While I don't think any speaker is perfect, I do have to say that I agree with Brian in that I've never heard a speaker with metal drivers that did not become unlistenable after a while. However, many people speak highly of the Salk systems, and I'd like to hear them myself and make my own decisions. As for Eric's comments, even though some people have had both VMPS and Salk in the same room and chose Salk, that still doesn't mean that Salk are good for everyone. When I heard zybar's system with the RM40s, I thought they were set up too aggressively and gratingly for my tastes, but zybar liked them that way (and ended up getting Salks). My RM40s are set up totally differently than zybar's -- I can't stand aggressive speakers, so I've done everything I can to get rid of any hint of brightness and aggressiveness. Marbles has Salks now, too and likes them better than RM40s. But because they like them better does not mean that everyone will. I've met many people who rave about B&Ws, yet I've never been able to listen to B&Ws -- in any system, regardless of components -- for any length of time. They just grate on me. Nonetheless, were anyone effusive about B&Ws, that's their perogative and while I wouldn't agree, I certainly wouldn't call them wrong.
There is no one correct speaker design. I personally am excited to be able to hear the Salks and hope to hear them soon. Metal drivers (assuming that the harmonics caused by such drivers can't be heard by a listener -- and I personally think that some people are more susceptible to this than others) certainly should add lightness and stiffness, which I think would be desirable in a driver. On the other hand, the ability to tune the VMPS speakers I think is highly desirable and one of the main reasons I bought the speakers. But then VMPS uses ribbons, which tend to be beamier and lack the "body" produced by cones. Nonetheless, properly designed ribbons can be extremely fast and articulate, if one likes that sound. Further, beamy can be good, as there's less interaction with the room (which is also a detriment - the sweetspot is smaller than cones). And we could argue for days about crossover design. (Though I tend more toward first order than higher order designs -- the speakers I like tend to have first order crossovers, like Thiel, Wilsons, etc.)
I think competition is good, and anyone would be happier with Salk, VMPS, or any of the speakers on this forum than with the generic, high end speakers sold elsewhere. When you consider that my Linn 5140s, which I really like by the way -- my friend and I listened to many speakers before he chose those (and then I purchased them from him), cost more than either the Salk or the VMPS RM40s (not upgraded), and yet are blown away by the RM40s (and probably are blown away by the Salks), then we have every right to be happy.
As for whether Brian is right, or Jim is right, or Rick is right, I personally do not have the knowledge (even with an MSEE) to judge. I can only hope that they each do the best job they can and continue to improve their products so that I, as a consumer of such products, will benefit.