[TheeeChosenOne]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=262037&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

Do you think this 626r (I believe it's w/ the FST) review down about the middle of the page of this thread is accurate?

Any comments?....................

[Sa-dono]

If you mean regarding bioforce's/John's review, then no. John's a great guy and all...but definitely heavily biased and ga ga over the VMPS speakers Both are great speakers that everyone could be proud of owning. I just feel his heavy leaning towards the 626R's being better in pretty much all regards to sonics is rather misleading. Definitely a sign of his personal preference, which is how it should be read. Just my 2 cents. Let the "trash talk" begin John!      

[John Casler]

Hey now.....  

I think if you read my review carefully,:o  it would be difficult to challenge my assessment.

I tried to point out just how close these two speakers were in sound quality.  

I also pointed out all my biases, and preferences.

I hope no one gets the impression that I "trashed" the Ref Ones, since I basically said I thought they were within inches of the best Monitor I know of under $4500, the 626R.

Sa-dono was present and has much more experience with the Ref Ones than I.  This must be taken into account when making these evaluations.  

I, in turn, have already spent considerable time with the 626Rs.  This additional familiarity offers more insight into their performance abilities.

While I have heard the Ref Ones, three times now, this is the first time I have "taken the sweet spot" and critically assessed qualities relative to the 626R.

And while I hear what I hear and conclude what I conclude, there is no mistaken that I have a similar "zeal" for the VMPS ribbons as Mad Dog and (I guess Sa-Dono) have for the Ref Ones.  Ga, Ga is probably putting it lightly.

Other than the fact that I don't care if my speaker is finished like very expensive furniture, I'm not sure where my assesment falls down.

I can fully explain the psychoacoustic phenomenon of convergent signals producing soundstage and imaging and how "limited dispersion" is friendly to this "ultimate quality" and "greater dispersion" is damaging.

So in my estimation, it is a bit of a trade off, since they cannot mutually co-exist in equal sonic accuracy.

I would be disingenuous, to offer any other perspective than how I hear it.  I used a rating system of qualities that "I" look for, and evaluate.  Others might use different criteria, or even have differing evaluations of the same criteria.

I also strongly suggested that these were "very limited" circumstances and the evaluations should be taken in that light.

OK, Sa-Dono, bring on that TRASH TALK now  

What did you hear that I missed, or what did I hear that you didn't?

And just as a reminder (for those who don't know me) I am a VMPS dealer, which some might say causes "extreme" bias, but in my defense, I became a dealer because I like to "offer" what I feel is the best product, not because I make a few dollars.  It just makes it easier to place a product you use yourself.

And I should also add that we had a great time playing with these speakers, and also were rewarded with a very "ear opening" experience when we added in a couple unexpected components, which offered some very discernable differences.

OK guys, let me have it      

[Tyson]

Some people like the sound of ribbons, other's don't.  That's not a conflict, just a difference in preference.  It's all good. . .

For the record, I prefer ribbons and own VMPS RM40's.

[Sa-dono]

Hey now.....  

I think if you read my review carefully,:o  it would be difficult to challenge my assessment.

I tried to point out just how close these two speakers were in sound quality.  

I also pointed out all my biases, and preferences.

I hope no one gets the impression that I "trashed" the Ref Ones, since I basically said I thought they were within inches of the best Monitor I know of under $4500, the 626R.

OK, Sa-Dono, bring on that TRASH TALK now  

What did you hear that I missed, or what did I hear that you didn't?

Don't worry John...no hurt feelings..and I didn't feel that you were trying to "trash" the Ref 1's. I'm just stating that your personal preference and bias does show through. I do feel that the Ref 1's better the 626R's on certain sonic attributes, which is where the difference arises. But yes, you did fully state your association and bias, so in that respect, I do understand your review. I guess I could go into the differences..but not sure if it matters. Both speakers are great, and you can't go wrong with either one.

[TheeeChosenOne]

Sa-Dono,
Actually I'm curious about the differences where the Ref1 did better.

Care to elucidate?...........

[Sa-dono]

Sa-Dono,
Actually I'm curious about the differences where the Ref1 did better.

Care to elucidate?...........

Okay..since you asked. It has already been mentioned about the Ref 1's overall better looks, dispersion, and higher WAF. I would generally be much more likely to agree with Mad Dog's review of the two. However, there are still a couple sonic differences where I feel the Ref 1's better the 626R's. Some of this will of course fall under personal preference, but given my EXTREME familiarity with the tracks I played, I am going by what was more accurate (since this is my goal..and seems to be John's as well).

The first major difference is in the attack, impact, and tactile slam of the Ref 1's compared to the 626R's. This is audible throughout the whole range of frequencies. It is made the most apparent when listening to rimshots, bongos, congos, etc. The 626R's just lack the impact for these, and overall lose out on some dynamics to accurately play the right levels. There is a recessed sound to such instruments and sounds..in that they are not reproduced at an accurate SPL level comparitive to the rest of the music. As such, some of the micro dynamics are hurt on the 626R's..especially on pianissimo passages.

The second major difference is in the tightness of the bass. The 626R's bass is in no way sloppy, however, it does not quite portray all of the tightness and impact that should be there. This was noticable listening to the kick drum...and extremely important to me, considering how difficult it can be to tune the kick drum to be nice and tight, impactful, and yet still have a full and low bass tone. This was also made apparent in the bass solo that John played, the funkiness and transient response from each note was not quite there.

The third major difference is in the treble and overall frequency response in the highs. The Ref 1's extend a little higher than the 626R's, helping to give proper airyness to the sound. As such, the Ref 1's are able to reproduce the whole note accurately. You can hear all the resonance to cymbals, the impact and resonance when the drum head of the toms are hit, when a pianist steps on the pedals, etc.

This is by no means to take away from how great of a speaker the 626R's really are. If I had the room and budget (for another set of gear good enough to make use of the speaker's abilities), then I would love to have a pair of 626R's for another setup. However, since I am restricted to only one pair of speakers for my 2-channel setup, I do prefer the Ref 1's, as they have a more natural and accurate sound to my ears. You really can't go wrong with either speaker, and owners of each should just enjoy the music and look like    

[James Romeyn]

One of my customers' monikers at AA & HD is JonBee (unsure of spelling).  He has owned some of the most highly respected speakers, incluiding large Apogee, Quad, Revel, & is very faimiliar with the incredibly overpriced offerings from Wilson.  Read his posts regarding the 626R at AA & HD.  He was not paid or reembursed in any way for his posts.  He has a large following of fellow posters who will state unequivicolly that his word & evaluatiuons are to be trusted regarding speakers.  He has sung the 626R praises like no other spkr.  I got several other sales from readers familiar with his posts.  Personally, in direct comparison, I find the antiquated technology of cone/dome spkrs useless.  Don't prejudge VMPS based on prior experience with ribbons, because of several differences: monopole vs. dipole radiation pattern, Neo magnets, & widerange mid from 166-7kHz.

[brad b]

One of my customers' monikers at AA & HD is JonBee (unsure of spelling).  He has owned some of the most highly respected speakers, incluiding large Apogee, Quad, Revel, & is very faimiliar with the incredibly overpriced offerings from Wilson.  Read his posts regarding the 626R at AA & HD.  He was not paid or reembursed in any way for his posts.  He has a large following of fellow posters who will state unequivicolly that his word & evaluatiuons are to be trusted regarding speakers.  He has sung the 626R pra ...

I think you have also indicated your bias, as you infer that cones are an inferior technology and antiquated.  Even though I own speakers utilizing ribbon tweeters, I would hesitate to state that ribbon technology makes cone technology obsolete.  It will be interesting to see where the cone manufacturers focus vs. ribbon.  Kind of like computer processers.  Pentium 4 vs. AMD etc.  Not sure there is a "right" or "wrong".  How it is integrated into the final cabinet and room will make the difference IMO.
Brad

[James Romeyn]

What is the exact brand & model name of the "Ref 1".  I'd love to do my own comparison with a buddy to compare my experience with Sa-dono's.  I hope my assumption that it is a dome/cone spkr is correct?  A 2-way, I suppose, with it's XO smack in the middle of the range of the human ear's peak phase sensitivity, 1500-3kHz, I suppose?  Like every other useless cone/dome relic?  With a cone/moving coil assembly having about 50x the mass of the VMPS ribbon mid, yet X'd only 1.5 octaves lower?  I really want to hear this dome tweeter, again with about 20x the moving mass, extending higher than the spiral ribbon on the 626R.  I've been through this so many times it's rediculous, yet still they line up for a shot.  Am I blocking?  The above described cone/dome supposedly has quicker transients, & better pianissimo performance?  Any explanations for this apparent performance difference?  Were the 626Rs defective?  Did the 626Rs have the mid terminal repair?  Am I missing something?

[Sa-dono]

One of my customers' monikers at AA & HD is JonBee (unsure of spelling). He has owned some of the most highly respected speakers, incluiding large Apogee, Quad, Revel, & is very faimiliar with the incredibly overpriced offerings from Wilson. Read his posts regarding the 626R at AA & HD. He was not paid or reembursed in any way for his posts. He has a large following of fellow posters who will state unequivicolly that his word & evaluatiuons are to be trusted regarding speakers. He has sung the 626R praises like no other spkr. I got several other sales from readers familiar with his posts. Personally, in direct comparison, I find the antiquated technology of cone/dome spkrs useless. Don't prejudge VMPS based on prior experience with ribbons, because of several differences: monopole vs. dipole radiation pattern, Neo magnets, & widerange mid from 166-7kHz.

I'm rather unsure of the whole point of your post. Was this directed at me? If so, I am not prejudging VMPS by prior experiences of ribbons. I happen to rather like VMPS speakers and ribbons in general. Also, as Brad has mentioned, you're judging cone/dome speakers. In the end, it is all about implementation, synergy among the system, and personal preferences...and not what technology is used.

[James Romeyn]

Sorry, I missed the brand name in the post thread title: "Onix".

[Kishore]

Some people like the sound of ribbons, other's don't.  That's not a conflict, just a difference in preference.  It's all good. . .

Amen to that-Nice quote

Sa-dono, every one has their own personal preferences-please don't be shy in sticking to yours

John stated his preference/feedback, you/mad-dog might have other impressions..it is very useful to capture and this is useful info for any reader. Esp for a person who wants to make a choice (I don't think many buy 2-3 brands and make their decision after hearing all of them in their room)

Keep it going!

Cheers,
Kishore

[James Romeyn]

I'm rather unsure of the whole point of your post. Was this directed at me? If so, I am not prejudging VMPS by prior experiences of ribbons. I happen to rather like VMPS speakers and ribbons in general. Also, as Brad has mentioned, you're judging cone/dome speakers. In the end, it is all about implementation, synergy among the system, and personal preferences...and not what technology is used.

I was not thinking of you in making the post.  I mean for persons considering the 626R to read JonBee's posts.  Though it was not directed specifically at you, you could read his posts too if you like.  Seeing as the thread title has 626R in it, it seemed like a reasonable suggestion.  I think the reason the 626R has trounced everything except the larger VMPS ribbons has everything to do with the technology employed.  In this reagrd, you are flat out wrong, IMO.  Cone & dome technology is slower.  All other things being equal (designer talent, etc.), the VMPS technology wins everytime.  Just like my friend's 700HP nitrous 9.0L Vette is not going to loose a straightline race to a 450HP turbo Porsche.  To say the difference is implementation or synergy, or something other than power to weight, is wrong.  The VMPS power to weight ratio (diaphragm mass vs motor strength) beats your cone/dome contraption every time.  Just my 2C. I apparently can't listen to the Onix unless someone nearby has a pair, as they are sold only direct.  I'd never waste my money on return UPS when the odds are stacked so far against the Onix.  Come on, a cone/dome 5" 2-way vs a VMPS 3way ribbon, who you kidding?  If the 626R lost, they were broken, that's all there is.

[James Romeyn]

I think you have also indicated your bias, as you infer that cones are an inferior technology and antiquated.  Even though I own speakers utilizing ribbon tweeters, I would hesitate to state that ribbon technology makes cone technology obsolete.  It will be interesting to see where the cone manufacturers focus vs. ribbon.  Kind of like computer processers.  Pentium 4 vs. AMD etc.  Not sure there is a "right" or "wrong".  How it is integrated into the final cabinet and room will make the difference IMO.
Brad

I rabidly wait for the day when a company drops their state of the art ribbon mid or tweeter, spending huge sums advertising with glee the jump up to a better cone/dome technology.  This is really absurd, IMO.  If your room is wrong, fix it, but don't pretend to judge speakers based on room interaction, that is a different subject.  There is a right vs. wrong, positively.  Speed & braking are paramount.  (The diaphragm must accelerate, stop, then reverse directions constantly.)  If two chips are compared, one being 100x faster, in a similar circuit, guess who wins every time?  All else being equal, the manufacturer will be irrelevant, absolutely.  Also, as I posted earlier, every 2way in the world is Xd smack in the middle of the ear's maximum phase sensitivity.  If you like the slower cone/dome, you are not interested in accuracy.  That's my story & I'm sticking to it.

[Rocket]

hello,

i recently had an interesting comparison between my aksa 100 amplifier and an n.e.w. a60 (modified).  a friend came over to my house and compared his amp to my aksa.  i liked his n.e.w. but found in comparison that the aksa 100 was better in all respects apart from the nice sweet top end of the n.e.w.  in contrast my friend preferred his n.e.w. as he likes it's tube sound.

so there you go, as indicated in previous posts this hobby is so interesting as most audiophiles have different sonic tastes.  wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same sound.

btw the sound would have been better with both speakers if the cdp and preamp were of better sonic quality.  i hope i'm not upsetting anyone by criticising there system.

regards

rocket

ps i would like to buy a pair of vmps 626r's just to hear how good they really are.

[James Romeyn]

I was a died in the wool tube lover.  I thought I'd never switch back to SS.  After the Ampzilla SS monos arrived, I could not go back to my great little tube amp.  Yes, with amps, there appear to be preferecnes, as with speakers.  But in the case of the VMPS, the difference in performance is so staggering that even the best cone/dome tech can't keep up.  The Ampzilla's appear to mimic the VMPS performance advantage in that regard.  They have such a performance advantage that even my great tube amp could not compete.

[Sa-dono]

Sa-dono, every one has their own personal preferences-please don't be shy in sticking to yours

John stated his preference/feedback, you/mad-dog might have other impressions..it is very useful to capture and this is useful info for any reader. Esp for a person who wants to make a choice (I don't think many buy 2-3 bran ...

Don't worry...no problems here.

[Marbles]

If I were even thinking about buying the 626R's, I would immeadiately look for another speaker based solely on ribbonspeakers acerbic posts here.......

He jumped into a comparison thread after the comparison had been done and some at the comparo were anwsering the questions.  

Then Ribbonspeakers jumps in    talking trash.....

Good job Jim, hope that was worth turning off potential customers....if any are still interested in VMPS at least Casler has handled himself with class and dignity.

[Sa-dono]

btw the sound would have been better with both speakers if the cdp and preamp were of better sonic quality. i hope i'm not upsetting anyone by criticising there system.

Don't worry..they were changed out.