[ScottMayo]

I finally made good on my threat to replace my Infinity QLS-1's with RM-30's for back channel support. Now there are black monoliths all around me. I'm surrounded.

This part isn't going to be a review; the RM-30's arrived today, and still have bits of styrofoam on them, I haven't messed with the levels, and just did preliminary positioning. I'm only after one question this evening - how is it different back there with the (much larger and older) Infinities
out, and the pretty (and relatively small, in comparision) RM-30's in?

I've spent the last couple weeks with Blue Man's Group _The Complex_ playing, just about nightly. In part because I just like BMG, in part because I like drums, in part because their composition Exhibit 13 (with the video, which the DVD offers) is one of the most moving pieces I know. I know the album inside out. At least I thought I did.

The RM-30's revealed sounds in the rear channel that I'd actually never heard before. I knew the Infinities were getting tired (20+ year old speakers, after all) but I was astonished at the new detail. Buzzes, squeals and whispers snapped into clarity.

And - no surprise here - the RM-30's meld with the RM/x's sound seamlessly. They have the same flavor; sounds that pan from an RM/x down the side to the RM-30 don't change character, except slightly in the bass.

But the big shock was the imaging. On surround duty, the 30's are not placed in the equilateral triangle with the listener that I like for imaging; they are much farther apart. They still managed to put voices and drums directly behind my head, and at varying distances. That's something the Infinities had simply not done (gotta get those crossovers rebuilt!) The soundfield was completely enveloping. _I Feel Love_, with Annette Strean's voice creeping around, became eerie.

Any minuses? Well, the 30's bass, while strong and tight, doesn't move as much air as the Infinity's massive forward-facing woofer, with its double coil design. But for that, I have this Larger sitting in the garage, waiting its turn...


--- Day 2

I've uncrated my Larger, but not hooked it up yet - the amp for it is on order. I didn't opt for the integrated amp: I don't like putting amps inside subwoofers; the amp gets shaken wildly and that can't be good for the mean time to failure - and might not be good for accuracy, either. People have been known to put fantastic effort into vibro-isolating their gear, so why put any amp at ground zero of the most violent shaking of the room?

The Larger is massive - I'd forgotten how big it was. It makes my Earthquake sub look small and cute. I had some vague idea of keeping the Earthquake in the room and building a crossover that would consign it to frequencies below 18Hz, basically making it into a buttshaker. Looking at the Larger, I'm pretty sure that's just not going to be needed. I'll get enough "shake".

I put on Norah Jones, a 5.1 SNo tenseness to the sound; and no trace of syrup. I try to decide if they are bright or just right; I haven't yet touched the pots or putty. I tweak the orientation, getting them to crossfire a foot in front of me, just where the mains cross. That solves the suggestion of brightness.

But it's hard to stay analytical with Norah and focusing on the back channels is dull. I flip to _The Nearness of You_. Norah's voice sounds like it's about two feet behind me and to the right. It's a fascinating effect but it can't be right... I look up and realise the cardboard box from the Larger is between me and one of the RM/x. It had been blocking the midrange but not the tweeter. I kick that to the side and the image straightens out; Norah's in my lap now. Now it's *really* hard to be analytical. I give up. Sometimes music gets to be music.

I fall asleep to Norah. That's promising; I've never relaxed enough to drift off in front of speakers unless things sound right. When they are wrong I'm up, fidgeting, poking at wires and settings.

--- Day 3

I have to do this: I've got the RM/x in one corner and the RM-30 in the other, so to speak, and how many times do people get to do a comparison of the two?

I'm not going to reposition the RM-30's - I have them where I like them for surround sound: about 22' apart and firing inwards sharply. Not ideal for imaging, but a good compromise for 5.1 music and HT. I get a low stool and sit a foot behind where they crossfire, facing the back of the room. I'm only about 8 feet from the speaker line; this is nothing like an equilaterial triangle.

From the get-go the comparison is uneven. I'm using a Bryston ST amp for the 30's, an SST for the RM/x. The SST is more accurate and (IMHO) very slightly less bright. The back wall (now the front wall, of course) trapping is absorptive, not diffusive, and the 30's are shoved deeper into the corners, close to massive bass traps. But I'm not making a buying decision on the comparison, just roughly feeling out what I have. I decide not to fret about the uneven test conditions, and just see what happens. Maybe it's Christmas mellowness, or maybe I just don't get the urge to be rigorous when I'm working with a manufacturer I already trust.

I kick in the VMPS demo disc. And I blink.

My first thought is that the imaging is nearly as good as the RM/x's. I skip to the 4th track, which has rolling percussion that shifts around. My next thought is that it might be better. I move my head, knowing that the sweet spot is going to be small and the imaging is sensitive to this. I find the sweetspot is a little wider and a little more diffuse as regards imaging. With the RM/x, you're in the right place or you aren't, and you can tell the difference. With the RM-30's, there's a little more play. I find I can move my head and keep the imaging rock solid, but adjust the treble that way.

The bass is eerie. These speakers are too small to put out that kind of tight, accurate bass. My "big box" bias takes a beating. The RM/x still has an edge here - just as accurate, but more uthority - but it's not that immense a diference difference. The 30's have NO trouble filling the room with clean, got-your-gut bass.

After a lot of listening, I decide the imaging in the midbass is the equal of the RM/x's, if not better, but not quite as good in the way up there treble. I put this down to the RM/x's adjustable tweeter pod, the extra 250# of mass in the RM/x, and the fact that I sit back further from the RM/x, giving the treble more space to open out. In a better configuration, the 30's will image as well as the RM/x's as makes no difference, I'm convinced. And I'm amazed - I thought the vast mass of the RM/x would have given more of an edge here.

I focus on tonal balance next. The RM series is adjustable in this regard, so I start playing with the pots. The 30's seem more sensitive to the adjustments - fussier. Brian's standard instructions talk about making final adjustments one tick at a time. With the RM/x's, it just didn't seem all that critical. With the 30's, I discover, it is. The tweeters show no mercy; get them wrong and cymbals don't shimmer. Get them right and they do. Get them too hot and the broken glass in the Dire Straights track pops into the foreground, where it isn't supposed to be. Everything matters.

I end up with them set very close to the factory settings. They sound like small RM/x's - a hair brighter and not quite as "I am the law and the prophets" authorative, but sharp and crystal clear. Like the RM/x, the speakers vanish, leaving sound. It's eerie.

I crank them up, hard. That doesn't work out. They do not have the dynamic range of the RM/x. The fill the room without effort but they will not shake the walls without compromise. Score for the RM/x, which will crack plaster accurately and with no sign of strain. (The RM/x sound unstrained up to 95db at the listener position. I don't know what happens after that. I like my ears.)

I turn them well down. Like the RM/x, they hang in there, maintaining some amount of detail all the way down. I could see using them for nearfield (the RM/x would be an awkward choice for that), but I don't see using them on an 8W rig, as I know some have. They want a shot of power to open up and sing.

I do find I miss the vertical range of the RM/x. You use the 30's sitting down. I can stand and still get glory from the RM/x.

I get distracted by Rickie Lee Jones doing Dat Dere. The imaging and detail is unbelievable. I start thinking about putting the RM/x's in a wider configuration; maybe I've been depriving myself of a wider sound stage out of sheer traditionalism. Maybe life *starts* at 60 degrees.

Anyway, I'm beyond impressed. I like the RM/x better, but I'm in a large room. In a small room I'd take the RM-30's and be very, very happy. Add a Larger and you've got pure wonderment for less than some people spend on an amp.

Yeah, I'm keeping these.

[ted_b]

So where are the RM30's in relation to the listener then?  110 degrees, 130 degrees?  I have RM/X's with the RM30 center.  My surrounds (Alon Centris) are at 90 and 150 but I've been toying for some time with the thought of having dedicated 5.1 rear speakers for mcg music only, too, thereby relegating the Alons (dipoles) to movie 7.1 stuff, and instead of having the current kludgy both-sides-and-rears-in-5.1-hirez-listening-playing-the-same-channel, I'd get a pair of RM30's and have them at around 130 degrees ( compromises the NARAS and ITU spec), and able to be pushed out of the way.

[John Casler]

So where are the RM30's in relation to the listener then?  110 degrees, 130 degrees?  I have RM/X's with the RM30 center.  My surrounds (Alon Centris) are at 90 and 150 but I've been toying for some time with the thought of having dedicated 5.1 rear speakers for mcg music only, too, thereby relegating the Alons (dipoles) to movie 7.1 stuff, and instead of having the current kludgy both-sides-and-rears-in-5.1-hirez-listening-playing-the-same-channel, I'd get a pair of RM30's and have them at around 130 degrees ( compromises the NARAS and ITU spec), and able to be pushed out of the way.

Hi Ted,

It sounds (reads) like Scott has them at slightly less than 90 degrees.

I have been "VERY" pleased with a similar set up (90 degrees) with dipoles "SETTING ON TOP" of either RM30s or (before that) Tower IIs.

In fact the effect is absolutley "STUNNING" on movies.

Let me further explain.

I have the side speakers (in this case RM30s) at 90 degrees.  I then have a 26" speaker stand on top of the RM30s with a pair of DIPOLE speakers on top.

They can be run in dipole, monopole, or TRIPOLE simply by plugging or unplugging the speaker wires (they are wired in parallel)

I have to say for almost all applications the TRIPOLE sound is the best.  It gives the dispersion and fullness, with the right amount of directionality.

So in effect, you could use "both" your Nolas and s pair of RM30s and find a new level of performance.

[John Casler]

Anyway, I'm beyond impressed. I like the RM/x better, but I'm in a large room. In a small room I'd take the RM-30's and be very, very happy. Add a Larger and you've got pure wonderment for less than some people spend on an amp.
...

Hi Scott,

Great comments, and right on assessment.

The RM30 is one of those speakers, that can give it all, for a price that belies its virtues.

And with the recent addition of the CDWG it goes even further. (Wait till those arrive)

I have precious little listening time, but with the time I do have, my 30s have shown me that they give me what I feel has been placed on the recording a little else.

Not flavor, no extra this or that, simply Sonic Purity.

If you didn't have the RM/x I'd say stick them in for front duty for a while, but you do.

Ya gotta realize that with a pair of RM/x, a LRC center and a pair of RM30 surrounds, ........

It really doesn't get too much better than that

Merry Christmas to you  

[ted_b]

Less than 90?  In front of him?  

Sorry, but I wouldn't put my hirez surrounds any less than 110, and probably 130.  Most newer engineered hirez stuff is at 135 degrees anyway.  90 is way too lateral for me.  My sides are 90 but when I play them for 5.1 (and leave the rear 150's off) there is very very little side/rear imaging.

[John Casler]

Less than 90?  In front of him?  

Sorry, but I wouldn't put my hirez surrounds any less than 110, and probably 130.  Most newer engineered hirez stuff is at 135 degrees anyway.  90 is way too lateral for me.  My sides are 90 but when I play them for 5.1 (and leave the rear 150's off) there is very very little side/rear imaging.

That's the way it reads, Scott can clarify.  
Standard ITU is 110, I beleive.

[ScottMayo]

Less than 90?  In front of him?

The 30's are at about 110. The RM/x's are at about 30ish. The 110 is a compromise; good enough for movies, not quite right for 5.1 music - but the imaging on the 30's is strong enough that I'm able to pull it off.

When I want to listen to just the 30's, I just face the back of the room. The sound stage is very wide, but that's not so bad.

[ted_b]

Yes, standard ITU is 110 but as I said earlier most engineers (Michael Bishop leading the way with his statements on the Web) are now mixing for 135 degrees (NARAS standard).  Ahh standards...so many to choose from.

[ted_b]

Less than 90?  In front of him?

The 30's are at about 110. The RM/x's are at about 30ish. The 110 is a compromise; good enough for movies, not quite right for 5.1 music - but the imaging on the 30's is strong enough that I'm able to pull it off.

When I want to listen to just the 30's, I just face the back of the room. The sound stage is very wide, but that's not so bad.

Phew, that's better.  Yes, I could easily live with 110, but in a perfect world I'd love to go 130, especially with the great off-axis capabilities of a CDWG RM30.

Scott, sounds like a great setup.  !!