How do SVS subwoofers compare to REL?


I'm looking for subwoofers (one or two) that have a very "tight" natural sound and are not overly boomy. In the future I hope to pair them with some Magnepan speakers. Magnepans are known for having a natural sound, and I want to compliment that.

I've been told that the REL subwoofers (e.g.,T/9i or S/3 SHO, etc., are a good match for Magnepan speakers. However, SVS subwoofers have also been recommended to me.

I don't have any background in high-end audio, so I am interested in opinions of folks here. Are SVS subwoofers considered generally as good as REL in regard to the features I'm interested in? Is either clearly superior? (I had never heard of SVS before yesterday.)

Which subwoofer size (in REL or SVS) would be a good match for a pair of Magnepan 1.7i in an 18 foot x 15 foot room (ceiling about 10 feet) with carpet on floor?

I'm looking at these so far:

REL T/9i Subwoofer about $1300
REL Acoustics S/3 SHO Subwoofer (Super High Output) about $2100
SVS SB-4000 13.5" 1200W about $1600
Any other recommendations?

Total subwoofer budget is around $2600 max. ($2000 or less would be better.)

Also, I believe it is better to buy two smaller subwoofers, compared to one larger one, right? (I'm just not sure where I would put two. Placing one is easier in this room. And I plan to connect everything with speaker wires, not wireless.)

Thanks

lowoverdrive
I really think ’speed’ is not a property of the subwoofer driver, but of the room acoustics. If you look at waterfall graphs of low frequency output, you can see that the lingering of some low fequencies is at room modes. Deal with those, and your ’slow’ subwoofer suddenly becomes ’fast’ (been there, done it). I suspect that part of the explanation for the observation that big woofers are slower may therefore be that they potentially generate more room modes.
As for subwoofer design, I guess that everything else being equal sealed enclosures are more beneficial for music than vented ones, with designs with passive radiators somewhere in between. Vented ones are often preferred for HT and massive explosions (if that kind of movies is what thrills you) because they can go deeper and louder. SVS offer both designs. The Audioholics forum has many detailed discussions and measurement data.
 I suspect that part of the explanation for the observation that big woofers are slower may therefore be that they potentially generate more room modes.
If the subwoofers are playing at the same level, in the same room/same location, with the same extension, and with comparable levels of distortion, I do not see how this can be possible.
It is true that under those conditions you have excluded a lot by defining it away, but in reality big drivers are likely to go deeper. That was my point. However, I am not excluding the possibility that big drivers are flabby and not as accurate. They would certainly need more control from a powerful amplifier. My own subwoofer (B&W PV1d) has two opposing 8 inch drivers, and is reputed to be 'fast'. Yet, without the room equalization that I later added this sub did not seem 'fast'. Originally it was certainly woolly and boomy and a problematic match for my ultraclean electrostats.
What I did was compare apples to apples. That is my point. Most well designed 10 inch subs are capable of 25 hz. How much music is occurring below that frequency? Why would a 10 inch sub sound faster than a 15 if they are set up properly? My "definitions" above would be factors used to set up the sub properly. As you said, your 8 inch subs didn't sound fast until you set them up properly. I suspect the same would be true of a 15 inch sub, when set up properly.
Indeed and I think we effectly agree. I agree that there is little or no useful music signal below 25 Hz, and to be sure, for this and other reasons I am not a fan of huge woofers either. What I tried to say is that the issue of setting subwoofers up properly is largely to deal with the room modes.