[Danberg]

Seriously considering a speaker upgrade.  For listening to music, not Home Theater.  Listen to all types, excluding classical, at low to moderate dB (75dB - 90dB maximum).

Like all that I have read about VMPS speakers.  However, no local dealers of which to audition them (closest is 6 hours away).  Having auditioned the speakers below I am familiar with each one's "sound" and how they fit or dont fit my preferences.

I have auditioned:
Martin Logan ($3,500/ pr., new)
Vandersteen  3A Signature
VonSchweikert  VRIII-Special Edition

my present equipment:
Audio Research LS16 line stage
Classe' CA200 amp
Rotel CD975 CD player
Nordost - SPM interconnects
Nordost - Blue Heaven Speaker Cables

room size: 15'-9" x 13'-6' x 8'0"h - carpeted, no sonic treatments.  
Doubles as living room.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.  Also, your being as descriptive and specific regarding sonic characteristic(s) / diffrences, between the speakers will be invaluable.

[rblnr]

have heard the Martin Logan's and Vandersteens, own the RM40's.  Have not heard side by side, so based on memory:

-- found the ML's slow sounding -- I couldn't get past this.

--  found the Vandersteen laid back in sound and not as dynamically engaging as the 40's.

[mgalusha]

I own a pair of 3A sigs and have two friends with RM40's and have heard RM40's on numerous occasions and am very familiar with how they sound.

rblnr is correct in that the Vandersteens are not as dynamic as the VMPS and present a more laid back sound.

Imaging:
IMO the 3A's image significantly better than the RM40's, some of that may be the room but I've heard the 40's in 4 different rooms and I believe the 3A's disappear sonically better than the 40's do.

Dynamics:
No question the 40's are a more dynamic speaker. They will go from a whisper to a shout very quickly and can provide a great deal of impact. They will also play quite a bit louder than the 3A's but it sounds like you like to listen at lower levels so this may not matter as much.

Bass:
The 3A's have tuneful, articulate and fairly extended bass. The 40's also have excellent bass which is easily tunable via the PR. I believe the 40's have more bass slam and punch. I am quite happy with the bass on the 3A's but some folks will certainly want more.

Midrange:
This is the hard one to compare since the VMPS use a ribbon and the Vandersteen uses a cone driver, albiet a very unusal cone. I prefer the presentation of the 3A's to the 40's. I find the midrange on the VMPS can be a bit aggressive and forward for my tastes. Note that both of the RM40's I've heard have the lower XO point for the midrange panels, the later models will be different.

Treble:
The 3A's have a very smooth and extended treble as do the 40's. Some folks find the treble of the 3A's to sound soft. IMO this is due to the first order XO and is quite natural and unforced. I find the sound of the FST tweeter to be very smooth and detailed.

One thing I have observed is that the 3A's sound better at lower volumes than the 40's. It seems to me that the 40's don't really come alive until they have some juice running through them.

As for WAF, the Vandy's probably don't qualify as fine furniture but I have been able to get my wife to tolerate them in our living room. If I tried to bring in speakers the size of the 40's I would be laughed out the door. The RM30's would be a different story.

I don't know if this helps any but it's my $.05's worth.

One last thing, one of the RM40 owners I know had ML Prodigies prior to the 40's. I believe he likes the 40's better.

Given the amount of money you are looking to spend I would probably make the drive for an audition but that's just me.

[JoshK]

I have heard many MLs, never the vandies and own the RM40s.  I will say the only thing MLs have going for them is a sexy midrange, albeit colored IMO.  I really don't think the bass melds well with the panel and the highs are quite attrocious to me.  They also have never imaged at all in the times I have heard them but then again this was in show rooms where setup is far from ideal.  

HTH

[Tyson]

One of the pairs or RM40's that Mike has heard are mine

He is pretty much right on with his comments.  Personally I prefer the more dynamic and "fast" sound of the 40's, and am willing to give up that great depth of imaging that the Vandersteens have.  It's all about tradeoffs and personal preferences.  However, I do feel that the ML speakers are not in the same class as the 40's.  The ML's are very midrangey sounding, with little sparkle in the highs and poor bass integration, especially in comparison to the 40s.

[rkapadia@ROOP]

Danberg - For interested parties like yourself that have no local dealer, we offer a full no-risk policy for a VMPS system.  We include free delivery and free return delivery with every VMPS system for a full in-home audition without any risk.  No hidden fees, no fuss.  Please feel free to email or call if you'd like to discuss further.

Kind Regards,

[ScottMayo]

Seriously considering a speaker upgrade. .... room size: 15'-9" x 13'-6' x 8'0"h - carpeted, no sonic treatments.

Look into treating the room first. The room makes as much difference as the speakers, and room treatments can be cheaper than speaker upgrades.

[nature boy]

I would agree with Mike and Tyson's comments above.  Speaker selection is a VERY PERSONAL thing and most difficult to provide recommendations.  I really prefer the imaging and midrange (particularly vocals) on Vandersteen speakers (I have 2CE signatures).  They also sound great at lower volume levels.  They are as my wife says "pretty ugly", but hey that's why I built a dedicated listening room.

I listened to the RM40's extensively on three occasions.  A great speaker, very dynamic, bass - well its prodigous, and great integration of drivers.  It was a little too much speaker for my listening room.

Two very good speakers worth a listen.  A lot of folks prefer Vandersteen's with tube amps - Quicksilver (mono 100's) & ARC equipment in particular.  They do the holographic, 3D sound thing great with tubes.

NB