[Audiobudha]

IMO the Elixir has a more aesthetically pleasing look than the RM-40's, but from a sonic reproduction standpoint are they really that much better sounding to justify the extra cost? Can anyone describe the difference between the two speakers?

Thanks for your opinions.

[Q]

Yeah...i wonder how much is really due to better bass, and how much is due to the added neo panels.  the better bass can be achieved with properly setup subs. Although it may be rather difficult to achieve coherence and integration. But the addition of mid panels adds area, which in my experience adds fullness to the soundstage.  Of course cabinet shape will enter into this sound, but I wonder how much.

[warnerwh]

The design and cost of the cabinets is a major part of the price also.  I believe the front baffle is 6" thick.  Don't remember the exact price of the cabinets but it seems like they were almost 3k each to make.  These cabinets are INERT.  Also speaker cabinets also are responsible for a significant amount of noise so these should be very quiet.  Another part of the cost is no doubt shipping.  The sound improvement should be considerable just from the cabinet design. Adding the larger woofers and half again as many Neo panels should also make a major improvement.  I've only heard the 40's, which are incredible, and I'm sure the sound is similar but the 40's have to be outclassed by a margin by the RM/X.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

My impression is that there are several different things in play. Any one of them would probably make a positive difference but the sum total equals more than the individual parts.

Bass: There is significantly more bass output with the RM/X. The tri-coupled drivers create less bass hotspots in the room but are much more sensitive to room boundaries. The optimal putty removal from the passive radiator has a much smaller but much more dramatic "sweet spot" than the RM40s.

Cabinet design: There is virtually no high frequency cabinet vibration. The swoops also seemed to work as promised since there is no cabinet difraction/smearing of the sound that I can detect.

Line Array: I think the fact that the RM/X is a true line array (versus the pseudo line array of the RM40) is more important than just the addition of two panels. The additional panels also improve sensitivity but I am not 100% sure how this plays into the sound.

Tweeter: Moving the tweeter up or down has a dramatic effect on the warmth and soundstage (FAR more than I would have ever expected).

Other things probably also play into better sound (i.e., Analysis Plus cables are used for the bass, etc.) but I am not sure to what degree.  

The end result is that the RM/X is significantly better than even the RM40 (assuming it is set-up correctly). Is it worth twice the price? That is something only your ears and pocket-book will be able to determine. However, if the name plate on the front said Wilson and not VMPS, I am quite sure this would be a $100,000 speaker and not a $10,000 speaker.  

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[ekovalsky]

Thanks for the line item list, Julian.  

Have you been aiming the tweeter directly at the listener, or have you found improvements by listening with the tweeter tilted off axis?

Also where have you settled the mid & tweeter pots?

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Eric,
My tweeters are pointed just slightly above the listener. To me, this give the best possible sound in the horizontal sweet spot but provides a somewhat narrow vertical sweet spot. Contrary to what I would have guessed, the vertical dispersion is actually greater with the tweeter pointed slightly lower than the listeners head.  

As for the pot settings, the standard method of pot setting did not give me satisfactory results (at least not to my super-high standards ).  It therefore forced me to come up with a new method that is far more precise that takes all the variances in pots, panels, etc. into account. With the RM/X, this level of refinement seems to be necessary. That is why I provide free in-home installation with every RM/X that I sell.

Julian  
www.sedonaskysound.com

[James Romeyn]

I have utmost respect for Julian.  He has contributed much to this community.  From the posts it appears his X rig is kicking butt & taking no prisoners.  I am treading on thin water, but must take the plunge in posting an apparent contradiction in one of his posts.

Somewhere at the forum one of the fine members/40 owners asked Julian to compare the X to the member's 40s.  I did a cursory search but could not find the post, sorry.  I think Julian posted that the Xs supremacy could be experienced by turning the 40s pots to minimum (maximum counterclockwise) & removing all the PR mass.  Julian posted that by returning the 40 to proper tuning the owner could experience the Xs superiority.  The 40 owner was of course shocked & dismayed.  I think this is extremely overstated, though I have minimal experience hearing the X.  Here is my evidence that it was an overstatment: Julian described the Trinaural sound with one center X & L-R 40s as the best ever heard.  I’ll probably agree when I get out to Texas to hear it.  But here’s the problem: how on earth could two speaker models, so mismatched in sound as Julian described, possibly perform with such high quality when mixed up in a front array?  It does not seem possible from my experience that such could happen.  

Before responding, I wholeheartedly admit I must be missing something, so please be gentle before igniting the flamethrower.  

yor otiofile corezpondunt,

[azryan]

"-Bass: There is significantly more bass output with the RM/X.-"

The 40's have one 10" woofer and one 10" megawoofer and a passive radiator right? The X's have the same 10" woofer, but a 12" megawoofer side mounted woofer right?

Both have 10" pas. rad. don't they (didn't think the X was wider and could fit a larger pas. rad on the bottom)?

And I assume the goal is to still have that bass output level matched to the rest of the speaker right?

Say the 40's are playing 105db avg. pink noise and the X's are playing a 105db agv. pink noise... they should have the same bass output right?

So by 'significantly more bass' you only mean 'over' what the 40's can do right? Which is already a terribly high level of bass right?

"-The tri-coupled drivers create less bass hotspots in the room but are much more sensitive to room boundaries.-"

Tri-coupled drivers means two actual woofer 'drivers' and one passive radiator right?

Do hot spots in the room matter when you're setting up a stereo system w/ one centered 'sweet spot'?

"-The optimal putty removal from the passive radiator has a much smaller but much more dramatic "sweet spot" than the RM40s."

Can you explain the 'dramatic' comment? No idea what you mean by that?

"-Cabinet design: There is virtually no high frequency cabinet vibration.-"

Wouldn't low freq. be the main prob. in cabinet vibe?

Isn't the X's cabinet 1.5" MDF all the way around like the 40's? Is there any bracing inside? The 40's doesn't seem to have much or any (though they might. they just did't 'seem' to have any)?

The X's baffle starts as a 5.5" MDF block, but is cut down to 1.5" right? And all the sides are 1.5"?

"-The swoops also seemed to work as promised since there is no cabinet difraction/smearing of the sound that I can detect.-"

Is this that significant?
If there were a LOT of baffle trouble from the 40's I'd think it wouldn't get the raves that it does? Has any review of the 40's ever mentioned that they didn't like how the face smeared the sound?

Are you able to place two strips of MDF on the sides of the X's Neo's to see how much damage is being done if it had a conventional baffle?

Is the X's face much more significant in sound quality than say treating the face around the Neos on the 40's w/ foam like the FST ribbon is treated?

"-Line Array: I think the fact that the RM/X is a true line array (versus the pseudo line array of the RM40)"

But the X isn't a true line array is it??

The bass section and FST aren't true lines -correct?

Or maybe the FST is because it's only playing such high freq.?

I can't see how the woofer section could be called a line array at all.

I have the formula somewhere on freq. and length to make something a 'true' line array. Can't find it right now, so maybe I'm wrong about the FST but I've said this before and no one ever corrected me.

"-Tweeter: Moving the tweeter up or down has a dramatic effect on the warmth and soundstage (FAR more than I would have ever expected)."

Do you mean 'moving' as in moving the ribbon's L-Pad level or moving as in the tilt of the ribbon?
And either way... do you mean 'warmth' as in tappering off that ribbon's output lowering or raising the top octave and a half of audible treble?

If not... what effect you mean?

Also can you explain what effect it has on the soundstage? You only said it 'had one'?

Also... are the Neo's in a sealed sub-cabinet in the X and 40's ?

I've 'heard' the Neo in the 626 is sealed off, but never got a clear answer on the RM-40 or the RM/X?

Thanks!

[ekovalsky]

The RM/x has a 10" mid-woofer, like the RM-40.  There are active & passive 12" woofers (both 10" in the RM-40).  The 12" active woofer fires to the side, not to the front like the RM-40.  The woofers are also enclosed in cabinets which are much heavier with more internal volume.  So I think the bass section is more efficient than the RM-40, and a better match to the 94 db/1w neo ribbon array and 96 db/1w ribbon tweeter.  Low bass is also more extended, apparently flat to 20hz (24hz on the RM-40).

The front baffle starts off 6" thick but then the swoopes are carved out from that.  RM-40 weighs 240 lbs, RM/X weighs 375 lbs.  Don't know the thickness of the other parts, probably at least 1.5".  The cabinets are very costly to build (and apparently time consuming, based on my wait time!).  I don't think B has a big profit margin on these speakers because of the cabinetry cost.  These will not be built and shipped from China anytime soon.  The whole speaker is sealed, there are no noisy ports but rather a slot loaded, mass damped passive radiator.  Not sure if the bass section is isolated from the midrange section, and whether or not there is internal bracing.  Maybe B can clarify these issues?  Doubt a speaker this massive needs much internal bracing, usually that is seen in smaller designs. The tweeter is isolated in its adjustable "pod".

True, the RM/x isn't a full range line array.  But bass is omnidirectional no matter how the drivers are aligned, and the tweeter doesn't cut in until 7khz.  So it is a true 48" ribbon line array from 166 hz to 7khz.

With typical room gain in the bass, the slower falloff of SPL from the line array, and the high efficiency tweeter the driver output levels probably match very well.  Of course there are the mid & treble fine tuning controls too.  The putty remains somewhat of a mystery to me, I've removed about a lima-bean size piece of it from each PR on my RM-40's.

You're welcome to come listen to the RM/x at my house in the near future.  Last I heard they are going out week after Thanksgiving.  They are supposed to be pretty, with walnut inlays into the piano black.

Compared to last time, there will be a bunch of changes, including 100 sq ft of fiberglass absorbing panels in the dead-end of the room, bass traps in four corners, and new electronics (dCs Elgar+/Purcell/Verdi instead of SF Trans3/Proc3/Line, PS Audio P1000 instead of Furman IT-1220, PS Audio C250 instead of Aragon 8008BB).  PS later to be replaced by BPT 3.5 Sig & either Ampzillas (painted black and without trekkie logo) or maybe Pass Labs.  Room is also now symmetrical.  And house is mostly decorated  

PS -- you're also welcome to help me unpack/move them if you're interested...

[John Casler]

Not sure if the bass section is isolated from the midrange section, and whether or not there is internal bracing. Maybe B can clarify these issues? Doubt a speaker this massive needs much internal bracing, usually that is seen in smaller designs. The tweeter is isolated in its adjustable "pod".

When I was at the factory I got a chance to see several pairs of cabinets in various states of manufacture and assembly.

The ribbons are isolated from the woofer section and of course the FST is in its own "pod" just "Free Swinging" away at the top

I didn't look close enough to see if there is any internal bracing, but the wall thickness looked like a small safe.

These are indeed the most impressive speaker structures I have ever seen.

[ekovalsky]

John, you're going to have good news for me tomorrow, right ???

If not

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Wow. Looks like this is "grill Julian" day   . No problem. Let me start in order:

Hey Jim:
No hard feelings from this end. I don't mind people keeping me honest but I think I need to make sure everything is in the correct context. When you make it down to Austin, you definitely need to come hear my RM/Xs. Based upon the numerous converations I had with Brian when I was setting them up, my gut feeling is that mine sound better than Brian's (partly due to my room but more importantly due to all the "tweaking" I did to them). I have no doubt that his RM/Xs sound great, but "the devil's in the details" (and small things make big differences with the RM/X). When you read UTLAWs review, the first time he heard the system it was using Brian's recommended settings and then when he heard it the second time it was after I made my own modifications.      

As far as I can remember, I never made the blanket statement that "the RM40/RMX with Trinaural is the best sound I ever heard". I did say on my website review that "The soundstage was like nothing I had ever experienced" which is a statement I stand by 1000%. I am still amazed at how instruments actually sounded like they were beside/behind me. The magic of the TriP is that all three front speakers don't have to be exactly alike in order to get the effect (but my guess is that it might help).

Prior to the RM/X, the RM40/626R setup was definitely the best overall sound I had heard (specifically from spaciousness/harmony/soundstage perspectives) . As you know, the RM40s and the 626R are VERY different animals. In my case, it was even more of a difference since my RM40s are FST/Auricap and the 626Rs are Spiral/stock. While both speakers are fantastic, the true magic that integrated everything together was in the Trinaural Processor. With the TriP, the center speaker has by far the most impact on the overall sound. Even with the panning subjects (ie., Branford Marsailis walking around the stage on Trio Jeepy), there was only a very small timber change even when using the RM40/626R setup.  

AZRYAN:
Actually, I think Eric did a fantastic job answering all the questions for me. To add a little to that, here is some more thoughts:

1) The 12" woofer on the RM/X means they are physically pushing more air. Since they are very close to the ground (versus up in the air like the woofer on the RM40), they also get additional bass coupling. It actually took me quite a bit of moving the speakers around before I was able to get the bass to suitably match the mids/tweeter (it was initially too strong for me but YMMV).

2) By "tri-coupled" I do mean the  active 10", 12" + passive 10". With the RM/X, bass peaks/suck-outs seem to be reduced by half (or more). My primary listen position is purposefully placed in a bass pseudo-null in order to maximize imaging. When I have customers over that complain about there not being enough bass, I just have them stand up and take 1 step back (usually no complaints after that). With the RM/X, there is almost no noticable difference it bass output within a 3 foot radius of the primary listening position. The room modes haven't magically disappeared, but the side firing bass seems to create first and second order reflections that mask them to a large degree (or perhaps the longitudunal waves are just reduced and blend in with the stronger tangiential ones).    

3)As for "Dramatic Effect" with regards to the passive putty, I just mean the bass tightens up significantly. With the RM/X, the effect is more pronounced than with the RM40. I probably spent 10 times as much time trying to get the RM/X putty correct as I did with the RM40s. The RM40 has about a 1/4 pea size range in which the sound gets better, is optimized, and then gets worse. With the RM/X, the range seemed to be closer to 1/10th of a pea. If you take a large fingernail size of putty out, you can easily go past it without realizing it (something I initially did several times).  

4) At CES last year, Brian had a slide show of the cabinet making process which showed an incredible amount of internal bracing. I can't remeber the exact numer off the top of my head. My experience with poorly made cabinets is that higher frequency vibration can be a bigger problem than low frequency. I have heard some cabinets that had a "shimmering" sound that tended to cover up some of the detail in the mids. No problems with that on the RM/X.

5) Putting a side beard on the RM/X to determine baffle effect sounds like an interesting experiment. Might have to try that.

6) I agree that I was not technically correct when I was talking about a "true line array". Putting on my engineering hat (yes, I AM a Rocket Scientist   ), what I probably should have said was that for a majority of the mid-panel frequencies, the RM/X produces a a single cylindrical waveform versus that of the RM40 (which has the tweeters in the middle and thus does not have the same level of integration over the 166Hz-7kHz range). Whatever you want to call it, I think it does make a difference.    

7) When I say "move the tweeter" I meant tilting it (that is the only direction it moves). The difference it makes is something that you will just need to hear for yourself. I personally have no idea why it makes the difference it does and am not sure I could adequately explain it. Sorry.

Hope that helps more than hurts.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[Brian Cheney]

The RM/X cabinet is constructed with baffles of varying thickness.  The front baffle is 5 3/4" max and 1.5" minimum thickness where the swoops are deepest.  Sides and back vary from 3" to 1.5".

The cabinet features five 1.5" thick "window" braces spaced about every 12".

I con't know of any commercial MDF cabinet made as solidly as the RM/X.

[James Romeyn]

John, you're going to have good news for me tomorrow, right ???

If not

My bet is no, but I hope I'm wrong...A mutual friend (of Brian & myself) visited Dorn's shop last week.  During his visit with me at the firehouse he described your cabinets, which appeared to be in the middle of their production cycle.

[James Romeyn]

I knew something was awry.  How can some shlub fire lieutenant compete in audio consulting with a daw-gon rocket scientist?  This is all wrong!  

Anyway, below are two Julian quotes:

Hello mcrespo71,
Do I personally think that my current System (System = room + speakers + electronics + accessories) is "better than live"? For most music that is well recorded (CD or SACD), absolutely. I know that is blasphemy, but I am neither a "tin-ear" or an audio neophyte. What is my basis and benchmark for my statement?
 ...

Sedona Sky Sound



Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 104
Location: Austin, Texas
 Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 7:37 am    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hello Marbles,
It is always really hard to say that a speaker is "X percent" better than another but I think I actually have an answer this time.

Take your RM40s and point them straight ahead (no toe-in). Now, turn all the pots full counter-clockwise. Once you have done that, scrape all the mortite off the passive woofer. After listening to this "de-tuned" system for a while, re-tune everything using correct toe-in, pot positions, and mortite. THAT is roughly the difference between the RM40s and properly set-up and configured RM/Xs.

I hope that helps.

Julian



My understanding is that Julian's reference system is the Trinaural Processor with X center & L-R 40s.  I will put this as succintly as a schmuck like me can:

It appears impossible that two speakers as dissparate in performance as described above could possibly produce high quality sound when combined in a front array.  I believe Julian must either edit/minimze his description of the differences, or otherwise explain how two speakers so disparate in performance could possibly produce sound so high in quality.  To me, the two posts could not possibly both be correct.  In fact I'd wager it's impossible.  When the 40s pots are turned to "full counter clockwise" as Julian states clearly above, the L-pad's wiper/ouput shorts to ground.  When that happens the sum total ribbon array output is zero, nadda, nothin, zippo, bubkus.  With the PR unloaded the sum total RM40 output is an incredibly incorrectly loaded pair of 10" active woofers & one 10"PR.  Does Julian stand by this?  

I also believe Julian is fully capable of stating exactly, in terms of percent, how much better he thinks the X is vs. the 40.   It's only his opinion, but he certainly can arrive at some number that best describes it, in spite of the fact that others may strongly disagree.  

yor autiofile corezpondent

[azryan]

Eric,

"-You're welcome to come listen to the RM/x at my house in the near future.-"

Hey that's really nice of you! It had crossed my mind but I wasn't plannig on bothering you about it, but since you offered... heh

I do have all those tracks I listened to at your place all on on CD now. Plus a few others that are great recordings. Some of the clearest most dynamic CD tracks I've ever heard.
If I do get an invite after you get your X's I'll bring CD-R's you can keep (can't hurt to bribe eh? heh).

PS -- you're also welcome to help me unpack/move them if you're interested..."

Whoa-- Hold on! heheh... well...
I guess that could be fine.

I mean when I shatter my spine while tipping up the left speaker you'll be able to take X-rays and show me just which vertebrae are shattered and explain to me exactly why I'll never be able to walk again! hehe

You do remember how tall I'm not, and how huge my arms aren't don't you? hehe

You oughta have Casler shipped in a third crate! hehe (and John you better know I'm just jokin' around).

"-And house is mostly decorated."

hehe. Man, my friend and I both thought it was PLENTY decorated/stunning as it was!? WOW!

Anyway... Your system really should be night and day from what it was like last time!

"-100 sq ft of fiberglass absorbing panels in the dead-end of the room, bass traps in four corners-"

(the most important decoration there is! heh) Awesome!
I didn't want to insult you at all when I was there, but I really wanted to get across that I felt treatments were very much needed. Glad to see you doing it!

"-(dCs Elgar+/Purcell/Verdi instead of SF Trans3/Proc3/Line-"
WOW! You really changed EVERYTHING! Yikes! Only A+ gear for you!!

You're getting rid of that PS Audio amp in that short a time?

You seemed to describe a very 'rich' sound from it that I didn't hear w/ those Aragons?
Too rich now? Just feel there's better?

Just wait... "Too rich" could also be a good punchline here for you! hehe (you know you love those 'green eyed' jabs! hehe)

You ever consider a digital amp like that new Solar Hi-Fi Fusion model? You could get monoblocks of it and the price is going up soon I heard?

Or the Spectron dig. amps. I know you didn't seem to want to look into the eARTwo I've got but I would suggest that one too.

Just seemed like you had a list of several amps and thought a very refined digital model might deserve to be on that list?

Is that walnut inlay going to be on the sides above the grill area above the woofer? I sure liked the walnut veneer on your 40's!
How's the 'inlay' going to be diff. from veneer?


I'm confused on this point...
"-There are active & passive 12" woofers (both 10" in the RM-40). -"

Julian said-
"-By "tri-coupled" I do mean the active 10", 12" + passive 10".-"

The 10" megawoofer vs. 12" megawoofer is the only diff. cone from the
40's right?

"-The 12" woofer on the RM/X means they are physically pushing more air.-"

You mean 'can' push more air right?

Like I was saying at any given volume the 40's and X's should be pushing the 'exact same' amount of air right? -unless one's got the bass tweaked louder than the other, but ignore that variable.

Doesn't matter if it's a 8" woofer or a 15" woofer. Same amount of air being moved at any given SPL.

The larger cone should be more effi, lower dist., and higher 'max' output though so not at ALL like I'm saying the X's are the same as the 40's. Just trying to clarify the 'pushing more air' comments.

This might be an issue for those w/ lesser speaker knowledge that might be confused and think that at 'whatever volume you're at'... the X's would be 'pushing more air' than the 40's.

"-As for "Dramatic Effect" with regards to the passive putty, I just mean the bass tightens up significantly.-"

Do you mean the bass is "tighter than you're able to get the 40's to be"..., or do you just mean that "it's a lot more touchy to get that same level of tightness", 'cuz it seemed like you were just saying the latter and I didn't want to take what you said wrong.

"-At CES last year, Brian had a slide show of the cabinet making process which showed an incredible amount of internal bracing."

Awesome! Certainly something I've wondered about all this time and never knew till now!

Hey, those slides seem like they'd be just the sort of thing that would be perfect for the VMPS web site eh? Must be some reason they're not though since the last CES about a year ago?

Eric,
"-Doubt a speaker this massive needs much internal bracing, usually that is seen in smaller designs.-"

Hmm... I've found the opposite to be true? The larger each panel of a speaker's cabinet is, the easier it is to get it to vibrate (look at a looooong steel bridge. They actually sway in the wind, but a small section of the same bridge wouldn't flex a bit inside a hurricane).

-of course we'd have to be talking two cabinets that are the same wall thickness as eachother (often smaller cabinets are thinner MDF than large speakers so that doesn't count).

Smaller cabinets too usually can't fit larger drivers so they often don't have the heavy vibration on them as cabinets w/ large bass woofers.

Knock on a Wilson WATT monitor. Rock hard. (crazy price too but not the point).

My heavily braced cabinet would 'knock/feel' more like the 40 if it had no bracing at all (in fact I knocked on it before I put the bracing so I'm not guessing).

Sounds like the X's have a lot/plenty of bracing! Killer!

Can people expect cross bracing like this in the 40's being made in China?

Julian,

"-I agree that I was not technically correct when I was talking about a "true line array"."

Cool. Yeah, it just bothered me to see the phrase 'true line source' everytime I read about this speaker. It should be re-phrased on the web site too IMO.
It's awesome enough to just describe it as it actually is.

Not that there's anything wrong w/ it not being a true line source since I know the L-pads let you adjust the SPL of the neo line w/ the FST and woofer sections to level match them at your listening distance -where normally a hybrid point/line design would have problems with the assorted distances people might be sitting from them.

-One of the 'quirks' I found in my Newform 645's which are a point/line hybrid.

Maybe Julian that's related to what you're talking about w/ the dramatic effect the FST has as you tilt it?

I wonder also if it's the effect of the x-over blending at such a high point and maybe getting diff. lobing effects w/ diff. amount of tilt as the FST point source is joining w/ the Neo line source's diff. radiation pattern?

Brian,

"-The RM/X cabinet is constructed with baffles of varying thickness. The front baffle is 5 3/4" max and 1.5" minimum thickness where the swoops are deepest. Sides and back vary from 3" to 1.5".

Again... Awesome!

One question though... the section of the face that's 5.75" is the section that's at a right angle to the rest of the 1.5" thick face right? The jutting out 'frame section' that the neos are attached to?

So while that section is 5.75" (as I thought it'd be as it's the only part of the MDF block that's not ground out or cut away) that's really more like saying it's 5.75" DEEP right?

Since it sticks out so little past the neo's edge (I mean that's the whole point of that wild face) and I assume can't be blocking the neos output behind them... then it must be what... about and inch or so wide on that 5.75" deep jutting out 'neo frame' section?

Totally 100% NOT saying there's anything wrong w/ that, but I just wanted that clarified 'cuz seems like some people seem to think the baffle is ~6" thick, when it's not really?

It seems like as if someone said a side panel is 12" thick. That'd be true but then you'd have to say it's 1.5" deep.

Kinda not really the way anyone would word that.

With these cabinets being SO huge and heavy I think it'd be much easier for people to mistake the facts on the face cutout, and seems to me some people are.

Thanks for the answers guys! I know I can be annoying w/ my questions sometimes but I'm sure there's other people like me interested in the answers.

[ekovalsky]

Yes, major equipment changes.  For various reasons.

SF gear getting older and not sure about long term viability of the company.  Although now Chris Johnson, who designed all this great gear, now owns PartsConnexion and is offering repairs and modifications to the SF products he designed in the 1990's.

Got a good deal on the dCs "stack".  Should be able to eliminate the preamp, although I'll try the Edgar Plus with and without it.  I'll miss the headphone section of the SF Line3 if I sell that unit.

Very pleased with the sound of the PS Classic 250.  But planning on selling it, and probably the P1000, for other reasons.    Check your PM.  Best replacements are probably Ampzillas, or maybe Pass X-250, although I'm also very interested in digital amps.  I may try the Solar units if others have success with them.  And the Linn KLIMAX is supposed to be a great match with the dCs in a preamp-less setup.  Very expensive though.

And yes, the room was in bad need of treatment and rearranging.  Back when you visited the house was practically empty.  It looks totally different after the interior decorator chicks went to work, plus our pool is nearing completion finally.  

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Jim,
I think I may understand one of the problems here. You have things so mixed up that even I am confused   . Let me break this down some:

Trinaural RM/X: The Trinaural/RMX/RM40 setup is NOT my reference system. My reference system is Stereo RM/X bi-amped with Ampzilla 2000 monoblocs with all other speakers removed from the room. As I mentioned in my Trinaural review, there is no suitable way to do a dealer audition of a Trinaural setup. The only good way to demo the Trinaural is to put it in someone's home for a week or two.

When it comes to the Trinaural, all I can suggest is that you borrow Brian's Trinaural for a week and hear the difference for yourself. I THOUGHT I knew quite a bit about music until I got the Trinaural   . It definitely turned some of my pre-conceptions about stereo on its ear. After listening to it for about 10-20 hours, I am positive that it will sound distinctly different (and better) than what you heard at CES.

Onto the next topic: Stereo RM/X. I 100% stand behind my statement that my current reference system is better than anything I personally have ever heard (including Wilson MAXX, X1, JM Lab Grand Utopia, etc.).  I also will not back down from the statement that the RM/X "CAN" sound significantly better than even the RM40s (but this is highly dependent on setup).

You are definitely splitting hairs on the pots comment so I will modify it slightly for your benefit: instead of ""full counter clockwise" replace with ""full counter clockwise without shorting the pot". Happy? I figured something like this would be obvious but clearly I was mistaken   . With that little addition, I again stand 100% behind my comment that this is the "relative" amount of difference between two properly set-up stereo pairs of RM40 vs RM/X speakers. The RM/X portrays better width, depth, imaging, timber, and has a more solid bass than the RM40s. In particular, I would say the horizontal width is maybe 25% wider and the longitudinal depth is probably 2 to 3 times greater   . I don't know how to put a number on the other things. If you or anyone else have more specific questions, feel free to give me a call and I will do my best to explain it (512-332-2907).

AZRYAN:
If I am not mistaken, the 12" drivers are technically pushing more air than the 10" even for a given SPL. The standard formula calculating decibels (acoustic power) is L=10* log10 (W1/W2) or for determining SPL at a certain distance given a reference SPL the formula is L2-L1=20*log(d1/d2). The thing to understand is that these formulas assume you are measuring at a single point on a sphere generated by a point source in free space. If you think of the drivers as having the same cross sectional area ratio on proportionally larger spheres, you will see that the "total energy" of the larger sphere is greater than that of the smaller even though the SPL at a given distance from the sphere would be the same.

To make this concept a little easier to visualize, lets do an unrealistic  experiment. Lets use one driver with a diameter of 10 feet and another with a diameter of 1 inch. Using a specific frequency (lets say 200Hz for the sake of argument), you measure the SPL 1 foot directly in front of both drivers as 90dB. Now, move your SPL meter vertically 3 feet. For the 10 foot driver, the SPL is still 90dB. For the 1 inch driver, the SPL is now 80.5dB. The 1 inch driver is acting as a radiating point source while the 10 foot driver is still acting as a sphere generated by a very powerful point source several feet away. When it is all said and done, bigger drivers energize the room more (i.e., "move more air" in non-technical slang   ).                

However, the fact that the 12" driver is closer to the ground (i.e., boundary layers) is still what seems to be the most important in my "real world" experience.

You are correct when you said "it's a lot more touchy to get that same level of tightness". There is roughly the same level of "tightness" on both the RM/X and RM40s. But since the bass is much more forceful/impactful/etc. on the RM/X, there is also a greater relative effect to getting this correct.

As for the slide show, I would be more than happy to put the pictures on my website if someone could send them to me. Brian basically has two possible issues with posting the images 1) It is a nightmare for him to get his web designer to update anything 2) Posting the images may give out trade sectrets (specifically to Cloners or overseas manufacturers). While there are many things regarding the RM/X that could be patented, no patents were ever filed due to the extreme cost of patenting an idea. Brian remarked to me at CES that no-one else would ever be as foolish as him to try to deliver the speakers at his price point   .

From here on out, I think I will respectfully bow out of this thread. Please send me a PM or give me a call if you have questions. Thanks.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[Brian Cheney]

The front baffle is indeed 5 3/4" thick. and Dorne informs me he now uses HDF instead of MDF.  Where the swoops are cut away the baffle thickness varies continuously from 5 3/4" to 1 1/2" which adds considerable strength.

[lifewithmusic]

Julian:

Saying your "system" sounds better than Wilson Maxx or X-1 or JMLab says nothing (except to deluded Wilson/JMLab lovers, and owner-wannabees).  Heck, the RM-40s at CES 2 years ago cleaned up on Wilson's I've heard in a custom tweaked room (without paralell walls, Corning sound treatment, $60K Levinson electronics and front end).  

The only competition VMPS might have is from SoundLab A-1, for speed (but Brian's base is better), and to some extent Magnepan 20.1, and MBL's big omi's (but Brian's base is better).   Have you made any comparisions to any of these?  Cones can't compete with Brian's midrange and HF drivers.  Period.  For me there is no debate whatsoever.  (And I think that honest magazine reviewers would agree.  Instead, they just don't review.  Or if they do -- like Listener's review of the RM-2, or Bound for Sound's review of the stock RM-40, then Brian's gear wins.  And if you consider price . . . no contest.)

(pardon me for being enthusiastic, but I think also objective, and honest.)

So, can you offer a more meaningful comparison to ribbons or electrostatics, etc?