Full Blown RM-40 Vs Full Blown RM-30

PLMONROE · « **on:** 8 Sep 2006, 04:02 am »

Aside from the fact that the RM-40 has deeper bass what would be the sonic differences in other aspects such as imaging, soundstage, etc?

Se7en · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 04:36 am »

I'm sure others on this forum can go into more detail, but as a starting point: The RM40 has an additional mid panel, combined with the stronger/deeper bass makes for a more dynamic system, higher output, etc. The 30 has a narrower front baffle which would lend itself to better staging.

The 40s cabinet is not nearly as deep as the 30s, but the 30 is potentially a better fit for smaller rooms.

The 30 presently comes standard with CDWG

You will probably be happy with either.

john1970 · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 10:43 am »

I have listened to both speakers. The most obvious difference is the extra bass of the RM40s (-3 dB @ 24 Hz) vs. the RM30s (-3 dB @ 32 Hz). IMO the RM40 is definitely worth the extra money. For an extra ~$1000 you get true mid-20 Hz bass!

Best,

John

jermmd · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 01:02 pm »

Quote from: john1970 on 8 Sep 2006, 10:43 am

I have listened to both speakers. The most obvious difference is the extra bass of the RM40s (-3 dB @ 24 Hz) vs. the RM30s (-3 dB @ 32 Hz). IMO the RM40 is definitely worth the extra money. For an extra ~$1000 you get true mid-20 Hz bass!

Best,

John

I agree with John but think the size difference really needs to be taken into account. The RM40s are enormous! It's hard to appreciate how big they are without seeing them. Room size, WAF, and basic decorating/style has to be considered with these behemoths. There's no hiding these speakers. They will be the primary focus of attention in any room. This may not be a bad thing but it's what prevented me from purchasing them. The RM30's are much more manageable even though they're not small either.

zybar · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 01:37 pm »

Here is a picture of the VMPS RM 40's, Lonewolfny, and Salk HT3's to show some scale:

George

RGordonpf · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 04:18 pm »

Another option is the RM-30 plus a Larger subwoofer. This gets you to -3dB @17Hz. I have this combo and it works very nice in a medium size room (4,500 cubic feet). I used to have FF-3s and much prefer the smaller size of the RM-30.

ctviggen · « **Reply #6 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 05:53 pm »

How tall is Lonewolfy? I think the RM40s are about as tall as I am (5'8"). They are really large speakers. I think they also sound better brought out into the room (as I think all speakers do), which means that you need a relatively large room. For instance, my RM40s are at least 5 feet from any wall. When they're out that far, they tend to dominate the landscape (although my 13 bass traps -- most of which are black -- and three subwoofers help to tone down the RM40s somewhat). The RM30s would be much less imposing. I'm not sure which would sound better, as I haven't heard the RM30s driven by my own gear. I think one benefit to the RM40s (aside from bass) is a fourth midrange panel , where the third and fourth midrange panel are up high. I often think I hear the most info. from these two panels and the tweeter, and I've been thinking of covering up the bottom two midrange panels to see whether this is true. It's almost a line source of midrange, which the RM30 also has, just to a smaller scale and not as physically high up.

opnly bafld · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Sep 2006, 05:57 pm »

I would say Chris is around 6'2", that is my height and I look just over the top(eye level) of my RM40s.
They really dominate a room.

Lin

john1970 · « **Reply #8 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 01:44 am »

To all,

The RM40 is definitely a large speaker at 5.5 feet high. Although tall it does not have a large footprint at only ~13" wide and 17" deep. However, the sheer height of the speaker does draw attention to itself. With that said it is an excellent sounding speaker and you can not go wrong with either the RM30s + sub or RM40s.

Another option (if you have the space) would be the RM30Ms and dual VMPS larger subs.

Best,

John

gongos · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 01:50 am »

Another option is a pair of RM2's. A fellow audiocircle member was over at my place and preferred the RM2's to the RM30's he had. And they're short. And you don't need a sub.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #10 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 08:08 am »

Quote from: ctviggen on 8 Sep 2006, 05:53 pm

How tall is Lonewolfy?

I am exactly....6 Feet tall........

warnerwh · « **Reply #11 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 08:32 am »

I've seen that picture a number of times I believe had been taken at George's house. I always thought it was George as nobody would set a beer on someone else's speakers

.

Maybe I'm the odd ball but do people set drinks on their speakers?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #12 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 08:35 am »

Quote from: warnerwh on 9 Sep 2006, 08:32 am

I've seen that picture a number of times I believe had been taken at George's house. I always thought it was George as nobody would set a beer on someone else's speakers.

What you don't see is the napkin under the bottle.....

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #13 on:** 9 Sep 2006, 08:44 am »

Quote

Maybe I'm the odd ball but do people set drinks on their speakers?

Only for photo's....that's a Saranac Black and Tan.......

warnerwh · « **Reply #14 on:** 10 Sep 2006, 04:07 am »

You should come to Portland sometime. We have an incredible amount of microbreweries here. You still wouldn't be able to set one on my speakers though

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #15 on:** 10 Sep 2006, 04:19 am »

Quote from: warnerwh on 10 Sep 2006, 04:07 am

You should come to Portland sometime. We have an incredible amount of microbreweries here. You still wouldn't be able to set one on my speakers though

...Even if I used a special carbon fiber drink coaster.......

warnerwh · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 Sep 2006, 07:31 am »

If you come to Portland you can put your beer on my speakers with a carbon fiber coaster.

Spill it though and we'll have to shoot you

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Sep 2006, 12:40 pm »

Quote from: warnerwh on 10 Sep 2006, 07:31 am

If you come to Portland you can put your beer on my speakers with a carbon fiber coaster. Spill it though and we'll have to shoot you

Sounds fair to me......thanks warnerwh !!

James Romeyn · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 Sep 2006, 04:54 am »

Funny someone mentioned RM2's. If/when the CDW becomes avaiable that model can be considered too.

I am probably the only person other than BC to have heard the best 40 (shipped a couple weeks ago) & best 30C (my pair) in existence. They both had every possible current option w/ the following sum total differences:
40: Bolder silver & binding posts employed in normal fashion
30: Stan Warren recipe wire; xo output to speaker input is hard-wired & joined w/ wire nuts

Both speakers are incredibly impressive in their own ways. Regarding the differences, I heard the same exact things I have always considered to be the hallmarks of this comparison:
40: more & deeper bass, larger maximum output envelope, a signature effect imprinted on the staging/imaging, apparently caused by the symmetrical array. You may like the effect, I don't personally. Hard to define: a boxy effect, sounds ever so slightly synthetic somehow, but again this is only imprinted on the stage & less so to the imaging. It is not a function of timbre or tonal balance in any apparent way. If others don't hear this, just ignore me & call me deaf, I probably am at 52 & after the studio work I did in my youth at the Record Plant. Big Big sound, big big SPL capability.
30C: stage/image is more accurate, pleasing, muscial & transparent; probably a function of the linesource, which has always been more pleasing to this listener, all things being equal, which of course they never are. Though this speaker could not play quite as loud (going by the math) the difference in this are is extremely close. It goes to 40 Hz per Brian, but sounds more like 35 Hz to me. This is, in the right system, one of the most dynamic speakers extant.

Sorry not meant to offend anyone. I'd get 30C & a sub any day over the 40. I'd personally in fact take 30C w/ every possibly option & not worry about the sub till I could afford it (that's my current position). HINT: YOU WON'T MISS THE SUB FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE THE SOUND QUALITY WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ka7niq · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 07:36 pm »

Quote from: PLMONROE on 8 Sep 2006, 04:02 am

Aside from the fact that the RM-40 has deeper bass what would be the sonic differences in other aspects such as imaging, soundstage, etc?

Here is what Brian told me ...
I once lived in a small waterfront apeartment here in Florida.
I was considering WHICH VMPS speaker to buy.
I was concerned the small room I was in would not be kind to the RM 40's.
Brian said the RM 40's will sound better in ANY room.

But, that was before RM 30!

Since I am "into" shock and awe, I like the big size of RM 40.
I like it's ability to play loud, with low distortion.

I have never had the pleasure to hear RM 30.

I would think it to have a bit more 'room sound' because it is not a double stacked line.