a new subwoofer at loud levels first thing after taking it out of the box, since the physical moving parts of drivers require time to loosen up, there is no way to get it wrong per se
…which is decidedly not what the instructions say:

A question that comes up regularly is “Do subwoofers require break-in and, if so, how do I do it properly?” Great question, for which the answer is an emphatic “yes”, RELs needing it more than relatively heavier-coned, slower subs that will eventually break-in on their own.
Not only do RELs need to be broken-in, they will in fact not break-in on their own like other subs will.

It is not necessarily a requirement to use our recommended break-in procedure in order to get excellent performance from a REL subwoofer
Well, the instructions don't really give the impression that there are many right ways to do this, only that there are many wrong ways:

Breaking Things in Properly: As with most things in life, there is a right way and a wrong way to break-in a sub. … two hours of aggressive break-in, before which even attempting to set-up and dial-in your sub is a waste of time
The right way, as we've discussed, will yield 4+2 dB extra performance, i.e. twice the output. The wrong way, one must assume, will yield nothing. Not doing it REL's way means that you won't be able to set up the sub properly.

loosening up the components of the subwoofer’s drivers (for example the rubber surround which is stiff out of the box but loosens up to allow for longer driver stroke) and for warming up the electrical components in a controlled manner
Loosening up the rubber surround would conceivably happen simply by playing music, and how much extra stroke are we talking about anyway? Surely not something that would yield semi-octaves and multiple dBs. That would be unheard of. Imagine a S/510 buyer failing to do the break-in correctly, being left with a -6 dB point at 30 Hz instead of 20 Hz, and the equivalent of a 400 Watt amp instead of a 500 watt one. I get selling ready-made food that needs heating before serving, but selling half-finished subs just sounds like a very bad idea. Finally, warming up the electrical components would have to be done every time you fire the box up, and wouldn't qualify as breaking-in.

I could go on, referring to what's in REL's own instructions, pointing out how the instructions claim that there is "a right way" to break in subs, and that it's "a waste of time" to make your REL sound good if you don't break it in. If you don't do it in this very specific manner, your REL will not be able to go "half an octave lower" and play 6 dB louder.

I'm sorry to be making a fuss about this, but I really can't see that the instructions are doing much except for adding hocus-pocus to something which is – in your own words – quite simple. Especially when REL claim that 4+2 dB extra output – twice the forking power – can be harvested by doing exactly what's in the instructions.


To be clear, are you with REL?
 
Last edited:

rccarguy

Active Member
Complete nonsense you have to break in subes a specific way otherwise it'll lose the full potential doing it the wrong way.


What next coating yourself with tar and chicken feathers dancing around your sub?
 

milano j

Active Member
As its always been the case this forum is very Anti Rel ergo
 

hestepare

Member
As its always been the case this forum is very Anti Rel ergo
I'm assuming that it's (also) my post you're referring to as I'm indeed critical to one aspect of REL's promotion material/whitepapers. However, I'll repeat what I have already stated, that I believe they are good products and look well put-together. They do extremely well in listening tests and have impeccable finishes. In general, they are highly desirable units. I certainly wouldn't say no to a 3x2 stack of No. 25s if someone offered.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the text I'm critiquing above makes no sense at all. It is not a good look for REL to make unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims about ordinary phenomena, which is why I'm making some noise about this. The easiest, and frankly best solution, would be for REL to delete that entire text or replace it with something that makes sense.
 
Last edited:

milano j

Active Member
I'm assuming that it's (also) my post you're referring to as I'm indeed critical to one aspect of REL's promotion material/whitepapers. However, I'll repeat what I have already stated, that I believe they are good products and look well put-together. They do extremely well in listening tests and have impeccable finishes. In general, they are highly desirable units. I certainly wouldn't say no to a 3x2 stack of No. 25s if someone offered.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the text I'm critiquing above makes no sense at all. It is not a good look for REL to make unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims about ordinary phenomena, which is why I'm making some noise about this. The easiest, and frankly best solution, would be for REL to delete that entire text or replace it with something that makes sense.
It was not aimed at any individual,its was just a generalization mate, you just need to read through the Threads including Rel Subwoofers on this forum 1 example Question - REL HT1508 vs JL Audio eSub112 vs Arendal 1723 Sub 2

BK or SVS for most on here....my tuppence worth is....use a pair of any subwoofer you buy especially the Rel T/S series subs,l read on threads that a lot peeps consider them overpriced l have always done well with any Rel sub l have purchased in the past,l only paid £1280 for my Rel HT1508 bargain,but given they are assembled in China...tut tut....Most retailers are advertising Rel subs at RRP as stocks must be low or they have zero stock ATM
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LCD TVs for Movies, Physical Discs?, RIP Ennio Morricone, AV & Movie news, B+W Matt Damon
Top Bottom