[Sedona Sky Sound]

Wow, it looks like I missed lots of very interesting discussions today. My Trinaural Processors finally arrived this morning so I have spent the last 12 hours or so holed up in my demo room. I figured it would be a good opportunity to do a complete AB review of how everything sounds/works together. Basic set-ups tested were:

1) Reference Baseline: RM40s, biwired (braided silver to highs and twisted copper for bass), Ampzilla
2) RM40s, twisted copper speaker cable, Ampzilla
3) RM40s, twisted copper speaker cable, Marsh A200s
4) 626R, twisted copper speaker cable, Marsh A200s
5) 626R, twisted copper speaker cable, Ampzilla
6) 626R, LRC, twisted copper speaker cable, Marsh A200s, Trinaural Processor  

Associated products were: Pioneer Elite SACD/CD/DVD-A player (Sony SACD plays sound a little better but I needed a combi player for customer ease), Marsh P2000B balanced pre-amp (great synergy with VMPS products especially those with the Auricap upgrades), ScorpionWire single-ended and balanced interconnects as required (my own design)

At each step I tried to position and tune everything for best effect (a laser level is a mandatory piece of audio equipment as far as I am concerned)

So what were the results? Actually, I was quite surprised in a few area. The Reference Baseline sounded very good (of course). Going from biwire to singe wire made a small negative difference but most people would never notice the difference unless listening to them back to back. Using the Marsh A200s amp made a very noticable difference in sound with the RM40s. Definitely not a recommended match.

Hooking the Marsh amp to the 626Rs was an alltogether different story however. From the lower mids on up it was actually significantly more revealing than the RM40s (theory says this should be the case but still is a little funny knowing that one panel can sound better than four in some instances). The lower bass was no-where near as good as the RM40 and was perhaps a little "mushy" but the mids/highs sounded so nice and were so revealing it almost did not matter   When I switched to the Ampzilla I was expecting it to sound even better but unfortunately that was not the case. That little bit of bass "mushyness" was now gone but it lost an ever so slight amount of revealing (which is interesting since on the RM40 it was far more revealing than the Marsh).  However, I will have to agree with Jim that few people would find fault with the Ampzilla with the 626R.

With all the baseline test behind me, it was now time to hook up the Trinaural Processor. I decided to switch back to the Marsh amp (the revealing nature made me think it would be a better/harder test for the TRiP) so the final config was SACD -> Marsh Pre-amp -> TRiP => Marsh amps -> 626R/LRC where -> are single ended interconnects and => equals balanced. So what are the results? With about 6 hours of listening behind me I am still getting used to it. For the first hour or so it was definitely a little center heavy and "radial" from the L/R channel. However, over time things started to fill-in a little. After my ears have had a chance to rest it will probably be even better. So far, there are three distinct things I have noticed:
1) a narrow "sweet spot" is no longer an issue. I could move several feet each direction and there was little change in the sound
2) The background melodies are much more present since they seem to come from the side speakers and not be hidden behind the melody. You definitely "hear" more music.
3) There seems to be an ever so slight loss in recorded reverb/echo (I noticed this on Track 10 of the Natalie McMaster SACD). I am not sure if it is just being masked by the additional music I am hearing or if my ear/brain just has not caught up yet (probably the latter).

Just thought people might be interested in some of my findings/first impressions/opinions.

For those that got lost in my overly winded post, the recap is:

1) RM40 with Ampzilla = very good
2) RM40 with Marsh A200s = bad
3) 626R with Marsh A200s = Amazingly good
4) Trinaural Processor = still getting used to it but sounding pretty good so far
       
As a note to MadDog, you may want to take a look at the Marsh Hybrid Tube Pre-amp (P2000T). Unfortunately, I do not have the tubed version in my demo room but so far I have been extremely pleased with the performance of my P2000b fully balanced version.

As for the settings on everything, I am actually reasonably close to those recommended by Brian. The RM40s w/ FSTs were painfully bright when I first got them but they really settled down after 50 hours or so. When someone comes in for the demo, one of the things I do is actually tune the speaker to their taste. So far, this has been no more than +/- 10 degrees from recommended. My room is custom tailored to audio but would tend to be considered more dead than most (I have wall to wall curtains covering 10 inch thick styrophome/concrete walls with 70dB attenuation, ceiling is a pseudo Helmholts Resonator, Louden Ratio dimensions, etc).

All the above is strictly my observations based on my personal and professional experience and preferences. YMMV        

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[Kishore]

Julian,


Basically you found that the 626R+Marsh Amp betters RM-40+Ampzilla? (ok forget about lows-you could use a sub with 626)

I should admit I have not done side by side comparison-but I am amused/curious!

   

Cheers,
Kishore

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Kishore,
Once you add in a very long list of caveats (moderate listening level, treble rich music, etc.), then yes, a 626R can sound better than an RM40. I think this falls within the concept that you can hear much more detail in a good pair of headphones than you can with any speaker. However, with the headphones you loose the feel of the pressure wave, depth, etc. which are all VERY important to the musical experience. Once you throw a sub into the mix then you will more than likely be "covering up" the mid/high detail again. For louder music, deeper bass, and a "richer/fuller" sound then there is still no substitute for the RM40s.  

Julian

[sfpepper]

I'd agree, except the Ampzilla's appear to be an exception to this rule.  Have you heard the 626Rs with the Ampzilla monos?

My 626Rs with Odyssey Mono EXs have never sounded better.  I can understand several posts equating 626 v RM40 performance in certain
areas.

[TheeeChosenOne]

Has anyone ever compared the JM Labs Mini Utopia ($6k MTM design) with the 626r?

[doug s.]

julian,

re: subs, even if i were to get a pair of rm40's, i'd use my subs & active x-over w/outboard amplification - a pair of vmps largers, a marchand xm-9, & a pair of electrocpmpaniet aw75dmb's.  i wouldn't be "covering up" anyting in the mid/high detail, would i?  or, since i'm using such awesome subs,    should i save my $$$ & yust get a pair of 626r's?  i have a big room - ~26x38x8.5...  before you say the 626r's couldn't fill my room, my present monitors are small 2-ways, w/focal tweet & 7" eton mid/woof, & they fill the room yust fine w/the subs...

thanks,

doug s.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Doug,
I am not sure how to answer this since so many variables/tastes/preferences are involved buy here are a few thoughts:

1) Just about any time you add more bass into a room you will cover up your mid/highs to some extent. Sometimes this is beneficial (increased harmonics, blended resonance, etc.) and sometimes it is not (room modes are almost always destructive to the sound).

As an example, I lived in Asia for several years but never was able to get my system to sound good. The painted concrete block the homes are made of was just too reflective when it came to bass frequencies (the Sabine calculation was practicly zero). The number of bass traps it would have taken to get good sound would have been both cost and space prohibitive. After trying equalizers, resonators, diffusers, and just about anything else I could find in the Masters Handbook of Acoustics I finally gave up and disconnected the woofers in the speakers. The speakers were much more revealing/musical/enjoyable after that.

One of the other interesting  things I learned overseas was that your tastes tend to be influenced by what you are used to. In Asia (Taiwan in particular), most people seem to be used to a very boomy bass (RT60 times of perhaps 2 seconds or more). Without this level of bass, they don't think the music is forceful enough. As for the 3rd harmony in song XYZ that I like to hear, most do not know that it even exists, and even if they did, they would prefer the bass. It took my wife (who is from Taiwan) nearly a year to get accustomed to a relatively flat listening environment (she would keep trying to get me to crank up the bass even though my SPL meter was showing that the bass was already 5dB higher than the rest of the spectrum). So is she wrong, and I am right? No, it is just a matter of preference. The only time it really matters is with recording work (one of the local recording studios uses our demo room to test their masters before they go off to be duplicated   ).  

That being said, if you think you need the added bass for your RM40's, go for it. Just realize that you will be missing out on a little of the mid/high frequencies that may or may not be important to you.  

2) The choice of which speakers to select is influenced by many, many factors. Format preferences, spouse acceptance factor, space limitations and cost are all just as important (maybe more so) than sonics for most people. If you have a large dedicated listening room and a very deep bank account, five RM40s mated with ten Ampzillas would be very hard to beat (at least until the RM/X becomes a production reality). For all the rest of us, we have to make choices and compromises. For a person who is 50% two channel music/50% Home Theater, something like the RM40/LRC/626R (or perhaps dipole ribbon)/Larger sub combo would be a very good compromise. For someone with slightly less money to spend who is 50% multi-channel music/50% Home Theater then perhaps five 626Rs with Larger sub would be better.

It is strictly a personal opinion, but I personally prefer NOT to mate speakers with a sub for critical two-channel listening. There are just too many variables to contend with in getting a good coherent top to bottom sound (bass directionality, crossover slope, bass reinforcement due to sub positioning, cabinet interaction/diffraction, etc.). If two channel listening is your main goal but money is an issue, then I suggest going with the smallest speaker (with FST) that meets your bass requirements/preference. For someone with a really small room who likes listening to flutes and female voices, then the 626R will work well. For folks with a moderate/large size room who listen to orchestras, pipe organs, or rock at moderate to loud levels, then you are quickly back to the RM40 as the best choice. I am sure the other dealers have their own ideas and preferences. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Julian

[James Romeyn]

any suggestions for an inexpensive preamp (tubed or ss) that would be an improvement over the adcom are welcome. as are BIG donations...

I think the McCormack RLD-1 & MAP-1 are the best preamp values.  The RLD lists for $1700 & probably goes for $1000 used or thereabouts.  Kishore was nice enough to bring over a couple of really interesting & exotic tube pres for comparison.  Plus I ABd the MAP against Big Bs $7500 Jadis JPL.  l heard the increased musicality & that hypnotic spell of the tubes, but still preferred the neutrality of the MAP.  Once you live with 1/2dB remote volume/balance with this much sound quality you won't likely go back.  I apologize for persons who've heard this mantra before, but I agree with the premise that each musical piece has an ideal playback level.  I think 1dB steps are too large, though transformer based preamp afficianados believe their increased fidelity is worth the price of larger steps.  I will email my preamp review if requested.

[John Casler]

re: subs, even if i were to get a pair of rm40's, i'd use my subs & active x-over w/outboard amplification - a pair of vmps largers, a marchand xm-9, & a pair of electrocpmpaniet aw75dmb's.  i wouldn't be "covering up" anyting in the mid/high detail, would i?  or, since i'm using such awesome subs,    should i save my $$$ & yust get a pair of 626r's?  i have a big room - ~26x38x8.5...  before you say the 626r's couldn't fill my room, my present monitors are small 2-ways, w/focal tweet & 7" eton mid/woof, & they fill the room yust fine w/the subs...

thanks,

doug s.

Doug,

In your room, using the 626Rs I would suggest a more nearfeild position than what your gallery pictures show.  The 626R in nearfeild (say 7 feet) is one incredible sonic treat.

The nearfield position will also help "balance" the sub/monitor integration, but you may need to experiment with subs in relation to sweet spot.

626Rs, nearfeild in a large room well out into the room as you are now, would be the SECOND BEST system I could think of.

But that leaves, the FIRST BEST.  

There is little doubt that those who have read my recent posts know how highly I regard the 626R.  It is, to my preferences, the quintessential Audiophile Monitor available today under (you throw in a price) dollars.

BUT....

The sheer majesty of the RM40s when set up in a free environment like yours would be incredible.

Now while you may want to move a foot or two back, (to say 8-9 feet), you wouldn't want to move too far back to reduce ceiling bounce.

I would also set them at least 5 feet into the room and if you can, soften the front wall with some drapes and silk plants for diffusion.

I would spread the RM40s (or even the 626Rs for that matter) at least 10 feet apart, and play with toe in (but my favorite is precisely on axis)

Flank the 40s with the Largers and adjust the subs field to suit.

You will be rewarded with a sonic "Soundscape" that few ever get to enjoy.  Performers will be lifesized and imaged in a 3-D blackness that is hard to match.

Would you be happy with 626R?  You bet!  Would they sound good in your room? Unquestionably, especially in "nearfield"'.

Would the RM40s sound better?  Is Christmas better than Christmas Eve?

[James Romeyn]

Hello Doug,
I am not sure how to answer this since so many variables/tastes/preferences are involved buy here are a few thoughts:

1) Just about any time you add more bass into a room you will cover up your mid/highs to some extent. Sometimes this is beneficial (increased harmonics, blended resonance, etc.) and sometimes it is not (room modes are almost always destructive to the sound).

As an example, I lived in Asia for several years but never was able to get my system to sound good. The painted con ...

Julian
I had bass modes in the neighborhood of 9-12dB in the low 30s & low 80s ranges.  I filled the corner between the spkrs with two triangle-shaped bass traps from the 8' ceiling to about 12" above the floor.  The traps are 36" acrosss, the corner angle about 25" in length, equivalent in area to ASCs largest 20" cylinders.  The sound is so much better I am still adjusting after a couple months.  (BTW, foil on the face was mandatory, too dead souding without.)  Now, I have not measured but am still hearing a mode, presumably the low 30s mentioned above.  So it would appear that more corner bass traps are called for.  But the sound was better without the temporary experimental trap in the corner behind the listening seat.  This appears to be a contradiction.  Got any sage advice?  Thanks.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Jim,
I know you already know this but just so that everyone else knows what I am talking about, let me quickly define several terms first:

Sabins: calculated/measured absorbtion at several primary frequencies (125 Hz, 250 Hz, 500 Hz, etc.)
RT60: Reverberation time (time it takes an impulse in the room to reduce by 60 dB)
Panel Absorber (sometimes called a Helmholtz panel absorber): porus panel extended from the wall or corner that uses an airspace and/or material to turn sound into heat
Bass/Tube Trap: Basically the same thing as the Panel Absorber but in a cycindrical stand-alone shape (ASC and the generic Jon Risch design are the most common)
Helmholtz Resonator: a device that pulls energy out of the air via a tuned resonant chamber (same process as blowing over the top of an old coke bottle)

Panel Absorbers and Tube Traps pull energy out of the air over a very broad range of frequencies (typically 100 Hz to 1k+ Hz). In order for it to have any significant impact at the 30 Hz range, it would likely need to be several feet in diameter. By that point, the Sabins for all of the other frequencies would be so incredibly high (RT60 < .4 seconds) it would have sucked pretty much all the life out of the room (this is what I assume you are experiencing with your experimental corner traps).

The only way I know to tackle frequencies below about 50 Hz is via a tuned Helmholtz resonator. This will also help tame some of the 2nd and 3 rd order harmonics. Helmholtz resonators are much trickier to design and place than bass traps so definitely not something I would tell a customer to go do on their own. However, as a DIYer and dealer, I figure you have the tools and are used to things like this    

To correct your problem, I would suggest (simplistic version):

1) Calculate you room's Sabins
2) Calculate your theoretical room modes
3) Measure your room modes
4) Add Panel Absorbers/Tube Traps, reflectors, etc to get all your Sabins/RT60 times where you want it (I suggest starting with RT60 = .7 seconds and adjusting to preference from there)
5) Measure room modes again
6) Design/build Helmholtz resonators specific to room modes
7) Add stuffing to resonator to adjust Q as necessary

It took me about 60+ hours the first time I did this (mostly researching  Helmholtz resonator design since most of the info on the Internet is totally wrong) but now I can do it all in about 6-8 hours or so. Best of luck.

Julian

[James Romeyn]

Julian
So, ASCs advice that their 20" cylinders absorb to 30 Hz is apparently not so accurate.  Can't say I'm surprised.  Two questions:
1. How much do you charge per hour for room consulation?
2. When's your next wine country visit with your lovely bride?  
On the other hand, maybe you know someone nearby you can recommend for the same advice?  On the other hand, I need some kinda excuse to visit Texas to hear your big rig...
Cheers!
Jim

[doug s.]

hi all,

thanks for the comments.  

re: adding more bass to a room, i am not looking to add more bass than normal, i just want flat response to 20hz.     any covering up of mids/highs should therefore be more true to the original recording, cuz if there's low frequency info in the recording, that's what ya should hear.  in fact, it's been my experience that crossing over subs to monitors (especially 2-ways) gives *better* midrange, as the mid/woof driver of the monitor is freed of the responsibility of trying to output that last octave...

re: my room, it's quite large, and opens to two equally large spaces on either sides.  therefore, it rarely gets energized w/bass, as i've heard many smaller rooms do, even w/o a pair of vmps larger subs.  perhaps i need *another* pair?    actually, i guess i could build 'em, as i only need two passive radiators - i have upgraded mine w/the megawoofers & have the original drivers...

my present listening position has my relation w/the speakers in a ~9' equilateral triangle.  the speaker faces are ~5' from the rear walls, w/one speaker ~10' from one side wall, the other ~7' from the other wall.  there's ~24' behind me to the back wall.  this gives a great soundstage (along w/the subs, of course!), even w/my relatively dimunitive 2-way monitors.   and, occasionally i will listen in the far-field, ~12'-14' away, & this still gives nice results.  ceailing treatment would be nice for this, for sure...  and, while my mini-blinds do help on the wall behind the speakers, i do agree that thick drapes will be ideal.  future plans call for full windows on that wall, (i have no idea what the previous owners of my house were thinking); when the windows come, drapes will come w/'em.

i'd asked for 626-rm40 comparison for my space, cuz, while i'd really like something along the lines of an rm40, budget considerations may preclude this.  as folks following this forum are well aware, i've been lusting after new speakers for a *long* time!  fortunately my present monitors are more than adequate....

regards,

doug s.

[John Casler]

i've heard many smaller rooms do, even w/o a pair of vmps larger subs. perhaps i need *another* pair?  actually, i guess i could build 'em, as i only need two passive radiators - i have upgraded mine w/the megawoofers & have the original drivers...

Hi Doug,

Since you have your LARGERS well off the wall, they don't benefit from boundary reinforcement and depending on the reflected wave off the front wall, possibly some cancellation.

They will however (again nearfeild) have greater musical accuracy, and since this is a two channel system I would bet they sound pretty darn good.

Stacked or Flanked Largers!  What a visual (as well as aural)

my present listening position has my relation w/the speakers in a ~9' equilateral triangle. the speaker faces are ~5' from the rear walls, w/one speaker ~10' from one side wall, the other ~7' from the other wall. there's ~24' behind me to the back wall.

That is a perfect RM40 set up.  Your room is one of the best I have seen for the RM/x or RM40s.  I would suggest that you could even go wider say 10-11 feet with the same 9 foot listening distance, if you want wall to wall sound.

The equilateral triangle concept is highly over rated. (but still a good guidline in a smaller room)

occasionally i will listen in the far-field, ~12'-14' away, & this still gives nice results.

Me too, in fact I set up two "sweet spots" for my clients.

Sweet Seat #1 is very nearfeild with the speakers in precision "on axis" convergence.  It is like headphones but with a real soundstage.

Sonic Cockpit #2 is a seat 2 feet behind #1.  It offers the convergence Big B advovates of intersecting 1-2 feet in front of you.

Nothing like 2 Sweet Seats on one system.  

i'd asked for 626-rm40 comparison for my space, cuz, while i'd really like something along the lines of an rm40, budget considerations may preclude this. as folks following this forum are well aware, i've been lusting after new speakers for a *long* time! fortunately my present monitors are more than adequate....

Well, as much as I'd like to say the 626R would do it for you, I would have to add my original "caveat", of NearField only.

Now this is assuming you are talking about listenig at realistic SPLs.

These speakers nearfield are a true marvel, but in a room that size, at more than 7 feet, they would not offer the sheer power of 4 times the Neopanels as in the RM40s.

And another point regarding your LARGERS, much would also depend on where you x'd-over.  With the RM40s, you might be using say 60Hz and that would free both the LARGERs and the WCF 10" of the RM40s to pump out more SPLs.

Make sure the woofs are all operating in the same plane.

Just the potential palcement combos for those two will be a fun time.

i'd really like something along the lines of an rm40, budget considerations may preclude this.

It is available   It's called the RM2 and it does have some nice bass too

[John Casler]

And another thing....

Has this thread equaled or surpassed the record of views?

Almost 7,000 views.  That has got to be close to the record.

Ok time for bed.

[theborg]

Has this thread equaled or surpassed the record of views?

You are correct, this thread holds the record for the most views! Followed by "Dezorel Audition Sign-up Sheet" at 6220 and "What makes amps sound different?" at 5914.

However, it is only 4th in number of replies, at 174. The above two are first and second at 328 and 264, third is "Tube or solid state?" at 216.

[TheeeChosenOne]

How do you know so much Borg?

Are you melded into the server?  

[theborg]

Yeah, basically....!

Also, I don't have a girlfriend, so running database queries qualifies as "fun" these days...  

[doug s.]

i guess i should post s'more, to up the number of replies!  

john, i know i'm not getting room reinforcement, that wasn't what i was looking for in my set-up - accurate bass *was*.  and, i'm getting that, i tink...    

the equilateral triangle was not intentional - i yust kept moving the speaks & the listening seat around, 'til i was happy w/the sound.  measurements afterwords indicated the 9' triangle.

if i ever do a second set of subs, they'll be behind me, outta phase.  mebbe *these* would be against walls for room reinforcement, as they certainly wouldn't be for accurate 2-channel soundstaging!  

i get great imaging w/my present rig - sound is spread between the speakers, & outside 'em, when it's present on the recording.  nice depth, even w/o drapes - having speakers out into the room really helps here, imo.  re: spl's, according to the meters on my mesa baron amp, i'm easily getting uncompressed spls of over 105db, on those occasions when i crank it up.  while rm40's would certainly have to be better than 626r's, i imagine the 626r's would still be quite good, as they're 2db more efficient than my present monitors...

re: rm2's i don't tink i'd be satisfied w/these, unless i could custom-build my own cabinets.  when the designer sez better results can be achieved by tilting 'em back 1"-2", i can't help but tink why don't they have a sloped front baffle?  i also really would prefer this speaker w/say, three of the 6.5" drivers of the 626, instead of that 12" woofer, in a taller slimmer cabinet.  (mebbe even add a 3rd mid-ribbon?) i don't really need the last iota of bass extension in my monitors, for obvious reasons, & this would be a great choice for me...

regards,

doug s.

[Juan R]

Try room treatment. My room open to a big area plus marble floor, I did the room treatment that Kris recomended(eighth nerve) and the bass ,sound stage improved a lot. also I feel like I am in a small room with carpet  without open walls. Great stuff and excellent service, even the return policy is good.