[SWG255]

Last Monday night a friend and I traveled into Washington D.C. to visit Lucius Morris at Dynamic Sound Audio (www.dynamicsoundaudio.com) where I listened to the Von Schweikert VR-4 Gen III SE and the VMPS RM40 with TRT caps and FST. i planned to purchase the speaker I preferred. I spent the prior weekend making three "demo CDs", one rock, one jazz and one "classical". I didn't try to put a lot of audiophile stuff on these CDs, but rather tried to get a cross-section of the kinds of music I listen to all the time with selections chosen to highlight features of the speakers' sound.

Lucius demonstrates his equipment from his home, and i found him to be a gracious host and his listening room to be more than adequate for the job. The room was large, sadly I didn't get the dimensions, and i thought the room was a trifle on the "warm" side of neutral, if that description makes sense for a listening room.

 The reproducing chain included a CD player by Accuphase, Pass Labs electronics, including DAC and x200 amps, a Z-Systems digital volume control and cables by Analysis and others. I honestly didn't pay too much attention to the upstream components because the same gear was used to drive both speakers. I listened to the VR-4s with their rear firing tweeter in the 12 o'clock position, and the RM40s were set "flat". i didn't try to make either speaker sound better by playing with these controls.

By request, the VR-4s were up first and were hooked up and ready when we arrived. I began with the rock CD, with Joan Armatrading's "Opportunity" from Show Some Emotion. I like this as a reference to see how the two backing vocals are presented by the speakers. I was very favorably impressed with the VR-4s right from the start. They had a slightly warm/sweet sound, with excellent transient response particularly from their tweeters. The sense of inner detail and spaciousness was far better than my current speakers, which was good, since i was hoping to buy them and it would be hard to justify to my wife that I spent $5950 for speakers only a "little better' than my old Synthesis LM-300s.

We worked our way through the rock, jazz and classical selections, with the VR-4s aquitting themselves admirably throughout. They had deep bass, good imaging, very good detail and were pleasant to listen to. On some cuts the dynamics were portrayed very differently than i expected. Some things like "Cry Love" from Mary Ann Redmond's second CD didn't have the punch and drive it seems to have on my system. This I think was due to the wider dynamic range of Lucius' system than mine. With very dynamic material, there was no evidence of compression of any kind.

My final impression of the Von Schweikert VR-4 is of a very fine loudspeaker for the money, well-suited for systems needing a little extra warmth and sweetness. With cello and other strings, female voices, especially those like Eva Cassidy or Rosa Passos, the sweetness was both easily heard and very pleasant.

After going through the three CDs, cursorily listening to every track, and lingering on some to really focus on qualities of the VR-4s, we disconnected them and hooked up the RM40s. I honestly have to say at this point I was prepared to buy the Von Schweikert speakers. Within the time it took to play 2 rock cuts, starting with the Joan Armatrading again, a couple jazz cuts and two orchestral selections from my classical sampler, i had completely changed my mind. The RM40s just delivered more; more inner detail, more natural timbral reproduction, especially with male voices and cellos, more dynamics and a much larger soundstage/image. I felt they were much like the maggies with their "you are in the music" presentation. no, they didn't sound like maggies, as all those on the VMPS forum are quick to point out, but they do have that very big sound. my friend and I soon noticed we were listening to the RM40s at levels higher (almost 10 dB higher!) than the VR--4s, and the sound was much less fatiguing than with the Von Schweikert speakers. This was a startling revelation to me, because i didn't think i was hearing distortion or other artifacts contributing to listening fatigue from the VR-4s.

To make a long story a little shorter, I wrote a check for the VMPS speakers on the spot. i want to emphasize that if I hadn't heard the RM40s , i would've been very, very happy with the Von Schweikert speakers. In fact, the RM40s don't do everything as well as the VR-4s. The very deepest bass is a little louder on the VR-4s, but on cuts like Bela Fleck's "Flight of the Cosmic hippo", the RM40s showed better control and more inner-detail when reproducing those very bloated bass notes Victor Whooten is playing.

I also liked the way the VR-4s looked in person. Von Schweikert would do well to redo the photos on their web site. my wife actually said she preferred the looks of the RM40s, even though she understood they are substantially larger than the VR-4s, when I showed her the web photos of the two speakers. In person the VR-4s look elegant and very well "finished". The RM40s were lacquered black, also very striking, but I was already told that if I bought "2001 black monoliths" my speakers and I could have a nice life in the back yard. I ordered the RM40s in dark oak.  

I've talked to several folks who say the VMPS are just loud, based on their experiences at audio shows. What i heard last Monday was a speaker capable of great subtlety as well as great impact. With full orchestral music it just sounded much more alive with the orchestra spread out in space. I could hear more inner details like the usual chairs creaking, but the instrumental tambre was also more natural. The VR-4s seemed to add a slight amount of "sweetness" to female voices, acoustic guitar, cellos and violins. The RM40s were more neutral with more detail. The VR-4s did go lower, by just a little bit, and they had more mid-bass energy, but the RM40s presented the bass with more coherence and detail. In some ways the two speakers were very much alike. They reproduced solo piano with a sweeter, less "clangy" sound than the speakers I've lived with or heard until now. Both have an amazing ability to make the music sound "alive", with the RM40 having a substantial edge in detail, neutrality, soundstage  and dynamics. I just don't know how I am going to stand waiting the four weeks it's going to take to get the VMPS RM40s! BTW, the waiting period for the VR-4s was said to be six weeks.

[Oxia]

my friend and I soon noticed we were listening to the RM40s at levels higher (almost 10 dB higher!) than the VR--4s

No offence, I really don’t mean this as a slam in any way, but did you really mean it when you said that you were listening to the RM40 at 10db higher than the VR4? I hope not, because level matching is critical for conducting a comparison. When doing an A/B comparison, if the levels are not matched, then the louder system will always sound  “better” (i.e. it’ll sound more detailed, the soundstage will be larger, etc.).  If this wasn't the case, then no problem, but I just had to ask. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll be really happy with your new speakers.

[SWG255]

A very good point. We endeavored to listen at nearly the same volume levels, but since I had a volume control on the remote in my hand, I'd jockey the volume up and down with different cuts on my "demo CDs' or even within each cut to get a sense of each speaker's dynamic capabilities or resolving power at sound levels from very soft to rather loud. Once I decided on the RM40s through more controlled listening, we sat back and played a couple cuts on them with what I thought was a fairly high volume. I couldn't see the output indicators on the volume control, so i was surprised when Lucius told me I was playing the RM40s louder than I had been playing them by almost 10 dB. I think he was trying to convey to me the fact that they a) will play louder than the VR-4s and b) sound "less loud" in the sense of having lower distortion, strain or harshness at the higher volume levels.

I make no claims that i was "scientific" in my approach to the comparison. If I wanted to be, I should've obtained and brought a SPL meter along at the very least. I've been listening to high-quality audio reproduction since the early 1970's, so i didn't feel I needed to be scientific in regard to choosing the speakers. I find speaker choice is the most emotional one to make for an audio system. If the RM40s and the VR-4s had sounded more "alike" I might have tried to be more rigorous as I listened the second time to help me make a buying decision. They were different enough from one another to make this unnecessary for my decision making process. BTW, no offense was taken by your observation. I'll chalk it up to my sloppy writing. <grin>

No offence, I really don’t mean this as a slam in any way, but did you really mean it when you said that you were listening to the RM40 at 10db higher than the VR4? I hope not, because level matching is critical for conducting a comparison. When doing an A/B comparison, if the levels are not matched, then the louder system will always sound  “better” (i.e. it’ll sound more detailed, the soundstage will be larger, etc.).  If this wasn't the case, then no problem, but I just had to ask. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll be really happy with your new speakers.

[Tyson]

While level matching is useful in some respsects, in other respects it is useless.  What I mean is that every speaker has a "sweet spot" with regard to volume, where is sounds better than it will at a higher or lower volume, so that has to be taken in to account when doing a demo.

The best thing to do is listen to each speaker, find the volume level they each tend to sound best at.  For example, speaker A sounds best at 80db, but speaker B sounds best at 90db.

Then level match both speakers to 80db for listening comparisons, take notes on which you like better and why, then level match both speakers at 90db and take notes on which you like best and why.

That's if you want to be fairly rigorous about it.  If not, I beleive that you can simply listen to each speaker at a volume level that sounds "right" to you, based on your normal listening level, and make your determination from that.

[Oxia]

No problem, thanks for the clarification. I'd say that your conclusion was entirely reasonable and convincing, given that you took pains to listen to both speakers over a range of volume settings to find an "equilibrium". I can empathise with what you said, regarding the ability of a loudspeaker to play loudly without signs of strain. IMO, one of the rarest (and thus most prized) of characteristics for a loudspeaker is to be able to convey detail naturally, with an organic sense of wholeness and scale. Stand-mounted monitors can get the delicacy and detail right, but not the sense of scale without strain. Only a full-range speaker can reproduce scale with ease, but it's rare to find one that also treats the fine details right. It looks like you have.

Cheers, and good luck holding out over the next 4 weeks!

[bboplive]

I felt they were much like the maggies with their "you are in the music" presentation. no, they didn't sound like maggies, as all those on the VMPS forum are quick to point out, but they do have that very big sound.

So what's wrong with the Maggies?  Can anyone recap from comments made from users on the sonic differences between the VMPS RM-40's vs. Magneplanar 3.6R's?  Thanks.

[Tyson]

What's wrong w/the maggies?  They are bipolar, a big no-no for me.  Not tunable either.  Poor bass extension and slam in comparison.  Less waveform fidelity.  Guess that's it

[azryan]

Maggies are dipoles not bipoles. But both mean 'big fat echo' as sound of equal volume shoots out the back as it shoots out the front.

Some people feel this makes an incredible depth that few other speakers can match, and that's true... but it's a fake echo. It wasn't recorded to sound like that.
And some music sound like crap like that.
Enya... Awesome! Nirvana... horrible.

There are HUGE differences in the Maggies and VMPS.  Effi, power handling, dynamics, bass loading, imaging, etc... all of which are better on the VMPS RM-40's IMO.

There are some things I don't dig about the 40's but I'd never take any Maggie over them.

The one thing about Maggies is that there aren't really any speakers like them, so if you love what they do, there's really no other option.

There are a few other speaker IMO that are options compared to the RM-40's, but not too many.

[mcrespo71]

As good as the VMPS 40's are- and they are absolutely stunning speakers, though I have only heard them for a few hours- I will say this about Maggies-  With the exception of maybe Quad's, I have yet to hear a speaker that sounds more like live music than Maggie 20.1's.  However, I agree that they don't image as well as the VMPS or have close to the same amount of slam, but they do sound more live to me.  Just a different viewpoint on two great speakers.

For the price, though, I have not heard anything close to the VMPS 40's that give you this much music that plays the entire frequency range.

[Ferdi]

HI, interesting story. I have once seen the Von Schweikerts and if they seems small in comparison to the VMPS, wow!

One thought about the differences in loudness level. While you may have turned the wick up some more with the VMPS, relative speaker efficiency also plays a role. I haven't checked nominal values so this may be completely wrong. 10dB sounds like a lot though.

[SWG255]

The two speakers are rated at 89 dB SPL at 1 meter for the VR-4 and 90 dB at 1 meter for the RM40 (the RM40 might be 91 dB, but I remember 90). I can think of two things which may account for my observation that the RM40s played louder with less strain than the VR-4s:

1.  The ribbons have substantially more radiating area than the cones and ring radiator in the VR-4s. This plus their arrangement in a "line array" probably allows them to move more air for a given amount of input power than the VR-4. I don't know how this relates to a static microphone measurement of a speakers SPL at a given distance with a given amount of amplifier power.

2.  The RM40s had the TRT capacitor upgrade. i understand one can get a similar upgrade for the Von Schweikert speakers, but it along with better internal speaker wire etc. just about doubles the price for the VR-4. While it would be very interesting to hear the VR-4 in this configuration, it would've been outside my budget by a considerable margin, so it would be an academic exercise at this point, no matter how interesting. However the TRT upgrade might've made the RM40s 'sweeter" sounding (and provided an expanded soundstage) than it would've been with the standard, less costly base configuration. The TRT upgrade may have contributed to the sense of effortless dynamics i heard in the RM40s as compared to the VR-4s.

Again, i have to say that the VR-4s weren't slouches when it came to reproducing dynamics, they just didn't match the VMPS speakers in this regard.