[zybar]

Over the last two days I was able to see Brian (aka The Sheriff) visit Jerry and Tyson in order to show the proper way to tune the RM 40's.  

In both cases, Brian was able to quickly change the speakers and make them sound way different from when he started.  This was especially true at Jerry's (where there was also new placement of the speakers).

Basically, Brian simply repeated the steps that he has outlined at his website and on the sheet of paper you receive with your new speakers.

Here are a few pics:





Thanks again to Brian, his lovely wife Shirley, and Wayne (for driving him around and arranging everything).

George

[bboplive]

Great news.  Not m(any) manufacturers will do this.  
If Brian (or anyone else with VMPS tuning experience) is wanting to come the Washington, DC to help me get my RM-30's up to spec, I'll include a free tour of the White House.  
WDC is beautiful in the Fall.

[ScottMayo]

If Brian (or anyone else with VMPS tuning experience) is wanting to come the Washington, DC to help me get my RM-30's up to spec, I'll include a free tour of the White House.

Ummm... damn. I can't offer a tour of the White House, but if Brian is in the Northeast sometime after November 20th (which is when I hope the Stereo Room From Hell will be finished), my wife makes an absolutely killer Macaroni with Cheese; and New England in the last throes of autumn is absolutely lovely (if you happen to like windy, gray and gloomy).

Okay, I sense I'm competing poorly here, but we will have a newly finished guest room, and the stereo room really ought to be pretty good. (It better be - the cost of sound treatments and soundproofing are bleeding me dry.) And the homemade Mac&Cheese really is good.

[jermmd]

George,

In what way was the sound improved?  Deeper/tighter bass?  Imaging? Did everyone agree that it was not only different but better?

Did Brian start from scratch with original pot settings and putty in place or did he start from where they already were?

Unfortunately I don't have the golden ear and it takes me some time to tell wether a change is an improvement or not.  Could Brian and others immediately discern audible changes with minimal adjustments like a fingernail of putty or one pot click?  Speaker adjusting has recently become a major hobby of mine    and I'm curious if the master had any special tricks.

Joe M.

[jermmd]

Also,  what music did brian use to adjust the speakers?

Joe M.

[jqp]

Nice pics! Big speakers!

I see Brian and Tyson, and is that Pez? Who is seated?

[Tyson]

Yep, that's Pez.  The other person seated is Sunshinedog (Sean).  

About the tuning at my place, when Brian came over, he told me to put on something that I felt "showed the strengths of my system".  So I put on a violin and piano transcription of Saint-Saen's Dance Macabre.  After listening through the track he sat there quietly for a few moments, eyes closed.  Then he told me that "I wish I could say something mean about the sound, but I can't, that is a very nice, very musical sounding setup".  I take it from other's reaction that this wasn't something Brian says very often, so I felt very good about that

Next, he asked me if I was happy with the sound of the system (I said I was), and in what area I'd like to improve it.  I said I'd like to keep the smoothness and musicality, but get a bit more resolution.  He said OK and we commenced to start tuning, using the same Saint Saen's track I had just played.

He had me remove a fingernail's worth of putty off the right speaker, then play the track to see if there was an improvement.  If there was an improvement, I would remove some putty from the left speaker and we'd listen again.  If the sound improved again, we'd remove putty from the right speaker and listen again.  We kept repeating this, one speaker at a time, until we reached a point where the sound got worse, not better.  At that point we returned the last fingernail worth of putty that had been removed and that was it for the putty removal.  The bass certainly did sound better, but I was pretty darn close to optimal before we started tuning (ie, the amount of putty removed from both speakers combined was about the size of a peppercorn).

Next, we went to the pots.  Brian set the pots to the 12 o'clock position and we listened to the Saint Saens again.  Then we increased the midrange a single click on the right speaker and listened again.  Since there was in improvement, we increased the midrange on the left speaker a click.  And so on, until we didn't hear any improvement again.  Next, we did the same thing with the treble.  When that was done, we put on some large, complex orchestral music (Brahms Violin Concerto) to fine tune the pot settings even more (same method as described before).

Then we put on Shirley Horne doing some Jazz to check vocals and soundstaging, and she was a bit recessed.  Interestingly enough, Brian reduced the midrange pot to fix it (and it did bring her vocals forward).  Then we were done.

My initial reaction to the re-tuned RM40's is that they are a little bright and forward for my tastes, but I'm giving them a bit more time before I re-tune them myself.  Any time there is a change there is a tendency to like the sound you are used to, so I'm letting myself acclimate to the new sound before changing anything.  One thing I can say for certain is that resolution certainly increased, and that the bass integration is much better.  Whether I re-tune them or not will be entirely dependent upon my own personal preferences.

Final note, I wanted to give a big THANK YOU to Brian for coming out to my house and giving me a "masters class" on tuning the RM40's, I certainly learned something from it!

[Corbin Johnson]

Bebop live,

I don't profess to have the skills the Sheriff does tuning speakers, but I've owned a pair of RM40's for the past two years and have become accustomed to the nuances that a click of the pots or a scrape of putty can have.  I'm in DC often and would love to hear your RM30's and offer whatever I can on speaker tuning and placement.  Next time I'm in DC overnight is Thursday, 10/28.  If you're interested send me a PM.

Thanks,

Corbin Johnson

[Brian Cheney]

Tyson's system, with its mostly modest associated equipment (Van Alstine power amp, modded ART DIO, a transport and preamp I didn't recognize) was perhaps the most impressive residential RM40 setup I have encountered.

This was with long wall placement, listening distance less than 10ft from the speakers, and no room treatment.  There was even a brick fireplace between the speakers, usually a real no-no, plus lots of glass with no drapes.

If Tyson treats his room and adds even a little damping, the forwardness of the retuned system should recede.  The same effect can be achieved with the vitrified PR cones and the lambswool behind the mid panels.
Tyson's RM40's were several years old and had FST's and the Auricaps.

After I got home and fired up my system (Wadia 27ix, Son of Ampzilla, mls RM40's with lambswool and TRT's) I too preferred it to anything at the RMAF.  While the JJaz amps were clean and transparent, they lacked the warmth and naturalness of the SOA.  Also, Wayne inadvertently turned off his equipment Thursday and Friday nites, instead of leaving them on.  By letting them warm up over Sat nite the sound improved considerably on Sunday.

I liked the SP Tech Revelation ($23k) very much but there was some hardness and congestion in the big climaxes of the HDCD "Tutti" album I heard on it.  The smaller SP model in the multichannel display had some metallic coloration and an edge on the treble but was airy and transparent.

Most systems were on the soft and mushy side at RMAF.  The worst sound I heard was from a speaker using a 10" woofer and the Manger driver.  Bandwidth appeared to be about 50Hz to 5kHz (AM radio!) and the cabinet was an ugly truncated pyramid.  For this the neophyte manufacturer was asking $40k the pair.  I said to my companion: "You know, I can get no bass and no treble like that for $35k!!".  The mids were very good, however.

I also heard good sound from Spendor, Triangle, the small Odyssey's, and McIntosh.  Many of the web darling manufacturers did not present themselves well.  It would be petty of me go make a list of negatives but the comments here and elsewhere on AC from attendees pretty much apply.

[Turk]

I want to thank Brian and Shirely for stopping by and making the 40s sound the best they ever have in my system.  Thanks to Wayne at Bolder Cable for setting up the tuning session.  Firing one RM40 directly on axis and the other crossing in front of the listener made a huge difference.

[Tyson]

Just for reference, here is my equipment list:

nOrh CD-1 as transport
Bolder Modded Mensa Dio
Van Alstine T7r preamp
Van Alstine 550exr amp
Bolder Cables Nitro speaker wire
Bolder Cables Bybee'd Nitro Interconnects
Bolder Cables Bybee'd power bar
Bolder Cables Bybee'd speaker jumper wires
Bolder cables Digital cable with in-line Bybee Slipstream filter

Massive amounts of room treatments are coming in the next 6 months, and the vitrified PR's and Lambswool tweaks will be done this month.

[Tyson]

Just to follow up, I wanted to post some impressions after listening to the 40's after the tuning.

One, in my setup they are a lot more forward and transparent than I was able to achieve on my own before.  The bass is also "drier" and much tighter than I was able to get before.  Resolution is much, much better, I feel that I can literally hear everything on the recording.  

However, I have ended up re-tuning them a bit in order to match my preferences more closely.  In my setup the mids and highs were too forward for my tastes, which I fixed by turning them down. I imagine I'll have to turn them up quite a bit when I treat the front wall in a few months, but for now the mids/highs had too much energy compared to the bass, at least for my tastes.

The bass is so good now, better than I've ever heard it in any other speaker system. I might have been able to get them to sound that good on my own, but I didn't know it was possible. So, I had previously tuned them to match the best bass I'd heard before, and I simply stopped tuning at that point because I just didn't know that anything better was possible. Now I do.  It's amazing how much clearer and more transparent the rest of the spectrum is, now that the bass is so clean.

Net result is that the bass has more impact, but is still very dry and tight, extremely detailed and textured.  The mids and highs are a bit more laid back, while maintaining 95% of the transparency that Brian achieved with his tuning.  Imaging is still superb and dynamics are tracked with laser-like precision.  I have to say I'm pretty dang happy with the sound

[jermmd]

Tyson,

Thanks for the follow ups.

I felt that my RM30's at the original pot settings recommended by VMPS (Brian) sounded too bright and forward.  I found the speakers quite fatiguing at these settings but great when lowered a small amount.  George (Zybar) also prefers a brighter sound than I do.  I like a warmer, more laid back sound (?like Dynaudio).  That's one of the great thing about these speakers; the fine tuning adjustments to exactly match them to your tastes.  What settings did Brian have and what settings do you have now?  What was the recommended starting point?  I imagine these settings don't really translate to different speakers, setups and rooms but I'm curious.

I'm really hoping to get my bass to the place that you describe.  Unfortunately, I lose "dry/tight" when I get louder/deeper bass.  Although I'm very close now.  I think I just need to fine tune the putty on the passives of my speakers.

Joe M.

[Tyson]

My best advice on the putty removal is to do it one speaker at a time, and keep doing it until the sound actually gets worse.  Also, most VMPS speakers I've heard seem to do best placed fairly close to the wall behind them, not pulled out in to the room a whole lot.

The recommended starting position for the pots is right at 12 c'clock, which is where Brian put them to start with, after the bass adjustments had been made.  He then slowly increased them, one click and one speaker at a a time, unitl they were about at the 12:30 position.  I listened to them like that for a few days, then adjusted them down until I ended up at about the same position I was at before, 10 o'clock for the mids and 11:30 for the highs.  That just suits my preferences better....

[Xi-Trum]

Tyson, glad to hear you're looking into room treatments.  I'd bet you'll be in shock to find out how much "glare" you've been exposed to.  Then, you'll kick yourself for waiting this long to do it.  

[rlcordeiro]

Tyson,
If I remember correctly Brian has written in another thread that the L-pads heat up at settings below 11 O'Clock. You may want to check with him on that. I personally find I lose a lot of detail with the pots set below
12 O'Clock. YMMV
Ranjit

[James Romeyn]

My best advice on the putty removal is to do it one speaker at a time, and keep doing it until the sound actually gets worse.  Also, most VMPS speakers I've heard seem to do best placed fairly close to the wall behind them, not pulled out in to the room a whole lot.

The recommended starting position for the pots is right at 12 c'clock, which is where Brian put them to start with, after the bass adjustments had been made.  He then slowly increased them, one click and one speaker at a a time, unitl they we ...

Tyson: how dare you print exactly what's been in my tuning/setup instructions for years!  yust kidding

Jim Romeyn

[John Casler]

I imagine I'll have to turn them up quite a bit when I treat the front wall in a few months, but for now the mids/highs had too much energy compared to the bass, at least for my tastes ...

Hi Tyson,

Glad you're still having "sonic adventures and improvements" even after all this time.   I too moved my system around last night to find improvement to several factors.

But, I wanted to comment on a "perception" many have regarding room treatment and what it will do to the sound.

As per your comment that

I imagine I'll have to turn them up quite a bit when I treat the front wall in a few months

That may not be the case.  

The addition of non-reflective and absorbative treatment will in fact reduce the amount of frequency specific reflected sound that reaches you.

If we are talking about upper mids and HF sound, many would measure the "sum" of direct and reflected sound at the listening position, and reason that we are getting "X" amount and that number would include all the "out of phase" and nonspecific reflections.  That reading "might lead us to beleive it is too high and should be turned down.

BUT, that is not what we "hear" exactly.  If set up well we hear more of the direct sound and the "reflected" sound actually acts as a "haze" or "fog" that "softens or rounds" it out.

A good example we can all understand is that if you have a front projection TV in a highly reflective white room, the bright light both from the projector and the screen will be bouncing all over the room lighting it (the whole room) up quite a bit.

This reflected light will actually make the "picture" look "LESS" bright and detailed.  

If we can use a Grey or Darker non-reflective wall surface (similar to acoustic room treatment) the picture appears much brighter and more detailed.

I have found that this is what happens to the sound too.  

We can also see this happen when driving at night.  The oncoming headlights of an opposing lane auto will seem very bright.  If we encounter this same auto (with its lights on) during the day, the headlights seem less bright.

Such is the "strange" interaction of "taking the room" out of the sonic equation.

Some have also mentioned pot settings and, I have also mentioned a few times that the pot settings can vary depending on several factors

Some have even mentioned setting preferences, but those preferences "should" be accompanied with several other bits of info to be meaningful.

Pot settings will vary depending on:

1) the amount of toe in, or convergence.  On axis will produce the most direct path to the ears and generally cause the lowest setting

2) distance from the speaker.  While line arrays and ribbons typically have less dispersion and signal loss, the further from the speakers you sit the higher you can run the pots.  This greater distance will also allow more room created sound to "soften" the highs

3) the amount of room treatment (as per the explanation above)

4) The type of front end being used.  If you are running tubes, or electronics that are "warmer" or "edgier" the pot settings will need adjustment to get "your" sound.

5) Your hearing ability and listening preferences.  That is if you have normal HF hearing loss as you get older, you will find that running the pots a little hotter will allow you to hear more into the recording.

It also means that if your "preferences" are to either the softer of brighter ends, you can easily acheive that.

So in wrapping up, please do be aware that pot settings for one scenario and listener, are only "indicators" of what you might find "right" for you.

Mimicing mine or anyone elses settings (or set up) might not give you the greatest enjoyment overall

[James Romeyn]

My setup/tuning instructions were based on witnessing & helping Brian with tuning at his place, CES, my customers', his customers', AES meeings, etc, etc, etc.

Over time Brian & my tastes in tuning have come closer together.  Years (decades?) ago I usually found the tuning in his room to be somewhat overipe in the bass range.  But now, when I visit, I generally find it about exactly the way I prefer.  Nice that Brian is finally seeing it my way.    

[Turk]

Hi John,

You mention the loss of the ability to hear high frequecies that is normal with age, I am 54.  What do you, Brian and others believe is the value of extended response to an older listener.  I find myself more sensitive to the lower treble not less so as I age.  I am curious as to the interaction of the upper treble on the rest of the audio spectrum and in particular for me the sensitiive lower treble.