What is the best upgrade path for the RM40 originals?

koteng · « **on:** 26 Jan 2006, 12:38 pm »

Hi everybody,

I need your help.

I have the original RM40's and I want to upgrade them. I have done some the tweaks suggested here (sheeps wool, glue on passive, etc).

Now it's time to get them to the next level.
My budget is $1000,- inclusive shipping.

I do not want to ship the speakers to the factory, as that cost to much.

Please advice on which upgrades gives the most bang for the buck.

Thank you,

Roger

ctviggen · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 01:22 pm »

I would say the FST and the midbass.

CornellAlum · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 02:31 pm »

Midwoofers, FST, blackhole 5, MLS cabinets if you are really adventurous.

JoshK · « **Reply #3 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 02:44 pm »

Roger lives in Norway if I am not mistaken so the cabinets might be super spendy to ship there. If at all reasonable though, I'd order new cabinets rather than rework the old ones to fit the FST tweeter (if you have spiral ones now).

The FST to my ears was a major step up, the Midwoofer also transformed the speakers. I'd also suggest vitrifying your passive radiator, adding bracing (if you don't order new cabs with it already done) and add whispermat, BH5 or other available dampening.

If you are a decent woodworker, you can probably do the FST upgrade, but otherwise it is not a super accessible upgrade.

woodsyi · « **Reply #4 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 02:47 pm »

Given the budget and practicality, I would say cabinet bracing/damping and CDWG with cap upgrade coming in third but it will put you over budget. It's just that you will have complete access to them while you do the black hole treatment that it would be a "shame" to let that opportunity go by. You will have to ask Brian if there may have to be a tweaking of filter poles with the CDWG. Midbass becomes a non-issue with CDWG and the spiders may fare better with CDWG.

woodsyi · « **Reply #5 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 02:51 pm »

delete(duplicate)

koteng · « **Reply #6 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 03:13 pm »

Thank you for all your answers.

Josh is right. I live in Norway, so a cabinet upgrade is out of the question.
I do have a shipping adress in the US.

Do Brian offer a bracing option for the old cabinets, or do I have to make
them my self?

I am really interested in the CDWG upgrade. I think that would be my first choice.

Will I loose the benefit of the FST or the Midwoofer upgrade with CDWG installed as woodsyi mentions?

Roger

woodsyi · « **Reply #7 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 03:36 pm »

Roger,

I am not saying you will lose the benefit of those upgrades. Given your budget and logistics, I think CDWG, BH5 damping and adding a few dowels to brace the cabinet will be the best approach. With CDWG and the reduction in midpanel output, midbass to me is no longer an issue. FST is difficult to do on the field and has that horn issue with CDWG. It may still be better than the spirals but I don't know. Nor do I know how the twin spiders would do with CDWG.

ctviggen · « **Reply #8 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 03:52 pm »

I think the midbass added a lot of improvement. I would opt for that, given that it's a simple drop in/solder one cap process. However, I don't as of yet have the waveguide. So, Josh's word is better than mine in that regard.

JoshK · « **Reply #9 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 03:54 pm »

I don't have the waveguides either.

ctviggen · « **Reply #10 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 04:14 pm »

Woops! Sorry, I meant woodsyi.

koteng · « **Reply #11 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 05:24 pm »

Quote from: woodsyi

Roger,

I am not saying you will lose the benefit of those upgrades. Given your budget and logistics, I think CDWG, BH5 damping and adding a few dowels to brace the cabinet will be the best approach. With CDWG and the reduction in midpanel output, midbass to me is no longer an issue. FST is difficult to do on the field and has that horn issue with CDWG. It may still be better than the spirals but I don't know. Nor do I know how the twin spiders would do with CDWG.

Ok wiidsyi,

Maybe Brian or John can comment on the benefit of other upgrades togheter with the CDWG?

Roger

John Casler · « **Reply #12 on:** 26 Jan 2006, 10:25 pm »

Quote from: koteng

Hi everybody,

I need your help.

I have the original RM40's and I want to upgrade them. I have done some the tweaks suggested here (sheeps wool, glue on passive, etc).

Now it's time to get them to the next level.
My budget is $1000,- inclusive shipping.

I do not want to ship the speakers to the factory, as that cost to much.

Please advice on which upgrades gives the most bang for the buck.

Thank you,
Roger

Hi Roger,

I think all the advice given is good. I also have to agree that changing the Dual Spiral tweeters to the FST's is quite a job.

That said the spirals will work well with the CDWG and when Brian gets over his flu, maybe he will comment on how well they will work.

Because they are not "horn loaded" they may not have the same slight rolloff above 10K and because their SPLs might not be attentuated the same 1.5db like the neopanels they might just be fine and not worth changing.

That said, you have a few upgrades to consider.

1) The First is the CDWG @ $300
PR for the RM40/CDWG = $84 (pre-vitrified)

2) Midwoofer Upgrade @ $200
Caps if needed

3) SR71 Upgrade @ $100
(based on 4 sheets)

4) Internal bracing (DIY)

All three could be shipped to you for below your budget, which would leave the DIY budget for bracing, as needed.

When Brian get back on his feet, maybe he will comment on the FST vs the Spirals.

BrunoB · « **Reply #13 on:** 27 Jan 2006, 09:11 am »

Quote from: John Casler

Because they are not "horn loaded" they may not have the same slight rolloff above 10K and because their SPLs might not be attentuated the same 1.5db like the neopanels they might just be fine and not worth changing.

...

Hello John,

I would predict that any tweeter will have a rolloff above 10K with the CDWG. The goal of horn loading a tweeter is to increase the output level at lower frequencies. So, removing the horn of the FST decreases the total output of the tweeter, but more so at lower frequencies. Consequently, the frequency response of the tweeter is not flat anymore, which is what is needed to counter the CDWG rolloff.

Bruno

koteng · « **Reply #14 on:** 3 Feb 2006, 04:59 pm »

It would be nice if Brian could comment on this...

I would have thought that both spirals would roll of above 10 kHz with the CDWG, making the roll of twice as steep compared to a single FST?

Roger

ctviggen · « **Reply #15 on:** 6 Feb 2006, 04:40 pm »

But since you have two of them, there'd be double the power or 3db increase, so I'd think you'd get the same response as the FST. I guess the only way to know is to test it.