[audiochef]

my apology for being unclear . On the original panels about ayear ago , there were problems within the wiring contact  to the ribbon itself and many drivers were fuzzing out. Brian discovered how to fix this problem and  indoing so,it actually improved its perfomance by my guestamets about 10 to15 percent ie less grainy and more efficient. This is now standard on all his new speakers for about ayear now . If your mids has two screws protruding from them , then they are already tweaked. If not, Brian will up grade them at no charge. I wanted to do them myself but ,B suggested I just I bring mine in so he can do it cause if your not carefull, they can be ruined. Excellent customer service from VMPS

[azryan]

Sorry, I didn't see this was still going. Thought it was a dead thread. Not being a vmps owner I hadn't checked it in a bit...

Anyway...
John C. you asked...

"-I was thinking about the Bass/Mid integration issue AZryan raised in the review and "DUH"!!! It is probably due to a bit of over dampening. I certainly don't have that issue with mine using full frequency sweeps.
Barring the room induced bass affects, the dampening would seem to be the likely culprit."

I think I'd disagree. It seemed to me to be the very close distance were were from the speakers, but I can't say I know I'm right or anything. Just seemed like the better guess to me as the mid range blend in the 166Hz+ range seems like it wouldn't be effected by the pas. rad. very much? Isn't the pas. rad. acting like a port and extending the very low bass.

I wouldn't think that'd greatly effect the x-over to the neos as much as the close distance we were sitting.

Also a freq. sweep is a very smooth thing. It, far more than real music should blend the neos into the bass cones I'd think as it smoothly sweeps up or down through the x-over band? No?

It was when on the NIN track (and I certianly admit this isn't any kind of difinitive test) than diff. bass beats were easily picked out as coming from the neos, and others from the cones.

Eric moved the 40's further back, but it was after we were were done listening, and then even more later and posted about room treatment info after the comments my friend and I made as his totally untreated room I really felt damaged the sound more than it should.

I honestly left feeling that the system didn't do anything better than my system, but that I could have heard much better from the 40's so not ANY negative comment against the speakers. And sorry to make the negative comments about Eric's system.
 
I finally got him to come over and here my system weeks ago and said he'd post comments here...but never did.
 
He commented that at first he had to get used to my room being "so dead", which seemed kinda odd to me since I only have one large wall treatment that kills a bad front to back echo that I'd have otherwise.
I also have bass traps that don't do anything to treat over bass range sound. Carpeted floor (as he has) and that's it.
IOW... it's not really a dead room at all. It's just how much more live his room is.

He also commented that Lorenna McKennit's voice (one of his selections to listen to) sounded like it was wider than normal.
My wife and I both listened to that same track after he left and I just did't hear that at all, nor on anyone else's voices. I wish I could have played him some other vocals like Sade or Tori Amos and see if he still felt he heard that, but I never got to.

That track has Lorenna's voice overdubbed twice in the center and also hard panned on the left and on the right and w/ a reverbish effect on all voices so maybe that's what he was hearing? But I still could clearly pick out each of the 4 overdubbed vocals and they all seemed normal head-sized to my wife and I.
I made sure to listen to that track a bit louder than he had so that I wouldn't been making the image possibly smaller by havingthe volume lower than he did.

He did say that he ddin't think the low end went as deep as the 40's which also seemed very weird to me 'cuz when I heard his set up the bass was clearly FAR thinner. I had no doubt the 40's could do muh better than what I heard. He had since reinforced them much closer to the walls which I haven't heard.

I wanted to play him the same NIN track I heard at his place, but again... I didn't get a chance to. I don't think he listened to anything w/ very deep bass.

If he would have heard NIN I think he'd have found the bass to go Very deep. Also, if he didn't I could have turned on my dual Temepest subs tuned to 16Hz and asked if he could hear anything much deeper. I had done this myself in the past and knew while the subs clearly go lower than the 25Hz rated Alphas, that there's hardly ever any music that goes that deep (great for DVD's though w/ sub killer bass).

He could hear the 'visceral' (as he said) percussion weight on 'Private Investigations' that he didn't hear on his system.

I shouldn't probably comment too much of what Eric heard, but he did say he would comment on AC and it's been weeks now, so I'm fairly sure he won't.
I really wanted to hear what he had to say, and felt it only fair to have him post his thoughts too. So I'm just conveying the few things he said when he was here, and heard my system.

The bass loading of the Alphas in my room trips up pretty much all bass modes (I don't feel the need for the tube traps I have anymore) and it's tight clean bass any where I put them, and do not have them near the walls to reinforce that bass.

Effi. is about equal to a 99db point source on the Alphas from ~12' or so feet away being a line source.

The 40's are rated at about 91db I think, but then that average greatly depends on how much room bass reinforecment you have, and how turned down the mids and neos are. Seems like most people turn those way down from factory setting. It seems hard to know what you've got in a specific 40 set up.

Also the Alphas while much more eff. needing much less power, can handle far more power too.
Honestly, I'm not trying to slam the 40's here, but in some ways it's more in the league above the 40's which is either the X's which aren't a line source either and aren't available or the top of the line VMPS which costs a LOT more, and certainly must do things the Alphas or any other VMPS can't.

There's also no shift in sound from sitting on the floor to standing w/ the Alphas which means you can buy any height chair you want to sit in.

I needed to raise my couch height for my Newforms by 1.5" to hit the ribbon section better.
W/ the RM40's I didn't hear too much diff. in sitting and standing but I think the room was very live and filling in too much, and the distance was too close IMO.

I can only speculate that a further distance would blend together much better, but then maybe then in a less live room you might hear more of a diff. in standing up and being above all the neo panels and much above the super tweeters. Seems like there's 40 owners sitting VERY close and other sitting Much farther away so diff. people think all sorts of set ups are the best.

To me the x-over in the Alphas is totally seamless. And it's a very simple 2-way x-over using top quality parts.

Certainly VMPS uses top quality parts also, but the 40's are a 3-way design w/ a lot more stuff the signal must pass through before it hits the drivers incl. a low pass on the woofers, dual high pass on the neos (I think) and a low pass on the neos, and a high pass on the super tweeter, and resistor pots on the neos and super tweeters. Plus a transfomer and heavily padded down on the FST (right?).

Not calling this good or bad, but I didn't hear an advantage in the neo panels playing w/ no x-over in the critical area and such a high bandwidth, and sepp. super tweeters for beyond audible high end.

And I'm not calling the Alphas better. It's just my opinon that I like the Alphas better.

I like that they're fully wrapped in wood veneer too, and per design has a much harder cabinet due to top to bottom/front to back center 3/4" MDF center brace plate, and 5 side to side dowel cross braces.
If there's any bracing in the 40's I couldn't tell. Eric wasn't sure where if any, and no one mentioned it when I first posted here about it, so please don't get mad at me for saying what I'm saying.

"-Seems to me that Eric has mentioned that he had not adjusted the putty other than removing
the original "pea"."

Well..., talking with him he seemed to be explaining to me that he had attempted to adjust the pas. rad. everytime he's moved his speakers and that it had been a frustrating thing to deal with.
As he's been told that even a tiny fingernail pinch can make a diff (which I've seen written online myself) he was saying that he had removed up to a pea sized amount in tweaking at diff. times.
I don't know how much was removed when my friend and I heard the 40's, but I would have moved the speakers closer to the wall to reinforce the bass and Then mess w/ the putty again.

He pinched off a fingernail bit from the right speaker just to show us, and neither of us could hear any diff. in the bass at all.

IMO, call it good or bad, but the 40's are a complicated speaker to deal with for all the adjusting that is demanded of them.
I guess the potential is that in the end it's set to optimal for whatever room you have, but it sure seems like a goal that's VERY hard to nail if ever. Try to match the 4 pots on the back, and the same amount of putty from each pas. rad. Not easy if even possible.

"-Although I might use frequency sweeps to really ascertain the problem since Nine Inch Nails is not an absolute from which to judge, although it might display a symptom."

Certainly. But I expected to hear a very well set up system w/ 40's and just wanted to hear music I knew on them. I didn't go over there to do advanced testing of his system or anything.

"-AZ, you made the following statement:
 Quote: "Both of our speakers are set 6.5' apart. I think a lot of people have their speakers too far apart IMO. ~8' max for most designs for tightest center image, plus further apart in typical rooms will put the speaks too close to the side walls otherwise I think. No 'absolute rule' though IMO.  Further apart doesn't mean 'wider soundstage' IMO."

"Now I know you are a critcal listener and find this an interesting statement. Is this based on the Alphas? or any/every speaker you have had? Or is it just a room width limitation?
I know that with many "high dispersion" speakers this is quite true, but I have had excellent results placing the speakers more than 12' feet apart.

And I mean "razor sharp" pin point imaging and wide expansive sound stage. I currently have my RM40s over 10' apart and I have my 626Rs "OUTSIDE" of them over 12' apart and the only
apparent difference is that the soundstage of the 626Rs is wider.

But it is just as clean and pristine as it can be.-"

2 part answer....

1) I think you're right about your soundstage comments. I didn't really word my presious comments very well, or was just wrong (but I try not to ever admit that. hehe)

More clearly.... I find that often w/ speakers too wide apart the width of the soundstage to be too wide. Seeing as we're not trying to recreate a real event most of the time (unless it's classical), I think it's just preference.

I was also of the mind that if the speakers are too far apart the center image wouldn't be razor sharp. This has been my random exp. with various speakers, but I think now this isn't always the case which leads to part 2....

2) In fact Danny R. of GR asked me to move my Alphas Much wider apart and toe them in directly to center as he has almost the exact same size room as I do. He gave me a to the inch placement and I did it right away.
See... I had been waiting to re-adjust the Alphas after they were totally broken in, but laziness and not having any problem w/ what I had been hearing led me to do nothing until Danny asked me to try this.

I figure when a speaker's designer gives you a to the inch placement suggestion, I think you Have to do it! hehe

I wasn't able to move my couch back quite as far as he asked for (too close to the double doors into the room) and that kept the center image from being quite as sharp as I had it before (according to Danny), plus 'real world' factor... I was REALLY far from my 65" TV (I didn't buy a 32"!! hehe)!

I now have the Alphas 9.5'  apart and toed directly in, and sit about 12' away from each.

This is about a middle ground between how I had them (which I did find to make the soundstage more compact than it needed to be in comparison to now) and what Danny said is totally optimal.

IMO, the space between instruments sounds just right to me in this set-up. I could still be happy w/ how I had it before, but this IS better. Subtle, and nothing else really seemed to change that I could tell. I still have a razor sharp center image.

I found the 40's to have not as sharp a center imange, but have no problem believing (as I've said in previous posts) that this was totally the room and set up I heard them in.

"-Now if I moved them in to 6.5' I would certainly say that the soundstage would shrink and "bunch up" a bit."

Agreed, but it's also about where you sit too I think.

I was about 11' from them. If you were 6.5' from them in an equilateral triangle... that'd make a BIG diff.
But a moot point since I do agree 6.5' was to close together either way.
 
I should have had them about 8' apart right off the bat on day one while they broke in which would have fit into what I originally said about how far speakers should be apart. And remember I didn't call it a 'hard and fast rule'. hehe

"-As I understand it, the soundstage cannot exceed the outside limits of the actual speaker unless two things happen.

1) There is "reflected" sound off a side wall offering the perception of greater width. In which
case you are listening to the room.

2) There is specific "phase" information (generally not natural) that tricks the brain into hearing sound outside the speaker (such as Waters' "Amused to Death")

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that I agree with you 100%. Damn, and I wanted to argue here! heh  --KIDDING!

The stuff on Amused to Death (Q-Sound) and what are probably random mistakes on lots of other CD's sound like they're coming from my surround speakers which are just slightly behind my couch, and how it sounds too on a test disc that flips a white noise out of phase -like THX optimizer mode on DVD's.
So there I'm talking about a 180 degree phase flip, not stuff that's just somewhat out of phase. That I supose would sound more up front but outside the speakers. I've never studied the phase on specific CD's, just listen to music and think about what I heard.

[John Casler]

Wow AZ, and I thought I could write a lot.  I relinquish my "long winded" crown to you.

I think I'd disagree. It seemed to me to be the very close distance were were from the speakers, but I can't say I know I'm right or anything. Just seemed like the better guess to me as the mid range blend in the 166Hz+ range seems like it wouldn't be effected by the pas. rad. very much? Isn't the pas. rad. acting like a port and extending the very low bass.

Every driver in a speaker system, affects the sound, and quality of sound, of the others.  While the PR handles the very low bass, the putty adjustment affects the whole bass system.  Integration is how these two affect each other in the total sound.

While we many times think of certain instruments as being of a certain frequency, what is not generally acknowleged is that much of the attack and decay, as well as the overtones are produced by other drivers.

And while sitting well away from the system can offer bass advantages, I think you can put on a set of headphones and see that good bass can be present even at less than an inch from your ear.  If we listened to some experts we would have to sit 32 feet away to hear the deepest bass

Also a freq. sweep is a very smooth thing. It, far more than real music should blend the neos into the bass cones I'd think as it smoothly sweeps up or down through the x-over band? No?

It was when on the NIN track (and I certianly admit this isn't any kind of difinitive test) than diff. bass beats were easily picked out as coming from the neos, and others from the cones.

A frequency sweep would let you hear any discontinuity much easier than assuming it is there from a NIN cut, that unless you were in the recording studio, we don't know what it sounds like.

Since each of the woofers in the RM40 handle a different frequency range, which woofer was not integrating?  Since the upper woof is the one that handles the higher frequencies, it would have had to have been that one.  And since it is a dynamic cone, the chances of it not dispersing at that distance are slim, so my suspicion that the system might have been "over damped" causing the cones to responed a little slow, would still seem like the culprit to me, although once again, I wouldn't get to carried away with adjustments based on a NIN cut.

I honestly left feeling that the system didn't do anything better than my system, but that I could have heard much better from the 40's so not ANY negative comment against the speakers. And sorry to make the negative comments about Eric's system.

Well according to the website, the speaker costs around $4900 built so they should be rather similar in performance.

I don't think anyone perceives your comments as "negatives".  Hearing a room, system, and speakers is sometimes a mixed bag.  After spending time with our own speakers, we have them as references (actually even more than live perfromances) and there are bound to be differences.

Most of the time we would like to think our speakers are the more accurate, even if it in on a highly engineered studio recording.

The 40's are rated at about 91db I think, but then that average greatly depends on how much room bass reinforecment you have, and how turned down the mids and neos are. Seems like most people turn those way down from factory setting. It seems hard to know what you've got in a specific 40 set up.

I think most owners adjust their pots to their systems, rooms and personal taste.  I think generally they are shipped a little hot to facilitate break/burn in, but I would much rather have the means to adjust than the alternative to add equalization, make the adjustment through room placement, or have to find the "perfect" amp.

The pots also are great when running tubes or biamping.

Turning the pot a bit is much easier. and I find that many VMPS owners are tweakers.  This adds to the hobby.

There's also no shift in sound from sitting on the floor to standing w/ the Alphas which means you can buy any height chair you want to sit in.

I can see that might be a "plus" for some, but I never do any "serious" listening while sitting on the floor, or just standing around so it doesn't offer me anything.

And the VMPS will work with most any standard height seating device.  If you are exceptionally tall you can tilt them back if you like, no big deal, and the FST virtually eliminates that.

But keep in mind, that "vertically dispersive' soundwaves that are dispersed very high and very low "are" subject to floor and ceiling bounce early reflections and subsequent problems associated with that.

It is impossible to have high and low dispersion and not have it affect the sound from greater reflection form the room.  It just calls for substantially greater room surface treatment.  So it is a trade off.

So limited vertical dispersion is a "plus" for the serious audiophile (one who always listens in the sweet spot) where increased vertical dispersion may be preferable for the "casual audiophile" (one who listens all over the place)

Greater dispersion also makes a speaker sound more "airy" by virtue of all the reflected sound.  Casual listeners seem to like this also.

Seems like there's 40 owners sitting VERY close and other sitting Much farther away so diff. people think all sorts of set ups are the best.

This is very true.  And different systems and rooms with RM40s sound different too.  I recently visited Brian and heard is system again and I have to say the bass is just stunning.  I was sitting well back and I could actually see the neopanels moving much like you see woofers pumping!!!.  I couldn't beleive it!!  I didn't know they could move that much.

This was in a LEDE room at maybe 10-15 feet (I was playing around with the distance since Brian has a listening chair on wheels   ) with tube pre/AMPZilla amps and the FST tweeters.  His speakers were on the short wall and place differently than mine.  But WOW   did it sound great.

Sounds much different than mine but because of the room, electronics and set up.  

I guess the potential is that in the end it's set to optimal for whatever room you have, but it sure seems like a goal that's VERY hard to nail if ever. Try to match the 4 pots on the back, and the same amount of putty from each pas. rad. Not easy if even possible.

Its not as hard as you might think and you're basing that opinion on one listen in one system (and on a NIN CD!!!)  

I doubt if you feel you have your system "perfect" and when you have a few other adjustments it just adds to the mix.

The alternative, is to have to do it some other way, and the pots/putty system seems to work the best.  While many of us compare notes on settings, that is what this forum is for.  Comparing notes or discussing pot or putty settings is not reason to think it is too much trouble, any more than changing tubes, speaker placement, or room treatments is.

But I expected to hear a very well set up system w/ 40's and just wanted to hear music I knew on them.

I now have the Alphas 9.5' apart and toed directly in, and sit about 12' away from each.

This is about a middle ground between how I had them (which I did find to make the soundstage more compact than it needed to be in comparison to now) and what Danny said is totally optimal.

So I think you will have to see that most all systems are in transition, even yours.  If Eric had visited you before you "widened" your speakers he might have commented on the difference.

So all your comments are taken in the spirit in which they are made.  In comparing each others systems at the moment.

I would be interested in hearing your impressions of "going nearfield" with the Alphas. (so your BIG SCREEN is BIG again )  

Move that listening chair up to 8-9 feet and listen with exactly "on axis" toe in.  I bet you would enjoy it even if for the experimental value of it.

How about "monster headphones" with bass and soundstage  

Let me know if you try it.  Bass, Mids, integration, the whole thing.

And by the way, what pre and amp are you driving these with?

All the Best

[wshuff]

Pot?  Putty?  Is the AudioCircle or High Times?  

[John Casler]

Pot?  Putty?  Is the AudioCircle or High Times?  

YES!

[Housteau]

Whow Azryan, such passion in all of your posts.  I can and do appreciate that.  I have been following several of your threads on your speaker build-up.  It looks to be a very interesting and fun project.  I had noticed the picture of your room with that cathedral ceiling.  What are the dimensions and the height to that peak?  I think you would have had some interesting comments on some threads I had started not long ago.  

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=3065    

and

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=3740

Please feel free to add a few thought to them as you appear to have made some compromises, or should I say, have combined two and multichannel listening in your room.

I would very much like to hear your impressions and thoughts about the combination of both as a single system.  Do you feel your two channel listening is being compromised by the inclusion of a surround set-up and speaker placement?  Or, are your main channels set-up primarily for two channel with 5.1 (or whatever) being included but not necessarily set up according to the ITU speaker standard?

What about the large video monitor between your speakers?  It is a large reflective area.  Does it effect you image reducing the quality a bit from what it could be?

Also, I was curious about the lamination portion of your cabinet construction.  Is it difficult to do?  It seems that is the determining factor to the final finish and needs to be done well.

Dave

[audiochef]

sorry ,lost last post, I have 15 by 13 room, 2 feet from rear walls ,2feet from right wall ,the left is open to hall. Soundstage ,image is awsome. screw this tweaky room (perfection) that's why we have high end speakers to accomadate these silly excuses. VMPS can do it all ! LET us stop justifying our mistake in what we purchased. VMPS is the most flexable. I'm sorry ,but admit it ,MR Cheneys are the most flexible for every application. audiochef@msn.com  thanks.

[azryan]

"-Wow AZ, and I thought I could write a lot. I relinquish my "long winded" crown to you."

thanks.

I usually don't post on this forum, and I sometimes feel like the 'enemy' here because I didn't buy a VMPS speaker yet (if I ever do. I might buy a LRC one day).
I was just trying to answer your questions in detail. Half of my 'long-winded' post was cut n' paste of all your comments/questions.

It seems like we might be getting into the fine line between talking 'this and that' speaker details and getting into a pissing contest.

"-If we listened to some experts we would have to sit 32 feet away to hear the deepest bass"

I agree. The thing I was saying about the bass was that you could tell there was no weight from the neo panels and there was when a slightly lower tone was coming from the woofer. There was also a bit of a slower nature from the cone. I don't think this was a result of overdamping at all.
I don't think the damping would change air 'weight' from the neo panels, but I don't know for sure. You seem to think it would, and maybe w/ bass pot adjustments helping there too so ok. That's that I guess.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned all the added x-over parts on the VMPS. I was just trying to add info to the talk that's factual and not opinion to debate, but you replied w/ all the reasons that are behind the VMPS x-over and pots design so it felt like I made you defencive.
I didn't mean too.

I do know all those reasons for the x-over/pots on the VMPS, and I didn't say they are wrong or made the speaker's signal degraded because of passing through all that. Maybe it sounded like that's what I meant though.

I did mean that I consider it a possibility though, but I probably shouldn't have even said that either, but I am allowed to right?

VMPS certainly has a LOT of adjustment on their speaker. 'Tweakability' (that's a word right?) that other speakers incl. the GR Alphas don't have. That's a fact, and one often pointed out by happy VMPS owners (which are pretty much ALL VMPS owners).

I just felt the urge to point out that this also means there's a lot for the signal to pass through, and how it seems hard to set both speakers correctly and to eachother. It was a point Eric himself had made to me when I heard his speakers. His 100% still a happy VMPS owner though.

I'm not sure I understand this line, "-Well according to the website, the speaker costs around $4900 built so they should be rather similar in performance."

I know you don't think price equals performance, so I'm not sure what you're saying?

Again.... I shouldn't have mentioned price though either, but I thought they were facts that wouldn't degrade into opinion battles.

I suppose we could list the exact cost the both speakers in kit form, the cost of the cabinets, veneer cost, the cost of both factory complete etc...
There's a lot of variables, and as I said the 40's are meant to be factory finished and the Alphas are meant to be sold as a kit, but you Can buy the reverse of either.

IMO, it's a very similar price range overall, and technically you can build the Alphas kit cheaper than you can build the 40's, but factory built the 40's are cheaper than the Alphas. Fair enough?

"-Most of the time we would like to think our speakers are the more accurate, even if it in on a highly engineered studio recording."

For the record I never said 'the Alphas are more accurate'. Just want to make that clear, not saying that you implied I did. I just wanna keep this cool, and don't want anything getting mix-ed by anyone else.

You seem a bit defencive here too -"I can see that might be a "plus" for some, but I never do any "serious" listening while sitting on the floor, or just standing around so it doesn't offer me anything."

I said -'There's also no shift in sound from sitting on the floor to standing w/ the Alphas which means you can buy any height chair you want to sit in.'

So I wan't talking about all the people who critically listen while sitting on the floor or while standing (of which there are probably almsot none).

Eric said he slumps into his chair a bit to hit just the right spot on his 40's, and his chair was a lot shorter than my couch in the first place, and we've both certainly heard from a lot of 626 owners who like being able to set the 'exact' stand height to match their exact seated height.

"-But keep in mind, that "vertically dispersive' soundwaves that are dispersed very high and very low "are" subject to floor and ceiling bounce early reflections and subsequent problems associated with that."

I'm aware. I own a line source speaker remember? hehe
 
You seem like you're trying to sell me on them, which is probably my fault partly for maybe sounding like I'm trying to 'unsell' the 40's. I don't want this to go bad.
                                                                         
On setting up and tweaking the speakers...

"-Its not as hard as you might think and you're basing that opinion on one listen in one system (and on a NIN CD!!!)"

Uh... no I'm not, and you type like you're getting mad at me. I was basing this on looking at what all the tweaking entails and Eric's opinions to me about what he's gone through in tweaking his speakers and having read many other owners comments. I didn't say they VMPS owners complain about this or say it's bad or anything, but I've yet to see someone say it's a snap, no prob.

Let's not get angry about this though. I'm not trying very hard to make any points -other than I don't want this to turn bad.

"-So I think you will have to see that most all systems are in transition, even yours. If Eric had visited you before you "widened" your speakers he might have commented on the difference.
So all your comments are taken in the spirit in which they are made. In comparing each others systems at the moment."

Yes, that's true, but it's not nearly as black and white as you seem to want it to be.

I had said that I would have had No problem having Eric hear my set-up where the speakers were (closer together) as it still sounded better IMO and my friend's to his set-up.

Widening the speakers was due to the speaker's designer asking me to try it. That does not often happen does it?, so it's not like I'm constantly tweaking their placement.

Also, where they were in the first place was 'where I slapped 'em down' on day one, and had intended to move them once broken in, which would not be tweaking them. It would only be a first attemt to optimally set them up for the first time.

And as I said... I didn't feel the need to even do that, even after hearing Eric's system. It was only when Danny suggested a diff. placement that I bothered. Remember... my speakers were only about a month old when I moved them from where they were on day one.

And again... as I said... the only real diff. was that the space between instuments had more space between them. It was not even close to a night and day huge diff. at all. I could move them back to where they were an feel fine about it, but I do think it's a bit better now, and have no plans to move them again.

Eric on the other hand moved his speakers back right after we got done listening because of the comments my friend and I made, and later that day or next night moved them to a much diff. position than that, and is looking into assorted room treatments.

Not to insult Eric, but they are fully broken in speakers and have been in that room for over a year I think, and I got the impression that they've been moved around a lot, and then he also had to readjust the pots and putty each time.

To equate the two as even being similar is a stretch, but technically as I said.. yes, you're right... I did move my speakers.

"-Move that listening chair up to 8-9 feet and listen with exactly "on axis" toe in. I bet you would enjoy it even if for the experimental value of it."

I'm not interested in doing that honestly. They really aren't meant to be nearfield speakers, and as I originally had them it wasn't too much diff. from that, and like I said (jeez that line's getting old)... The sound quality didn't change a great deal when I moved them to where they are now other than soundstage width getting more space.
Also to sit nearfield I'd be moving the couch into the middle of the room. That does sound as good as the ~thirds set up I have. Diff. room echo from walls and weaker low end bass.


Dave,

I think this would be better for a PM or sepp. thread. It seems like it's a bit off topic. I'll PM you after I look at those links you posted.

[John Casler]

Hey AZ,

Not to worry.  Anything I type is not a defense or a barb.  It is just two guys sharing, thoughts about their toys.

Any questions I have are not to start a Pissing Match, but to see what you hear and then share ideas about it.  And I hope I don't have to "be all diplomatic" to be able to make a point or share an opinion.

I know you looked into your speakers very critically before you got them and I did too.

Since I can't pop over and take a listen, bouncing things off you allows some insight.

Each and every person here has varying degrees of listening experience.  Some are knowledgable, some are not.  Some have experience, some just experiment.

With such subjectivity, and the incredible amount of variables, there are "NO" absolutes.

I placed a pair of RM40s recently and the new owner set them up and was "horrified"   He called me and said that his old speakers (which will remain nameless) were "much" better.

Well much of it was due to placement and breakin.  The rest was due to specific room interactions from an entirely different speaker.  After all you have a line source and know that it can need a different set up than a conventional dynamic cone arrangement.

And after he placed them properly, and let them break in for about 1-2 weeks he was in audio heaven.   Now he cannot believe the performance.  

So go figure.

My thoughts about the adjustments of VMPS are a "perspective" from much use, and not meant to sell the concept on those who don't use or want them.  

They can be ordered and delivered as "pretuned" just like most other speakers and the owner never has to do anything but place them.  As such they will sound as inert as any other speaker that can't be adjusted. (although the pots will still be there)

It was several weeks before I even looked at the pots on my 626Rs they sounded so good straight from the factory.

I find the adjustments valuable but it isn't a requirement, it is just a user option to allow the most critical listener to have fun tuning.

Doesn't mean they will sound bad if you don't adjust them, they will just be like other speakers that can't be adjusted.

And when you need that LRC, let me know. (it does have two pots on the back though... We'll talk   )

Thanks for your thoughts.  

[Tyson]

After hearing the 40's in a nicely treated room at Gerry's, I have a theory about the whole midbass issue.  Since the midpanel covers such a wide frequency range (150hz to 10khz), if you are in a live, bright sounding room, turning the mid panel down so that the upper range of the midpanel is not bright, causes the lower range of the mid panel (the upper bass area) to attenuate and lose impact at the same time.  In a nicely treated room, you can turn up the pots a bit more and the upper bass slam comes back, while still not sounding bright.

In my case, getting the new bases, which raised the PR and lower woofer an inch or so higher from the floor lessened my low bass output a bit, resulting in a better (but still not perfect) integration of low/mid/upper bass.  I imagine if I get a room pack from 8th nerve in my setup, I'll adjust the pots back up a bit, and get even better upper bass.

Just my current theory, hopefully I'll have some money for room treatments so I can test it out.  As of now, all I can say is that the upper and mid bass I heard at Gerry's is among the best I've heard anywhere with any speakers (as good as the Excelarray's upper bass, and that's saying something!).

[wshuff]

Hey guys,

As a hillbilly home theater addict who has aspirations of becoming a high end hillbilly (with, I hope, a bank account to match), I'd just like to say that I've gotten quite a bit out of these discussions.  I've seen others deteriorate into pissing contests, but all in this thread seems pretty reasonable to me.  Maybe there is a fine line, but you guys seem to be walking it pretty well (must mean you aren't on the sauce when you post) so keep it up.  I've heard the RM40s, and may some day hear the Alphas, but until then, this is as close as I'll get, so I for one appreciate it.


All you bass are belong to us!!!

[audiochef]

yes all your drivers will integrate better ,especially the bass,more def and smoother . It's like I have new more refined speakers. that's what sets VMPS apart from other companies,low cost upgrades. thanks,Audiochef

[Tyson]

The funny thing is that I just got the new bases to increase stability since my 40's are on a thick carpet.  The better integration of sound (in my room) was just a bonus.  I should also note that Jerry's 40's also have the wider/taller bases as well.  Now I just need some dress plates so I can install my FST tweeters. . .

[audiochef]

go for it Tyson you'll only enjoy your music more.

[Tyson]

I want to go for it, in fact I've been itching to go for it for a couple of months now, but can't proceed until dress plates are sent. . .

[TheeeChosenOne]

Anybody have pics on these new bases?....

[audiochef]

I've arranged for my friend,a fellow  VMPS owner to come over to take and post my 40s with bases and FSTs for Tyson to see  so he may brainstorm a new idea to install FSTs so that he wouldn't have to wait for dressplates. I'm shooting for Wednsday, no later. thanks guys