F

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 02:31 am »

I dig the Darth Vader finish, but to be honest I was expecting something a bit more exotic in shape judging from all that talk of radical CNC requirements. Not too shabby though.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 02:58 am »

I agree with Nathan. Only judging from the pictures, it looks like a tweaked RM40. The reason for my skepticism is that it costs twice as much. It did make it to the finals so there must be something special about it. I'm also curious about the trinaural processor. For $1500 it seems to be too cheap and nothing but a novelty...however it too made it the finals...wasn't it also used in the VMPS setup?

nathanm · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 03:26 am »

On second thought, I think that tweeter sitting up there all by its lonesome kinda kills the cool bevel look they've got goin' on the baffle. Hmmm...

JohnR · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 03:41 am »

Hey I got a great idea! Let's all pitch in and buy a pair for evaluation for audiocircle members!

I'll be first, I live only a half hour from Brian...

nathanm · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 07:04 am »

Quote from: JohnR

Hey I got a great idea! Let's all pitch in and buy a pair for evaluation for audiocircle members!

I'll be first, I live only a half hour from Brian...

Certainly would be interesting, but how many of us can truly afford to spend 10 grand on speakers? I'd probably have to pinch some pennies just to afford the shipping on those beasts.

Maybe instead AC can fly everyone to California for a big field trip!

Woodsea · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 12:43 pm »

I have to agree with the remark on HD, I would have to win the lottery and have my own dedicated room for those behemoths, my wife and I are both under 5'6 so selling her on these is a lost cause. Now that trinaural may turn out to be the cat's meow, esp with a tweeter upgrade on my ribbons

Val · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 01:06 pm »

The slim, protruding midrange is a great idea, but I'm not convinced by the tweeter being up there by itself. I hope the crossover frequency is high enough for this not to matter too much.

tmd · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 03:21 pm »

As a 626 Neo owner, my only interest in these speakers is that I may one of these days be able to afford the RM40's and perhaps they will benefit from the development that went into the RMX's.
I hope Brian hasn't lost the run of himself with these. My purchase was great value for money but how much better can the RMX's sound for six or seven times the price? Also, how many people can afford to drop that much dough on a pair of speakers?

rosconey · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 03:41 pm »

some people buy on price alone.
major plus side with the trickle down, the tweeter available as a option.
creativity comes outside the box and big b is way outside-good for us.
he might have something with the location of the tweeter also, kinda like a shower tweeter-sound rains down on you.
yeah the shower head tweeter system-patent pending

with the new shower head tweeter system a wave of clean sound covers you from head to toe in musical bliss seated or standing-lol

Night Wolf · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 06:07 pm »

question, did you upload those pictures to the site? or use HTML tage to get them from another site? just wondering becuase I can't find a way to upload pictures

sjd · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 06:10 pm »

Quote from: tmd

As a 626 Neo owner, my only interest in these speakers is that I may one of these days be able to afford the RM40's and perhaps they will benefit from the development that went into the RMX's.
I hope Brian hasn't lost the run of himself with these. My purchase was great value for money but how much better can the RMX's sound for six or seven times the price? Also, how many people can afford to drop that much dough on a pair of speakers?

Yep, I am with you on that front. But, it is understandable for Brian to want a "statement" piece, and yes, there are people who'll take him more seriously simply for having it. Thetruth, perhaps?

But for me, that price range crosses from hobby into obsession (or simply for people that have the dough to drop). I would be more than happy with a pair of RM40's, and yes, I am sure Brian himself will tell you that these aren't 7 times as good as their little brother.

I'd be shocked if they were more than 25% better.

Val · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 07:14 pm »

Quote

I'd be shocked if they were more than 25% better

I don't think there is a way to establish a percentage (or even a monetary) value difference when a qualitatively superior technology or implementation thereof is involved, assuming this is what happens here. Apart from the new technology, the complex wood working itself (wood is the major cost in a speaker) has to be expensive. Can you imagine any of the big names in audio only doubling their price with something similar?

Regarding my doubts about the high tweeter location, and it is higher than anything I have seen before, I remember listening to a Von Schweikert VR-8, an extremely tall speaker. The owner, a rich guy who likes big speakers and big volumes and changes components as if they were toothbrushes, had a dedicated audio room with tons of BAT tube and solid state power. Ten seconds into my usual test CD, I knew this was the weirdest sound I had ever listened to. Among other problems not necessarily related to the speaker itself, the bulk of the sound seemed to come from the wall-ceiling intersection, just as the relative location of the drivers would have suggested. Yes, I know, all speakers sound different, but anyway.

On both counts, we'll have to wait for the reviews that I hope will be all raves. Brian deserves it, and James Bongiorno does too.

Val

ABEX · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 07:29 pm »

Was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.I wish I had a living room capable of handling speakers that big.

I use to own Maggies when I lived\rented a Camp house that had a huge Living room.The house was 300yrs. Old (was featured on 60Mins) and then I had to move to a smaller place.I had the Maggies in the closet for 10yrs. until I recently sold them.Now I have Monitor's that are as transparent as the Maggies with more detail and better Bass.
-----------------------------------
So what is the thing with this new processing unit.I take it that a Bolder ART DAC was being used in the loop also.

2 yrs. in a row and the VMPS room takes home Best At The Show!What's going on there BC or Wayne?This time it's Spectrum next what will you put in a Monkey that interacts with the speaker's or pushes the buttons for you.Maybe VR to change the EQ Parameter's

Nice going!

Val · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 07:34 pm »

How about Brian for President?

roopaudio · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 09:46 pm »

Even if you could in some way compare speakers as to say "X is percentage better versus Y", I'm sure if you listened to full orchestra at live SPL's the differences between the 626's and RM/X would be night and day. The nature of ribbons require a lot of surface area to move a lot of air. That's why Soundlabs, Maggies, Apogees, etc are so large. At lower volumes, I'm sure the differences would be much more subtle in comparison.

I think that's why so many audio components get to be rediculously expensive. Maintaining audiophile standards at live level SPL's is no easy engineering task. Not only is "perfect musicality" (for lack of better phrasing) required from a component, but large quantities of it are also needed simultaneously.

Rup

doug s. · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Jan 2003, 11:14 pm »

i've always thought the best of both worlds, (speakers for sitting *and* standing), would be a pair of rm40's, w/an add'l tweeter set up on top, perhaps even w/a full-range wolume pot, so it can be turned on/off as wanted/needed. seeing the rmx's yust convinces me even more, that this is what i want - certainly much less expensive.

and, re: bass, i'm not at all concerned about any possible superiority the rmx's may have, since i awreddy use a pair of vmps larger subs!

regards,

doug s.

Tyson · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Jan 2003, 12:23 am »

Personlly, I like the looks of the RM-40's better, but I do envy the baffle-less front for the mid panels

Unless Wayne brings a pair to Colorado, I'm unlikely to hear them. Gotta say that I like the "tweeter in the middle" design of the 40's better though. . .

I'm pretty excited about possibly getting the new tweeter for use in the 40's, and the lower crossover point, that alone should give an improvement in sound.

All of the above is my own (in vain) attempt to convince myself that I don't "need" the Elixers. . .

ehider · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 Jan 2003, 02:20 am »

Is it me or are these speakers pretty funky looking? Many have posted statements declaring that they can't afford these speakers. What intrigues me is how many would actually buy these funky looking things if they could afford them? (obviously assuming that they were much better than the RM-40 too)

BTW: I don't think that these speakers are far from ugly, but I am still not getting used to their "funky" looks after seeing all the pictures many times over the last week.

Perhaps we can convince Brian to slightly clean up the design before production?

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Jan 2003, 03:06 am »

I am usually very, very sensitive to tweeter height. Most home theater setups really bug me because throughout the movie I am constantly conscience that the sound is coming from above or below the imgage. When I first saw the "cyclops" on top of the RM/X I was also very skeptical that the sound would be verticaly too high. However, once I heard it I could not distinguish where the location of the tweeter was. Standing up or sitting down did not chance the sound.

Another thing I noticed was that to me the RM/X actually sounded a little better left or right of center. If I remember correctly, Brian indicated the dispersion pattern for the mids (and tweeter?) was best about 10 degrees off-axis (onther reason he suggests toeing them in just a little),

Julian