My idea for a hypothetical VMPS speaker

JoshK · « **on:** 18 Dec 2003, 03:41 pm »

Here is the speaker I would love to see in the VMPS line-up!

You'll have to excuse my poor excuse for photo shopping (actually MS Paint). But you get the idea anyway. I'd love to see such a beauty that would be mated with subs!

lkosova · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:05 pm »

Josh,

My guess is that after the RM-30 we will see some form of the RM-40 etc in this design.

I was thinking about this also but this is only a guess.

Larry

doug s. · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:09 pm »

ya, i'd really like someting like that, but why not two more 6.5" drivers on the top?

doug s., would be happy if i could afford a pair offully tricked-out rm30's...

jcoat007 · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:15 pm »

Dude, that mock-up is awesome.

JoshK · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:42 pm »

doug, I thought of that too but not sure it is needed as much as the addition of more panels higher so that vertical dispersion isn't cut off at 4', which is shorter than anyone here standing up. Not only that but maybe the depth could be trimmed a bit by not adding more midbass drivers. 21" is pretty darn deep. 5" deeper than the RM40s!
One other idea is maybe move the tweeter to the top with the adjustable pot from the RM/X.

doug s. · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 05:03 pm »

josh, i definitely like the idea of the adjustable tweeter pot...

doug s.

JoshK · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 05:06 pm »

not to mention if you added the woofers above the speaker would be over 7' tall!

ekovalsky · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 06:10 pm »

I think there would be a huge discrepancy in sound output between the six neo panels and a pair of small woofers.

Six neo panels ~ 94 db/watt @ 1m
Single FST ~ 96 db/watt @ 1m
Dual 6.5" woofs ~ probably under 90 db/watt @ 1m

Plus a strong draft would knock them over unelss they were on a really big base.

Xi-Trum · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 07:48 pm »

How about something like the RM30 (with three or four midrange panels) with a tilting FST tweeter like the RM/X?

byteme · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 08:08 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

Plus a strong draft would knock them over unelss they were on a really big base.

You'd have to bolt them to the floor!!

Eric D · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 08:37 pm »

Quote from: byteme

Quote from: ekovalsky
Plus a strong draft would knock them over unelss they were on a really big base.
You'd have to bolt them to the floor!!

They had me thinking guy wires. Or maybe one of those tension poles to wedge it to the ceiling.

doug s. · « **Reply #11 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 09:14 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

not to mention if you added the woofers above the speaker would be over 7' tall!

besides the overkill spl issues w/six midrange ribbons, height *is* a factor - yust use 4 mids, not six...

doug s., *everyone* tinks they can design speakers!!!

azryan · « **Reply #12 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 10:16 pm »

http://home.earthlink.net/~azstrehlow/40rev.html

I think this first mock up is pretty much what Doug thought of well over a year ago. I changed the dual spirals to the smaller FST which lets the neo panels get closer to eachother making the speaker not as tall as it would be w/ dual spirals.

Seems too tall/narrow but would work w/ a nice wide base IMO. Back then I think Doug himself mentioned that the cost would probably not be any savings to the original 40 design but only for the sake of a narrow cabinet, but maybe if the new graphite woofers are cheaper than the WCF 6.5's?

The next mock up is what I was thinking of over a year ago and I think addresses cost and narrow cabinet a bit better.

I was thinking a single sealed bass woofer for tight, clean, fairly deep but not super deep bass (possibly an angled face on the bass cabinet too).
The size of the 10" woofer cabinet could easily be made larger depending on the volume needed and the design would still work.
Possibly use a higher effi. woofer also so you don't have to pad down the planar section so much.

This'd be a speaker meant to go w/ a sub for true full range sound and since the 40's weren't totally full range anyway... a sub I thought was a good option and would save on driver cost in the main speaker pair.

2-part cabinet and the narrower planar section would be thinner than any current VMPS model.

The effective result of the costly cut-out on the RM/X's face but without the cost.
Actually a cheaper cabinet than the 40's probably as the planar section doesn't need to be overly heavy 1.5" braced MDF like the cone woofer section would benefit from.

The third design is a revision of this old idea. I thought of this right after I saw the tiltable FST (I was never thrilled w/ VMPS using so widely spaced dual spirals to play such a very high freq. waves narrower than the distance between the dual spirals).

This design lets you place the super tweeter (FST) on top and tilt it so the neo panels in theory could be placed even higher.
Closer to as tall as the X's so standing would be closer to covered by the neos like only seated height is in the current models ('cept the X's).

If you started the neo's ~26" off the floor you'd be within most people's lowest seated height and they'd come up to ~60" at the top so unless you're REALLY tall your ear height wouldn't be too much higher than them. Not perfect, but much closer IMO to what the optimal VMPS would look like for me.

Just an idea.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 03:32 am »

Looks pretty good. Now all you gotta do is send Big B $50,000 and he'll build it for you!

wshuff · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 05:51 am »

$50,000.00? I thought the going rate was $20,000.00. Man, in times like these, who can be spending $50K?

Ric Schultz · « **Reply #15 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 10:30 am »

I am building my own pair of RM-40s....or sort of. I bought the RM-40 kit and will be making a box with both 10s at the bottom-forward firing for maximum pants flapping impact. The four midrange panels will be stacked just as Ryan shows in his picture (just high enough so when I stand I will be in front of the top one third of the highest one). They will be mounted on an open baffle (possibly with some wings going back to increase the output below 400hz) with the back wave terminated into a bunch of felt a couple inches behind the drivers (semi-dipole?)....no box sound here! The FST will be on top. The speakers will be vertically biamped using two stereo Ice Power prototype amps (500 watts a channel into 4 ohms). The crossover will mostly be done passively before the amps using the absolute best parts and the level control for the midrange will be eliminated by raising the gain of the woofer amps. Level setting for the tweeter will be parallel damped Caddock and damped nude Vishay 102 resistors. I will also be using a modified Behringer on the bass to equalize for flat 20 Hz and to remove room nodes. The speakers will be entirely hardwired (no binding posts) and the crossover (what is left of it, probably only the tweeter xover) will be outboard for ease of tweaking and less vibration. The midrange panels will be set back for time alignment with the woofers. Same with tweeter. Felt on both sides of the midrange drivers. All super wire and cabinets and panels with very low resonance.

Just your usual basic mod....he he. Should have it all done sometime in Feb. What I expect is more impact than the RM-40 (both woofers near the floor), super flat tight bass to 20 Hz(super woofer wire, super cabinet, equalized woofers/room, biamping, no coil between woofer and amp....direct connection), outrageously transparent mids (no binding posts, no pots, super wire, no box sound, small super cap before amp so no big cap in series with driver, time alignment, biamping...so no back emf from woofer), and super highs (FST tweeter using best xover parts I can find).

Anotherwords....if you want a different version...build it yourself! As long as Brian offers kits, then we can make them to our own likings, both visually and sonically. Brian has only so much time and resources. He cannot make everything everyone wants. The RM-30 is a very very good idea and I am sure it will sell well. I personally want more impact (two 10s) and more ribbons (4) for even lower distortion. I have never had a big sounding speaker and you never know when your time is up.....so, I am doin it up royally. Because the woofer container will be smaller than the RM-40 and because of the open baffle for the mids and tweet the speaker should only...he he.. weigh about 150 lbs. and because it will be in two parts, will be easier to move about. I really don't like the idea of trying to mod a 240 or 350 lb speaker. I had put in an order an RMX but cancelled it after realizing I would be getting a hernia playing with them. I don't want a monster speaker, I just want monster sound! I bet I will get my wish. Hoping you get yours this season and always.

ARAM · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 12:58 pm »

Ric,
Your speaker building plans absolutely sound terrific..a very interesting design..getting both the woofers down sounds plausible to me..I hope you post their pictures when you finish the speakers ..good luck with the project.....

JoshK · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 03:46 pm »

Ric Schultz,

That sounds like a fantastic idea, actually an idea I had thought about (less the tweeter on top, I didn't think of that). My problem is with the xo, I have no experience there. I know I could build the cabinet if I had enough room to do it. Sounds great! Let us all know how it works out. Who knows, later on I might be bugging you for your plans.

rosconey · « **Reply #18 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 04:41 pm »

http://my.core.com/~cbugbee/Images/VMPS-RM40-Custom.JPG

remember these custom rm40's

JoshK · « **Reply #19 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 04:45 pm »

yep, still would like to see Audio Architect finish those.