RM30 vs RM40

Rob Babcock · « **on:** 14 Sep 2004, 02:48 am »

So I've heard a few people imply that in all respects save the lowest bass, the '30 is actually superior to the 40s. Can anyone who's actually heard both in similar setups comment on this? Certainly the geometry & size of the '30 is very appealling, and is visually much less overbearing.

zybar · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 03:14 am »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

So I've heard a few people imply that in all respects save the lowest bass, the '30 is actually superior to the 40s. Can anyone who's actually heard both in similar setups comment on this? Certainly the geometry & size of the '30 is very appealling, and is visually much less overbearing.

Rob,

I own the 40's and a friend owns the 30's. Since they were in such different systems and rooms, I can't really say if the 30's are superior. Outside of the smaller cabinet which should allow for better imaging, I am not sure how the 30's should be better.

George

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 04:28 am »

I don't know for sure, but I thought I'd heard they behave more like a true line source. Certainly the narrower baffle should help imaging. And isn't the FST tweeter the best they offer? I was thinkng the FST is standard on the '30, but a upcharge option on the '40. Lastly, I wonder if the smaller woofers of the '30 might not offer a superior integration with the planar mids.

Just speculation on my part; that's why I was asking.

RGordonpf · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 05:02 am »

I have heard the RM40s in a number of systems. I have heard the RM30s at CES 2004 and in my own system. IMHO, as stand-alone speakers, the RM40 can play louder and deeper. The RM30s have more finesse, more detail. With a Larger subwoofer the RM30s in a small to medium size room, are significantly better in virtually all aspects than the RM40. In a large room or at rock concert sound levels, the RM40 is the better speaker. Size does matter in certain things. YMMV

Plus, in a small or medium size room you can drive the RM30s to classical concert hall sound levels with an 845 single ended triode tube amp. I don't think that would be possible with the RM40. It was barely possible with the FF-3 which I believe was slightly easier to drive than the RM40.

As mentioned, the Spouse Acceptance Factor of the RM30 is signfiicantly higher than the RM40. Downsizing from an FF-3 to the RM30 scored lots of brownie points with the missus.

shokunin · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 05:29 am »

Roger,

Interesting, I have not heard the 30's yet, but will definitely listen to them at the RMAF. Did the RM40's you listened to have the upgraded FST Tweeter?

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 05:56 am »

Thanks, RGordonpf. Just what I'd wondered. New speakers are a ways off for me, but the RM30's are a top candidate. Bass output is irrelevant to me (I have subs and always will), so I'm more concerned with the overall sound quality. As a matter of fact, I'd probably opt for the version without the side mounted woofers.

Even though I have no WAF issues to deal with, I'd prefer pretty speakers, so long as they don't give up anything with regards to sound. Also, max SPL really doesn't concern me.

RGordonpf · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 06:30 am »

Shokunin - The last few RM40s I have heard had the FST. I can't comment on the difference the FST made as it was not something I was listening for.

Rob Babcock - I would get the RM30M rather than the RM30C even if you have subs. The lower the crossover frequency to the subs, the easier it is to blend the subs in with the main speakers. I run my RM30s full range and cross my sub over at 60 Hz. It is seamless. I have a variable hinge on the crossover and have tried higher crossover points. The higher the crossover point, the more noticeable the sub. YMMV

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 06:43 am »

Hmmm...I also use 60 hz now, with 6.5" two ways. I'd assumed with a pair of 6.5 inchers, the RM30C could be x'd over that low. Is this not the case? I guess the price diff isn't drastic, I'd just though to save $ on a capability I'd never use.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 07:00 am »

Congrats to Brian and his VMPS team for a superb review. I've only heard the RM30 once (at 2004 CES with trinaural) but immediately recognized and welcomed the family resemblence with the RM40 and RMX. Keep up the good work!

Hmmm... isn't it about time for a leak about "what's new" for 2005 ?

doug s. · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 01:10 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

Hmmm...I also use 60 hz now, with 6.5" two ways. I'd assumed with a pair of 6.5 inchers, the RM30C could be x'd over that low. Is this not the case? I guess the price diff isn't drastic, I'd just though to save $ on a capability I'd never use.

rob, i am in the same boat as you - the rm30's are on my list, & i run subs. i am still leaning towards rm30's w/o the side-firing woofers. this is because i will *not* be running 'em full range. i have always preferred running active x-over, so if i cross at 60hz, the 30's won't see signal below that. and, w/a pair of subs properly set up, i have never had issues w/noticing the subs. (if you have a single sub, this will obviously not be the case.) i have had monitors crossed over as high as 125hz w/my larger subs, & the blend was still seamless.

as far as 6.5" woofers being able to cross over at 60hz, from what i've read about the bass response of the 626r w/its single 6.5" driver, i'm sure you could cross over the rm30c at 50hz, or even 40hz, if you wanted to...

ymmv,

doug s.

zybar · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 01:14 pm »

Quote from: RGordonpf

I have heard the RM40s in a number of systems. I have heard the RM30s at CES 2004 and in my own system. IMHO, as stand-alone speakers, the RM40 can play louder and deeper. The RM30s have more finesse, more detail. With a Larger subwoofer the RM30s in a small to medium size room, are significantly better in virtually all aspects than the RM40. In a large room or at rock concert sound levels, the RM40 is the better speaker. Size does matter in certain things. YMMV

Plus, in a small or medium size roo ...

I believe the new MLS cabinets will impact the comparison and maybe push things back in favor of the 40's (not counting WAF)

Maybe we can get Big B to chime in on this one (although it is a little like asking a parent to pick their favorite child).

George

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 02:31 pm »

Hello Doug,
The RM30C is a very different animal than the LRC or the 626R. You will NOT be able to cross it at 40 Hz and 50 Hz may be an issue. Per Brian's latest configuration and testing (at least that I know of), the low frquency response of the RM30C is 55 Hz without the new megawoofers and 48 Hz with them. The RM30C is primarily aimed at those wanting a super high quality center channel for movies. For use with a Trinaural or for full-range music, the standard RM30Ms are probably more appropriate unless you have a very fast, extremely high quality sub that you would want to cross over at 80 Hz or so.

Hope that helps.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

jermmd · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 02:55 pm »

The RM40's have everything the RM30's have with a wider sweet spot and deeper bass. But they're also twice the size and thousands of dollars more. My RM30's have the auricaps and megawoofers. The only RM40s I heard (George's) had all the upgrades including the TRT caps. They also had room treatments and significantly better electronics.

Joe M.

doug s. · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Sep 2004, 02:58 pm »

Quote from: Sedona Sky Sound

Hello Doug,
The RM30C is a very different animal than the LRC or the 626R. You will NOT be able to cross it at 40 Hz and 50 Hz may be an issue. Per Brian's latest configuration and testing (at least that I know of), the low frquency response of the RM30C is 55 Hz without the new megawoofers and 48 Hz with them. The RM30C is primarily aimed at those wanting a super high quality center channel for movies. For use with a Trinaural or for full-range music, the standard RM30Ms are probably more appropriate unless you have a very fast, extremely high quality sub that you would want to cross over at 80 Hz or so.

hi julian,

thanks for the info. re: "...a very fast, extremely high quality sub...", i feel my vmps largers qualify, as i have successfully used them at 125hz...

also, re: which crossover point can be used w/these speakers, frank alles, in his recent review of the rm30m, sez they're flat down to 31.5 in-room.
http://www.stereotimes.com/speak091204.shtm
so, i'd imagine the rm30c's would do a lot better than their rated 55hz, if that is in fact what the rating is...

thanks again,

doug s.

Enrico · « **Reply #14 on:** 21 Sep 2004, 02:01 am »

Quote from: jermmd

The RM40's have everything the RM30's have with a wider sweet spot and deeper bass. But they're also twice the size and thousands of dollars more. My RM30's have the auricaps and megawoofers. The only RM40s I heard (George's) had all the upgrades including the TRT caps. They also had room treatments and significantly better electronics.

Joe M.

I am surprised to hear that the RM40s have a wider sweet spot than the RM30s. The RM30s have a narrower cabinet, which usually makes for wider dispersion and less diffraction, which in turn allows a wider sweet spot.

Perhaps the RM40s in George's room had a wide sweet spot thanks to the room treatments and electronics that he is using.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #15 on:** 27 Oct 2004, 06:40 pm »

Quote from: RGordonpf

I have heard the RM40s in a number of systems. I have heard the RM30s at CES 2004 and in my own system. IMHO, as stand-alone speakers, the RM40 can play louder and deeper. The RM30s have more finesse, more detail. With a Larger subwoofer the RM30s in a small to medium size room, are significantly better in virtually all aspects than the RM40. In a large room or at rock concert sound levels, the RM40 is the better speaker. Size does matter in certain things. YMMV

Plus, in a small or medium size roo ...

Ultrasupermegadittos to every word above. I owned both models in the same room, similar equipment.

In this 3300 cu ft L shaped room I'd never go back to the RM40s. See my new thread about my current system.

ctviggen · « **Reply #16 on:** 27 Oct 2004, 06:49 pm »

I'd have to use two subs -- I can't place one sub between the speakers and I can localize the sub, which drives me crazy. Because of not having the room for two subs (and not wanting to spend the money), I went the RM40 route. (Although now I'm contemplating two subs anyway...but that's a different story, and I doubt I have the room.)

RGordonpf · « **Reply #17 on:** 27 Oct 2004, 10:50 pm »

The RM30Ms without the megawoofers go down to 37Hz. So, you should be able to rolloff the sub above 40Hz. If you can localize a sub with the hinge point set at 40Hz you have exceptional hearing. How low do you have to lower the hinge point so that you can not locate the sub?

lkosova · « **Reply #18 on:** 28 Oct 2004, 07:28 pm »

I have stated this from the last year CES....the RM30's are the best value that VMPS has going on now. I have not read Jim R report but I know he likes them. With all his years of experience that says alot when he calls them the best the Brian has made or something lilke that.

For the ones that heard them at CES.....they sound much better in my room then CES and I am sure many others. I am shocked how "real" sounding these speakers are. Play Norah Jones or the like and she is playing in front of you.

I will go into this at a later time but for a HT these are unreal. I played "Master of Command " with Russel Crowe with a larger sub and the dipole surrounds the other day and this is a world class system with the Cary cinema amps and processor that I have. The room literally shook and the realism was unmatched by anything that I have ever heard. This with the Screen Research acoustical screen was both a visual and auditory pleasure.

Find a better speaker at this price point and I will buy it!!!! It does not exist!!!

I have mine crossed at 60 which I do like better but 80 is not bad either.

I think you miss the bigness of the RM-40's but bass is not an issue in my setup. Imaging is unreal once you get it correct.

I have the trt upgrades and megawoofers. Classical and opera are unreal.

It is a virtue to Brian that it seems that everyone that has the RM-30's ,RM-40's and the Rm-x's all say the same thing about the sound and "realness" of the music that we all love. Once you get it correct it seems that everyone is very happy with the sound.

Plus.....the RM-30's are downright sexy!!!! Are the RM-40's sexy????

Larry

AudioandImage.com

James Romeyn · « **Reply #19 on:** 28 Oct 2004, 09:01 pm »

Larry
Write on, right on, & RIGHT ON, BRO!!!!!!!!!!! You said it all. But I must expound, just a wittle!

I had the FF3 SRE Actives for about a year+ (cabinet matches RM40 exterior with a Bohlender-Graebener ferrite 52" mid hanging off the inner edge), then the RM40s for about a year, then my wuvly svelte RM30C triplets. Even compared to three RM30s, the overbearing towers of the two previous models just started to wear me out, always looking down on me, staring at me, watching me walk around the room, casting their shadow over me, causing an increase in my Prozac dosage, guests asking for the name of my cult, if I was putting on some type of ancient Druid worship service, etc, etc. etc, etc.

Now, because I leave the grilles off the triplets, all they say is, "Wow, look at all those speakers in there!".