[James Romeyn]

Auditioned 12/27/03

I heard a stereo pair of RM30Ms with the Auricap capacitor upgrade in VMPS’ LEDE soundroom, with all their regular components.  Single Ampzilla monos per speaker.  I am very familiar with the audible characteristics of the room & equipment.  Software was Alison Krause SACD live & a Mozart opera (CD, sextet, full orchestra, the superb baritone owns RM40s).  The speakers were eminently musical & appealing beyond anything I remember sampling.  The detail & vanishingly low audible distortion in the range covered by the line-source ribbon array were preferred over the RM40s fully symmetrical driver layout.  Staging, imaging & layering were absolutely unimpeachable, & would likely be quite startling to someone unfamiliar with gear at this level.  There was a palpable texture & dynamics in the transition range one octave below the mids, better than any prior VMPS speaker, as might be expected with the new carbon dual 6.5s & higher XO frequency.  In this area the RM30 appear to exceed the RMX (currently virtually unavailable).  Macro & micro-dynamic contrasts on the opera cut were stress-free, limitless & immediate, like live music.  Even with the extreme detail, absolutely no fatigue over the 45-minute audition, just a desire to keep listening, but I unfortunately had to leave.  The bass was similar in quality but it could use more & deeper extension.  Two of the new “215” model subs were in the VMPS Luxo-van at the time.  The subs had up to that time only been heard during burn-in at the Plant.  The designer mentioned a few days later that it was world’s better with the dual 215s added, & I’m sure it was.  215 Sub: 15" Megawoofer + 15PR (hence the name), SoundCoat, MSRP $649ea, except for the larger woofer hole identical cabinet as the Original Sub: 12" standard woofer + 15PR, add $75 extra fore SoundCoat, MSRP $499.  

This being the case, the First Class ticket on a beer budget may be two RM30Cs with one sub sited midway between them (Larger Sub best, Smaller/Dedicated subs go to 28Hz) OR one sub near each RM30C (two subs total, model depends on budget & your relationship with the neighbors).  

We are currently auditioning the $400 PartsExpress.com "1000W Subwoofer Amplifier", P#300-808, 1000WRMS @ 4 Ohms, A-B output, integrated variable XO & single-band parametric XO.  It is so far the best value I know of for its intended purpose.  The EQ neutralizes the single worst room mode, an audible advantage of Herculean proportions, as expected.  Two negatives: its 8” square enclosure & 12" control/faceplate were designed to site within a sub enclosure, not ideal for shelf siting.  When the music input signal stays below a threshold voltage for a particular duration, it switches to standby.  The threshold may be too high, plus there is a brief turn-on delay when the threshold is exceeded later.  It might be possible to override or lower the threshold, but is not required & would likely void the warranty.  Overall, the amp seems irresistible, especially value wise.  You will likely never consider going w/o parametric EQ after hearing one in your system.  For what it offers, $400 is the proverbial "steal".

Prices estimated including delivery: RM30C $3k + Larger Subwoofer $600 + "1000W SW Amp" $400 = $4000 for a system that should, from top to bottom, kill anything you've ever dreamed of, including the RM40s.  Start with just the RM30C now if preferred, or if you already have an active SW.  Add for capacitor or SW options.          
 
One note, if a sum total one sub is desired & it must be sited beside one speaker rather than centered: without having tried this, one might audition an RM30M on one channel with an RM30C & the sub on the other channel.  The bass output will exceed dual RM30Ms, & hopefully maintain channel balance.                

Personally, I think the RM30 reviews coming over the next couple of months will exceed every superlative of the RM40 except lowbass cutoff & quantity.    

Hope you all have a happy & prosperous new year.

[Housteau]

Thankyou for the review.  Your description, as well as Brian's, is a description of near ideal expectations.  With these sounding so good and with all the possibilities just starting to emerge, how do the other older VMPS 'flagship models' fair in contrast?  The ones I am refering to are the Super Tower III's, the SRE FF1 and the SRE FF3's.  Then again there is the RMX.  How do you think an ideal RM-30/subwoofer set-up will compare with that new all-in-one design?

[ctviggen]

Well, this makes it all the more harder to select which speakers to buy.  To me, the RM40 still makes more sense, as it has lower bass.  I've personally never heard a speaker/sub system that I've liked, but maybe an RM30 with subs would be preferable over an RM40 system?  I've always found that speaker/sub systems don't sound good because there's too much of a drop typically from speaker to sub (in terms of getting the crossovers and power/loudness adjusted correctly) and it even seems to be the case that this changes per song -- some songs sound great while others do not.  I remember visiting a place in Scottsdale, AZ, where they had a two channel system with a sub for the bass.  The system was at least 100k retail, and they were constantly adjusting the sub.  How hard is it to get proper matching between one or two subs (preferably the latter) and speakers?  Also, what do people think about one sub as opposed to stereo subs?  The common theory is that bass below a certain frequency can't be located, but every time I've hooked my single sub into my stereo system, I easily located the sub, which made stereo not enjoyable (it reduced the imaging qualities of stereo).

[zybar]

Bob,

Since I recently purchased my 40's I had to make this decision (granted without anybody hearing the 30's yet) as well.

I selected the 40's for pretty much the reason you mentioned.  I was using Silverline Sonata II's with dual REL Strata subs.  Although they did integrate pretty well, it meant two more boxes, more cables, and more adjusting.

I figured since the 40's can be bi-amped, I could tune that way and use up less space.

If you wait just a bit, it sounds like you will be able to get a pair of 40's with the newer crossover.  If you are looking for a killer deal on a used pair of 40's, you should contact "Horsehead" here on AC.  I heard his speakers and that was why I bought mine.

I look forward to talking with you.

GW

[Redbone]

I've always found that speaker/sub systems don't sound good because there's too much of a drop typically from speaker to sub (in terms of getting the crossovers and power/loudness adjusted correctly) and it even seems to be the case that this changes per song -- some songs sound great while others do not. I remember visiting a place in Scottsdale, AZ, where they had a two channel system with a sub for the bass. The system was at least 100k retail, and they were constantly adjusting the sub.

Bingo, that's exactly what I am finding trying to biamp the 40s.

[John Casler]

   I've personally never heard a speaker/sub system that I've liked, but maybe an RM30 with subs would be preferable over an RM40 system?  I've always found that speaker/sub systems don't sound good because there's too much of a drop typically from speaker to sub (in terms of getting the crossovers and power/loudness adjusted correctly) and it even seems to be the case that t ...

If you use "stereo subs" (for music) and place them flanking your mains to eliminate phasing issues, barring room problems you should be able to get great integration.

If you use your system for HT and Audio then you need the new Marchand/Summit x-over which has HT pass through so you can run the LFE output directly to the X-over and no cable switching.

Once the subs level is set for both applications, you should never have to make any adjustment as long as you are using "unity" gain.

[James Romeyn]

Well, this makes it all the more harder to select which speakers to buy.  To me, the RM40 still makes more sense, as it has lower bass.  I've personally never heard a speaker/sub system that I've liked, but maybe an RM30 with subs would be preferable over an RM40 system?  I've always found that speaker/sub systems don't sound good because there's too much of a drop typically from speaker to sub (in terms of getting the crossovers and power/loudness adjusted correctly) and it even seems to be the case that t ...

The RM30 & RMX (quasi) linesource sounds different vs. the 40s symmetrical array.  I prefer the linesource.  Also, it's a fact that a 30/sub system covers more floor space, but the 40 casts a larger shadow & really can not be seeen around.  As for this moment, soundwise I'd personally prefer two RM30Cs with one Larger Subwoofer & the PE "1000W Sub Amp" with integral EQ, $4000 delivered total.  Soundwise it should kill the current RM40 top to bottom in every way you could think of.  The single sub would be smoothly integrated if centered between & a bit closer than the RM30s, but if placed almost anwhere else, I believe the integration problems described in this thread would appear.

[Housteau]

I guess it would be interesting to see the RM-40 reconfigured as a linesource, similar to the RMX, with both woofers low and tweeter high, adding in the new crossover learnings from the RM-30.  There is something about taller speakers that appeals to me.  I guess I prefer a more majestic look, not that the RM-30's look bad, far from it.

[sharper]

Jim,
      Thanks for the tip on the subwoofer amp.
Scott

[JoshK]

Housteau, you read my mind.

Jim,

I still am leery of the RM30s for one reason.  Standing up.  What happens to the sound when you are walking around versus the RM40's for the same?  All of the mid panels are down relatively low, this was a concern for me.

[Rob Babcock]

Am I the only lazy bastard that never listens standing up?   Maybe for a minute while I'm on my way to the fridge for a beer.

[jgubman]

No, I listen sitting down also, too hard to read standing...

One thing I do like about my RM-40s though is the big soundstage they project. I listen nearfield, and my pet theory is that having the mid-panels both above and below my ears makes the sound seem "bigger".

Dunno, it'll be interesting to hear the RM-30s!

[mcody1]

John Casler

If you use your system for HT and Audio then you need the new Marchand/Summit x-over which has HT pass through so you can run the LFE output directly to the X-over and no cable switching

- John -
Can you provide a link or more details on this x-crosover? I Could not find anything at Marchands website.

thx
 
[/quote]

[John Casler]

John Casler

If you use your system for HT and Audio then you need the new Marchand/Summit x-over which has HT pass through so you can run the LFE output directly to the X-over and no cable switching

- John -
Can you provide a link or more details on this x-crosover? I Could not find anything at Marchands website.

thx
 

[/quote]

It's something I have made special as an add on option to the Marchand.

Just e-mail or call me privatley for details (I will be leaving for CES early Thurs and won't be back until at least Sat night)

[doug s.]

ok, so what is the official werdict re: listening to the rm30's whilst standing?  

thanks,

doug s.

[ctviggen]

As for standing, for critical listening, I sit.  So standing isn't a big deal for me.  I'll have everthing calibrated for one seat in the room.  I'd have to use stereo subs, simply because I currently have one system that is also used for surround sound.  I've been toying with having two systems (one dedicated two channel, one surround), but the space and monetary requirements can get onerous.  I have a Jeff Rowland amp, Proceed AVP, Bryston 5-channel amp, etc., and setting up a complete separate system is going to kill me financially. I currently have a RPTV, and although I'm heading toward a nice projector in a basement idea, I'll have the RPTV for a while.  I personally think that the requirements for a surround system are much less than for stereo, but is it better to have nice equipment that does both, or compromised equipment for both, or most of your money in the two channel and little in the surround (and I can't do the latter, as I already have enough in the surround).

[James Romeyn]

I only sat in Brian's sweet spot.  I apologize I did not stand up & check the polar response.  About a year ago maybe longer, probably at HarmonicDiscord.com, John Cassler wrote the best thing I've ever read on the dispersion subject.  It was centered on the VMPS ribbons in general & the RM40 in particular.  The point is relativism: away from the sweet spot the VMPS sound is generally in the ballpark with other brands.  The problem arises because the sound is just so much better in the sweet spot (better than other speakers & better than the same speaker away from the sweet spot) that the contrast is increased when compared to the sweet spot.  

I know there is a wide range of sensitivity to dispersion patterns.  I fully respect other listeners who require a particular dispersion for ultimate satisfaction.  Personally, I am so much more satisfied with the overall VMPS ribbon performance that the dispersion is seldom an issue.