My quick review of the HT3's

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 9076 times.

KJ

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #20 on: 24 Aug 2005, 10:17 pm »
Quote from: Marbles
the highs sounded like angles orgasming

How does an angle orgasm anyway?  Sounds like you need some room treatment!   :lol:   (Sorry, couldn't help myself).  Glad you're digging your system.

-KJ

brj

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #21 on: 24 Aug 2005, 10:28 pm »
Quote from: ctviggen
Why is there such negativity toward VMPS?  You all enjoyed your VMPS speakers while you had them.  Even if Salk produces a better speaker (which I assume is true), there's no reason to diss VMPS.


Were you are referring to comments like this?
Quote from: Marbles
Coming after the RM30 C (horizontal) that should speak volumes.


I take this to mean that Marbles was extremely impressed with the RM30C.  The fact that he was impressed with the VMPS speaker was exactly what leant weight to his view of the Salk HTC.  If the RM30C was a crappy speaker, there would be no "volumes" to be spoken - it wouldn't even be mentioned.

I haven't seen anyone "dissing" the acoustic abilities of VMPS.  I have seen people that decided that a different sound or acoustic presentation was more suited to their tastes, but that doesn't mean the previous speaker wasn't great in its own right.  It was obviously impressive enough that discerning audiophiles were willing to spend significant amounts of money on it.  No one said VMPS is worse than BOSE, afterall! :lol:  Besides, even BOSE is probably great for someone.  What they have said, is that they've found a new speaker more suited to their tastes/room/gear than the VPMS speaker they liked enough to have purchased previously.  Good for them!

Now, I will admit that some reviews get enthusiastic, but what do you expect?  This is audio! :lol:  An audiophile is going to be at least as excited about their new toy as anyone else, and when they write a review, they have to compare it to something - what more appropriate choice than the item you just replaced?

Audio is relative and subjective.  There is no perfect system, even for a single person, let alone everyone (although I now see that we have two "BIGGEST developements EVER" competing for this meaningless and nonexistent title).  Hearing changes, budgets change, tastes change...  as long as you like your gear, why worry that someone that used to prefer your choice above all others now prefers something else?


Now that I reread this, it does look a bit like a lecture, and I apologize for that, as it wasn't meant to... I had to deal with a greater than usually amount of idiocy at work today, and I guess I was feeling philosophical!  Nothing to see here... move along...

KJ

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #22 on: 24 Aug 2005, 10:33 pm »
Quote from: brj
Now that I reread this, it does look a bit like a lecture, and I apologize for that, as it wasn't meant to... I had to deal with a greater than usually amount of idiocy at work today, and I guess I was feeling philosophical! Nothing to see here... move along...

Sounded pretty good to me...

Bingenito

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #23 on: 24 Aug 2005, 10:35 pm »
Well said :!:

Marbles

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #24 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:01 am »
Just to be perfectly clear...the VMPS RM30 C (horizontal) was the most perfect center channel I have heard.  If it wasn't for the fact that it didn't match up with the HT3's, I would have it still.

The HTC is a GREAT center channel that does match up to the HT3's.  The HTC is very close to the VMPS RM30 in center channel quality.

Bob, if you would like me to elaborate on the meat on the bones comment I would be happy to, in fact the new upgrade that JC has alluded to seems to improve this particular weakness.

As mentioned the RM40's are a wonderful speaker, but I did notice some weakness's.

So far I haven't noticed any with the HT3's.

zybar

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #25 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:12 am »
Quote from: ctviggen
Why is there such negativity toward VMPS?  You all enjoyed your VMPS speakers while you had them.  Even if Salk produces a better speaker (which I assume is true), there's no reason to diss VMPS.


Bob,

There isn't any negativity in this thread and we aren't dissing VMPS.  It is just that a bunch of us have found something we feel is better.  When we talk about the Salk speakers we are putting our comments in context by comparing them to our previous reference speakers which just happened to be VMPS.

Why can't you deal with that and not constantly jump in and feel the need to defend VMPS products?

I didn't see you or other VMPS owners gettting upset when we were saying VMPS was better than "x" or "y".  Enjoy your speakers and just relax.

George

zybar

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #26 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:16 am »
Quote from: CornellAlum

Better is an extremely realitive term.  That said, they have been on a vmps bashing kick for a while now, so it really is nothing new.  As a realitively new vmps user, it is actually pretty insulting.


What is insulting?

Not looking to pick a fight, but I don't understand your post.

George

Marbles

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #27 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:41 am »
Quote from: CornellAlum
Quote from: ctviggen
Why is there such negativity toward VMPS?  You all enjoyed your VMPS speakers while you had them.  Even if Salk produces a better speaker (which I assume is true), there's no reason to diss VMPS.


Better is an extremely realitive term.  That said, they have been on a vmps bashing kick for a while now, so it really is nothing new.  As a realitively new vmps user, it is actually pretty insulting.


I still own the RM40's.  I think I have tried to be very truthfull about their positive qualities and any perceived weakness's.

Alum, you have very good speakers, it is my wish that you are able to enjoy them for a very long time....

In fact it is their strengths that keeps me from trying very hard to sell them.  For instance, I have listed them on AC, but not on Agon.

The fact that I have a speaker that I like better does not mean I think any less of the VMPS.

The fact that I point out potential weakness's should only mean that people should take this into consideration when they audition the speaker.

As an example, I mentioned the ineffeciencies of the HT3's.

I have also mentioned that another drawback is the long time from order to receiveing the Salks.  If you are fine with this then that's great.

If you are fine with the VMPS ribbons not sounding as "meaty" as some other speakers, that's cool too.  It did not bother me when they were my ref speakers.  In fact if yoou use some tube components, then you can overcome this very easily.

The fact that I mention shortcomings again is only so that prespective buyers are aware, and can take the info into consideration and not to run down a product.

As Zybar has mentioned, the previous speaker that one has is usually the one that a person uses for comparisons.  In my case the previous speaker is also one I currently own.  It is natural then for me to compare the two.

goskers

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 409
My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #28 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:58 am »
Hi All,

I don't mean to jump in and interupt the direction this thread is going but I would love to hear a comparison between the actual presentation of the RM40's and HT3's.  The RM40's being a quasi-line source and the HT3 being a point source really puts these at different ends of the spectrum.  Do the speakers present the image height and event environment in a completely different manner?

I ask as I am building a line array and would love to hear some comparisons as to the differences with a truly great speaker such as Jim Salk's.

Marbles

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #29 on: 25 Aug 2005, 02:05 am »
Line arrays will be a different animal and I would not want to try to compare them to the speakers mentioned above.

ekovalsky

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #30 on: 25 Aug 2005, 02:12 am »
Quote from: goskers
Hi All,

I don't mean to jump in and interupt the direction this thread is going but I would love to hear a comparison between the actual presentation of the RM40's and HT3's.  The RM40's being a quasi-line source and the HT3 being a point source really puts these at different ends of the spectrum.  Do the speakers present the image height and event environment in a completely different manner?

I ask as I am building a line array and would love to hear some comparisons as to the differences with a truly great speaker such as Jim Salk's.


Goskers,

The RM40 is not even close to a line array.  It is a WMTMW design, like the Dunlavy and PBN Montana speakers.   Think of it as two point source speakers sitting atop each other, with the top one "upside down".  This is not just an analogy as the original RM40 was basically two RM2 in this configuration (of course in a unified cabinet).

RMX probably could be considered a quasi line array, and it indeed is such from ~ 250hz to ~ 6khz.  Above and below that range it is a point source.  If you have a lot of patience and some equipment to make objective measurements, or a truly gifted ear, you may be able to get good integration of the three sections at a particular listening distance by adjusting the L-pads and tweeter inclination.  And then there is the magic putty  :wink:

You're making a good decision to go with a line array.  I was very close to having a custom array built by Jim Salk (with subs from Chris Groh) and may still do so in the future.

Marbles

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #31 on: 25 Aug 2005, 02:27 am »
Quote from: CornellAlum
Quote from: ctviggen
Why is there such negativity toward VMPS?  You all enjoyed your VMPS speakers while you had them.  Even if Salk produces a better speaker (which I assume is true), there's no reason to diss VMPS.


Better is an extremely realitive term.  That said, they have been on a vmps bashing kick for a while now, so it really is nothing new.  As a realitively new vmps user, it is actually pretty insulting.


While I don't think I have dissed VMPS, since I own them and have for  at least two years, I think I have the right to.  

Since I don't see where I have, please point it out.

If you think that my "meat" comment was off base, then why do you think BC provided the mid bass upgrade?  Why do you think JC has alluded to an increase in this area with the new super deluxe CES 2006 teaser?

Pointing out weakness's is not dissing...it's being honest...but I can understand if some can't handle the truth.

Rick Craig

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3567
  • Selah Audio
    • http://www.selahaudio.com
My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #32 on: 25 Aug 2005, 03:11 am »
Quote from: ekovalsky
Goskers,

The RM40 is not even close to a line array.  It is a WMTMW design, like the Dunlavy and PBN Montana speakers.   Think of it as two point source speakers sitting atop each other, with the top one "upside down".  This is not just an analogy as the original RM40 was basically two RM2 in this configuration (of course in a unified cabinet).

RMX probably could be considered a quasi line array, and it indeed is such from ~ 250hz to ~ 6khz.  Above and below that range it is a point source.  If you ha ...


There is quite a bit of confusion in the marketplace about what constitutes a line array. Some of the problem is the marketing hype that some companies use. Just because you have a design with multiple woofers and a  tweeter doesn't mean you have an array; in fact, such a design is not even close to having the properties of a true array. I've built designs like this and can verify that.

The main problem with using a small number of tweeters or midranges is that you'll end up with neither a line array wavelaunch or point source. Driver interference patterns of such a design will result in poor vertical response and bad integration with other drivers in the system.

Rick Craig

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3567
  • Selah Audio
    • http://www.selahaudio.com
My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #33 on: 25 Aug 2005, 03:30 am »
Quote from: ctviggen
Why is there such negativity toward VMPS?  You all enjoyed your VMPS speakers while you had them.  Even if Salk produces a better speaker (which I assume is true), there's no reason to diss VMPS.


There's more to this than just the issue of the performance of the RM40 versus the HT3. If you privately ask some of those involved you may get to hear the rest of the story. I've heard both and as a biased 3rd party I can tell you IMHO that the HT3 is by far the better speaker.

There was an interesting thread at Audio Asylum recently where several audiophiles listed the speakers that they've owned over the years. Some of the lists showed a progression that reflected upgrades in performance. Others showed mostly lateral moves not unlike picking different flavors at Baskin Robbins. A few were loyal to a particular brand but most had purchased from several different companies.

As I looked at the results it was difficult to draw a conclusion. I do think that many people switch because they want something different. Sometimes that means a better speaker, sometimes not. Much of it I believe is dependent on what you've been exposed to. If all you've ever heard is what Best Buy sells then that is your reference until you hear something really good.

CornellAlum

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 493
My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #34 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:26 pm »
Quote from: Marbles
I still own the RM40's.  I think I have tried to be very truthfull about their positive qualities and any perceived weakness's.

Alum, you have very good speakers, it is my wish that you are able to enjoy them for a very long time....

In fact it is their strengths that keeps me from trying very hard to sell them.  For instance, I have listed them on AC, but not on Agon.

The fact that I have a speaker that I like better does not mean I think any less of the VMPS.

The fact that I point out potentia ...



What exactly are you referring to when you talk about "meat."  Can you describe it for me a little?

D-----

Marbles

My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #35 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:29 pm »
I don't want to get into it in an HT3 thread.

It should be done in an RM40 thread on the VMPS forum were BC will feel welcome to join in...

Tirade

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 316
My quick review of the HT3's
« Reply #36 on: 25 Aug 2005, 01:38 pm »
Quote from: Rick Craig
If all you've ever heard is what Best Buy sells then that is your reference until you hear something really good


I went from hearing "Best Buy" speakers to visiting a shop in Birmingham, Alabama called Audio Forest. I heard some Jm Lab Grand Utopias hooked to about $20k worth of Conrad-Johnson gear and since then Ive never heard anything that even came close. It was the first time that I listened to music and got goose bumps and my wife (she was just my girlfriend at the time) was with me and wanted to hear her Sade CD. Let me first say she had grown tired of listening to speakers and was just ready for me to buy something or give up. When she heard her CD on this system she told me that she would continue to audition speakers with me until we got as close to that sound as we could in our budget.

Anyway, when Im older and much much richer, Id like to get goosebumps again.

Tim

Danny Richie

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 12791
    • http://www.gr-research.com
array
« Reply #37 on: 29 Aug 2005, 10:28 pm »
I disagree and agree with Rick.  :mrgreen:

Quote
Just because you have a design with multiple woofers and a tweeter doesn't mean you have an array


An orderly line of anything can be an array. It doesn't mean that it is a line source or will have line source characteristics, but it is an array.

Then here is the part I agree with.

Quote
There's more to this than just the issue of the performance of the RM40 versus the HT3. If you privately ask some of those involved you may get to hear the rest of the story. I've heard both and as a biased 3rd party I can tell you IMHO that the HT3 is by far the better speaker.


I don't even have to hear them both to agree with that one.

Rick Craig

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3567
  • Selah Audio
    • http://www.selahaudio.com
Re: array
« Reply #38 on: 30 Aug 2005, 01:09 am »
Quote from: Danny
I disagree and agree with Rick.  :mrgreen:

I don't even have to hear them both to agree with that one.


Go back and read Dr. Griffin's paper for the definition of line arrays and line sources  :roll:

Danny Richie

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 12791
    • http://www.gr-research.com
Array
« Reply #39 on: 30 Aug 2005, 01:15 am »
Quote
Go back and read Dr. Griffin's paper for the definition of line arrays and line sources


Hey, anybody can make their own definitions up.

Try reading one from Websters. An ARRAY can be an orderly line of ANYTHING.