[bkwiram]

Here's mine:

-New website
-Fewer upgrade options
-All cabs made in same factory (so finishes are the same across models).
-Two new speakers to fill in the line. Clearly the 626, the RM30, and the RM/X are 'up to date' products in terms of performance *and* aesthetics.  (I think the RM30 in black lacquer looks very good indeed.) The RM1, RM2, and RM40 meanwhile feel 'last-generation' in terms of their looks (not necessarily performance).  Can the RM30 show the way for the floorstanders?

I'm thinking a single 'value' floorstander could replace the current RM1 and RM2. This speaker would be a 'junior' RM30 and contain the FST, 1 or 2 midrange planars, 1 or 2 of the 6.5" megawoofers, and a side-mounted bass driver.

The RM40 could be replaced using a taller RM30-style cabinet, with the 6.5" front woofers, 1 or 2 side woofers, four planar mids in a line array, and the FST up top in the RM/X's adjustable pod.  I think that package, if technically practical, would be a killer both sonically and aesthetically.

I realize that many cooks do their best to spoil the VMPS broth, myself included...but it's fun to throw my 2 cents away! You're a patient man, Brian. When I replace my current speakers the RM30 (or an RM40 redone along similar lines) will be on the very short list for the new set.

all best,

BK

[dubravko]

I think it would be a real pity to delete RM2. Even not mentioning it's incredible price, it is currently the only model below RM/X featuring 30cm bass driver, so it's deletion would demand obligatory use of subwoofers for practically all speakers. In my own case this will be very impractical. Bass at RM2 is deeper than with RM40 and I guess RM30, quality of it's bass and integration with midrange is amazing when setup is done right. It takes time to get there, plus equipment, room and positioning must be perfect, but it's very rewarding in the end. In Trinaural they are simply stunning. They are now giving me practically exactly a kind of sound I always dreamed of, and I consider myself pretty demanding. Of course 3x RM/X is something else, but would also present some considerable problems to solve too.

In my view, a speaker consisting of an front array of drivers like at RM30, plus bass capabilities of RM2, would be a perfect VMPS. I guess this is not possible since RM30-like cabinet cannot accommodate 30cm passive radiator in slot loading.

[bkwiram]

Is the passive radiator the principal obstacle to more Rm-30-style speakers in the line? Is the important factor with the PR the size or the mass (or both)?

I wonder if a rectangular PR (like the ones on Thiels) would help maximize use of available space and allow the largest possible active woofers.

As before, I think the RM30 is a very attractive package and I would love to see a similar option one size larger.

best,

bk

[rkapadia@ROOP]

hello bk,

Hopefully I can provide some information regarding your comments:

Is the passive radiator the principal obstacle to more Rm-30-style speakers in the line? Is the important factor with the PR the size or the mass (or both)?

The narrow profile of the RM30 does limit the size of the PR, which is really an obstacle for substantial first octave bass, especally at higher SPL's.  Additionally, the narrow profile of the RM30 significantly reduces internal volume, which is necessary for best performance of both woofers and radiators.

I wonder if a rectangular PR (like the ones on Thiels) would help maximize use of available space and allow the largest possible active woofers.

Rectangular drivers have their own inherent design issues to overcome, including even stress along the entire driver and uniform excursion at high SPL's.  In my opinion, the only only adequate rectangular driver I have heard is of the FAL driver from Furiyama (extremely expensive).  

Currently the VMPS passive radiators are identical to woofers except without the entire motor structure.  Mixing new "PR only" drivers with different active woofers might also negatively imact the seamless blend that VMPS speaker systems exhibit so well.  

The above issues nonwithstanding, having to redesign completely a new line of drivers is extremely costly and time consuming, especially considering the level of work and refinement it will take to improve performance beyond the current drivers.

As before, I think the RM30 is a very attractive package and I would love to see a similar option one size larger.

best,

bk

There exists a larger version of the RM30 - it is called the RM/X .

Kind Regards,

[ctviggen]

What I'd like to see is better advertising.  No one knows about VMPS, even my stereophile friend who got me into this hobby (and was trying to convince me to buy Wilsons).  Better advertising would entail at least a more updated website.   Also, is it possible to get some reviews in the common press?  

I still don't know how I found out about VMPS.

[bkwiram]

VMPS used to advertise in the mags. I recall black and white pencil-style drawings (?) of enormous boxes loaded with drivers. That must have been 10 years ago or more - maybe back to the late 80s.

As for passive radiators - ok, they have to be round. Ok, they have to be big.  Would a little creativity allow one to be side-mounted opposite the active driver in an RM30-style configuration? Could a PR vent out the back, or would that screw things up?

[jgubman]

I don't really understand your problem w/ the RM-30, it comes standard w/ a side-mounted 10" woofer (it's the RM-30C that doesn't have the woof).

Also, even though the RM-40s could be viewed as "legacy" product, you should give them a listen. They're really quite extraordinary at the price. Plus, now they're "new" again, coming in the MLS boxes!

[RickRichardson]

How about a compact ribbon speaker to use a surround speakers with VMPS ribbon fronts.  It would need a smaller cabinet than the 626R and would only need to get down to perhaps 80 Hz, or maybe 60 Hz.  FST could be an option, so the price could be kept down.  This could be used in a THX 5.1 system with a sub.  Bring ribbons to the HT masses.  Also, get a jump on multi track audio headed to a listening room near you.  

While we are wishing, how about a ribbon bipole surround - again only needs to go to 80 Hz and be as compact as possible.

[Enrico]

how about something one step beyond the RM/X? For example, how about a super-multi-tower system: a longer line source with 10 planar mids, interspersed with 3 FST, in one tower, and a double RM/X array of woofers--one on the top, another identical one on the bottom, in another tower. This is 'per side' of course.

[lkosova]

Rick,

there is a Ribbon surround dipole. Search the site and you shall see it. It is interesting looking and I will be getting two pairs for a 7.1 surround.

Larry

[ScottMayo]

I'd like to hear these speakers. The nearest dealer is over 200 miles off. Anyone in North Central Mass have a pair that could I could listen to for a couple hours one evening...?

[Q]

Why not make a system that sacrifices a bit at top end clarity, for those who like more power and impact in their listening experience.  A true line array, with a stack of planar drivers ceiling to floor that have no upper crossover, so that treble can be heard at any height, and a stack of midwoofers beside it, floor to ceiling.  A true two-way.  Hey wait..did I just describe the GR Alpha?  Hmmm..has anyone heard this speaker?

[bkwiram]

Well...I'm not entirely convinced that the RM40 and maybe the RM2 couldn't be made more like the RM30.

The base of the RM40 is narrower than the main cabinet. Let's say the entire new speaker's width was to be roughly the width of the current speaker's base. Further assume that the current speaker's base is 10" wide.

Based on the dimensions given on the website, the RM40 is 66 x 12.5 x 17 and has therefore an external volume of about 14,000 cubic inches. If a new speaker were to be (not counting a top-mounted tweeter) 58 x 10 x 24, that would produce an external volume of about 13,900 cubic inches. Not much difference.

Now, a width of 10" might mean using a 9" front bass driver. (Maybe even 8"?) That might be a 'quicker' driver than the 10" now employed, and there'd be plenty of room on the side of the cabinet to mount say a 12" driver. There would also be room for up to 2 x 9" passive radiators. The RMX gets by with a 10" and a 12" - would 9" and 12" be so bad?

Certainly a 10" (10.5"?) wide speaker is not as narrow as the RM30 at 8" wide. But it's better than 12.5". And a visually shorter, narrower speaker (with a top-mounted tweeter) would also make the RM40 an easier sell for anyone with a roommate. I also think that setting the speaker up this way would make it a nice 'bridge' speaker between the RM30 and the RMX. It could offer some RMXian features (tweeter pod, similar bass module) but not so many that the people who want 'the ultimate' wouldn't pony up for the RMX. It would get the midbass driver down close to the floor (no more Sonic Director tweaks necessary), the tweeter up higher (better for those who like to stand) and it would turn the RM40 into a midrange linesource. Meanwhile none of the cabinet complexity of the RMX (except for the tweeter) would be required.

I'm not trying to suggest some kind of speaker that's not a VMPS speaker - I have no interest in suggesting that Brian should manufacture GR Alphas. But without further admonishments that I'm smoking something, I don't see why a VMPS lineup that's somewhat more aesthetically-friendly across the board is impossible according to the laws of physics.

That's all I'm trying to say!

best,

BK

[bkwiram]

As for Dubravko's RM2 wishes...

The existing cab is 45 x 15 x 16. Why not produce a new version that is 45 x 10 x 24. Cabinet volume remains about the same. One FST, two midrange ribbons, one front-firing midbass driver at 8" or 9", and one 12" sidemounted bass driver.  

Price would increase by the amount necessary to add a front-firing midbass driver and maybe one extra PR. Otherwise the drivers would be the same and the cabinet should not be significantly more complex than the existing one (well, there'd be a hole in the side to make).

Point being: if side-firing woofers work (and the RMX seems to show they do) then why can't VMPS speakers in general be deep rather than wide?

bk

[bkwiram]

I should have said - if side-firing woofers AND dual passive radiators work - and the RM30 seems to show they do - then etc. etc.

[Rory B.]

I hope Brian doesn't get rid of the RM1 or RM2 - I was going to buy an RM2 set when I was out of college. That way I wouldn't need a subwoofer in my reference system.

The downfiring passive radiator is necessary in order to have the slot-loaded passive radiator. That way mass doesn't need to be hung on the radiator diaphragm itself but instead is created by the slot loading. I think this helps get a "faster" bass, because I have heard some bad things about some passive radiator systems where especially heavy weights are hung on the PR.

[bkwiram]

My point is not that the RM2 should be 'canned.' Only that it might (?) be just as good or even better sonically, and definitely better aesthetically - and producible at a similar price point - if it were narrower and deeper rather than roughly square as it is now.

This idea depends upon two major assumptions: 1) that a side-firing woofer does not introduce significant compromises (when paired with say an 8" or 9" front firing midbass driver), and 2) that 2 smaller PRs can work as well as 1 larger PR. I think I have argued successfully that the cabinet volume need not decrease. (No one has rebutted me, at least!)

[flintstone]

Great speakers for the money, but should you ever need replacement parts....a very bad company to deal with. So, I guess my wish would be for better support after you have laid out your hard earned cash.

Very poor company for after sale help, I would not buy from VMPS again unless this changed.

Dave

[tkp]

Very poor company for after sale help, I would not buy from VMPS again unless this changed.

Dave

Dave,

Can you elaborate on this?  I am under the impression that VMPS customer support is up there with the best.

[zybar]

I have learned that Brian is very reponsive about "most" things...he just has his way of doing it.  

That being said, I would like to see better qualitycontrol.

I have had too many part failures.  

George