[azryan]

Heard the RM-40's today!

First off thanks to ekovalsky.... for letting myself and my friend come over and check out his set-up (and incredible house! I got some drool on the floor. sorry!).
GREAT guy!!

He's got a Sonic Frontiers front end of DAC, tubed pre, and CD transport.

His amps are 2 chan.-sized Aragon monoblocks. I wanted to hear his PS Audio Classic 250, but he said there was a slight prob. that needed service, and IMO it would have been too much to ask him to change everything out just so I could hear it, though he offered to do it.

The room was I think he said ~14' x 17'.

The speakers were very far from the walls which I tend to think is the best way to go, but in the size of the room I think this was a bit too pulled out from the walls behind them, and he might get better balanced bass w/ closer to the walls, and a better driver integration from having a larger seating distance... but I dunno?

Seating was possibly just a bit too close to integrate optimally, but again... hard to say? We were sitting ~7' away I think I'm guessing.

The 40's had moderate toe in. Not extreme, not slight. The Alphas in my system are toed in slightly.
No right or wrong, just describing set-up. Every speaker/room needs something diff. right?

Both of our speakers are set 6.5' apart. I think a lot of people have their speakers too far apart IMO. ~8' max for most designs for tightest center image, plus further apart in typical rooms will put the speaks too close to the side walls otherwise I think. No 'absolute rule' though IMO.
Further apart doesn't mean 'wider soundstage' IMO.

There were no room treatments, but the bass wasn't boomy and the treble wasn't bright or edgy. Mostly it sounded very well balanced (other than some notes I mention later).

We did some clap tests from the speakers to the listener's seat at it was pretty good. Some echo (as to be expected) but no bad echo at all at seating spot.
I was kind of suprised how much the room wasn't seeming to be a prob., but we did talk about some things that I thought would tighten it up. Deading up the side reflection points and wall behind the listener I think would help everything out, but I doubt in a huge dramatic way as it was very good already. Or possibly setting up system and chair on a diagonal might work well too?

Just like how Tyson so well stated in his recent post about having heard the excelarrays and commenting on them vs. his RM-40's.... there's no way you can call my comments here a direct speaker comparison, shoot-out, A/B test, or anything other than a 'whole system+room' view.

Nothing about his system/room and mine is the same so this can't be called 'speaker vs. speaker' -though that's the thing I was there to hear as the 40's were my 2nd choice sight 'unheard' (so to speak) w/ the also 'unheard' Alphas I ended up building.

Ok... that said...

Well, for those w/ ADD (hehe),... long review short.... it sounded great (no suprise to me), and in a lot of ways sounded Very similar to my system (which Was a bit of a suprise).

I was thinking I'd be able to pick out the tonality diff. between the two and then no right or wrong, but then pick out which I felt sounded more 'realistic' and more 'tonally correct' to me.

It was only in the subtle details that I still prefer my set-up w/ Alphas, and tonally you could pretty much could flip a coin between the two.

I really hope ekovalsky will come over to my place and be able to post his own opinions. I'd really like him to. It feels so one-sided and almost unfair for me to comment on what I heard.

The imaging seemed fairly sharp, but I think just a bit less sharp as mine here. This may have been a subtle element of the room and/or the speaker placement/baffle bounce? I'm more inclined to think it was the room at least mostly, but just guessing.

The area I expected the 40's to be possibly better was in the midrange where it's all neo planar and no x-over, but I honestly feel the Alphas are a little 'richer', in a subtle way compared to a slightly 'dryer' output of the 40's.
The 40's didn't seem quite as detailed or clear, but I think that was a bit of the room holding them back.

It did seem a bit less natural to me in the mids, but maybe this is just preference? Let me say again, I found this to be a subtle diff.

Seeing as he has a tubed pre, I'm thinking this probably wasn't the front end effect, and it isn't really a room related issue either... I think?
Also, I heard nothing 'tube-like' in the sound, and I mean that in a very Good way. Sounded very accurate to me, w/ no color that I could pick out.

The upper range sounded damn near the same to me in both speakers. I don't feel either was better or worse than the other in clarity, detail, speed etc...(other than the imaging diff. I mentioned already).

The lower end was the clearest difference IMO, and a fairly clear diff. to be honest.

The dual woofers loaded the room fairly clean. There was just a hint of boom, but just a slight hint of it.  

The bass sounded fairly thin compared to my system, and the speed and slam didn't seem quite as fast or dynamic (for 40 owners he had the neos at 11:00 and the spirals at 10:30).

I thought the 40's bass impact might've had the edge being in a smaller room than the Alphas but it didn't sound like they did. Plus I often listen w/ the doors of my room open to the rest of the house, and we listened to the 40's in a closed room.

ekovalsky mentioned too that he missed that low end from this placement compared to having them much closer to the wall behind them. We moved them back a little bit at the end, but I didn't get to hear if this reinforced the bass in any way (good or bad).
 
Also the woofer integration seemed fairly clear to pick out.

We played some Nine Inch Nails where the bass beat drops down several steps, and you could hear the neo panels playing the tones w/ no weight behind it, and then when the bass dropped down you could tell where the woofers were now playing and had the weight behind them.

My friend said it sounded a bit like a small gap you sometimes find between a sub and monitors, even though we both knew this was Not the case here.

I don't think I'd call it a 'gap' myself. To me it just seemed like there was just a very clear change between the two very diff. drivers that kept them from blending seamlessly in the way they project.

I was expecting the sound to drastically change when standing, and off axis when seated, but hearing them it wasn't too much of a diff.
I was very suprised by this. -in a good way.
It does change a little bit, but didn't seem like very much, and nothing that I'd call a problem or real 'quirk', but I didn't really listen to them too much while standing.

It was hard to tell without having more distance from the speakers to tell anything more.

A thing my friend told me, and was something I heard but just didn't make a mental note when listening was that the imaging was Very high. Vocals were fairly sharp and clearly centered, but they were up High. It was like being in the front row looking pretty sharply up at the stage.

It didn't seem 'wrong' to me or anything. Not like there's a 'real' image height you're trying to create, so I think there's no right or wrong.
And like I said.. it wasn't something I even noticed till I thought about it after we left and my friend mentioned it, and I said 'oh, yeah.... it did didn't it?'

I have no idea if this 'angle' would be less extreme if we were at a longer distance?

W/ my set-up, the same vocal on these tracks image just a little above your head so you're just slightly looking up at them. Extreme high and low tones image slightly higher and lower, but it's subtle, not a 'dancy' up and down thing. (I know I've heard people worry about that in tall line sources).
I sit a bit farther from my speakers than in this RM-40 set up, but I think only a foot or two further back.

ekovalsky asked me how the low level detail was of the Alphas (and I'd like him to hear for himself), but going back home after hearing his set-up, I think my set-up has the edge here.

Maybe it's the room as the only diff. (though I doubt it since the room 'should be'? so much less a factor at such low levels), but the 40's seemed to disconnect from eachother at real low levels. The center image was fairly lost.

In my set-up I think the sharp imaging remains, and sounds 'maybe' a bit more dynamic too, but that one's hard to say since 'low levels' and 'dynamic' are really opposite terms. Hard to explain.

Basically I never listen that low so either way it's not a big thing for me. hehe

He has a dark walnut veneer on the 40's, and it looks great IMO!
My friend took some pics. We'll see if ekovalsky decides to post them. I won't post them, even though he said I could.

The finish quality seemed identical to my Alpha cabinet, though the 40's veneer didn't wrap around over the back side (which is painted black).
I wrapped the red birch all the way around my cabinets (I also screwed up a few little spots, but they're hard to see. no one's noticed so far! -heh).
 
The VMPS neo's are certainly Very diff. design from the B-G neo 8's planars. Anyone who tries to act like these would be meant for the same use with one being better than the other is distoring things greatly (pun not intended. hehe).

The Neo 8's are much narrower for one. The Neo 8's are best used as an extended tweeter IMO, and the VMPS neo is clearly meant to be an extended midrange, and that's how both are used in our two speakers.

There was 'never' any possibility that one could be used in place of the other, and that's not saying anything good or bad about either IMO.

Both RM-40 and Alpha cabinets are about the same face width, and the 40's are a little deeper I think, but shorter. Not that either is short. Both are taller than me!

The 'have to do' knuckle rap test on the side walls felt to be honest 'thin'.
I didn't know if there's maybe a soft damping layer between inner and outer walls?, or what the cabinet's made out of at all?, but it didn't feel that dead. The Alpha's cabinet which is double ply 3/4" MDF, heavily braced front to back and side to side. and black hole 5'ed feels quite a bit more solid. Much like the latest top of the line KEF's, or B&W's.

I don't know if this effected sound in Any way at all, so I'm Not saying this is any problem at all, just kinda pointing out assorted things/diffs. I noticed about them.

I wanted to feel the cabinet when we had Nine Inch Nails pounding loud, but I was too busy listening! hehe

Let's see... music we listened too... BTW... ekovalsky was SUPER nice also in that he let me pick everything to play. I'll certianly return the favor if he comes here for a listen. Can't tell very much if you don't know the music you're listening to, so I REALLY appreciated that!

Pearl Jam -Ten
Jeff Buckley -...my Sweetheart the Drunk
NIN -The Fragile
Tori Amos -Boys for Pele
Roger Waters -Amused to Death
Dire Straits -Love over Gold
etc...
The more telling tracks were...

Jeff Buckley 'Everybody here wants you'... The kick drum is very tight and dynamic (one of my reference CD's). On the 40's the kick didn't have the tightness or impact, but otherwise sounded very similar to my system beyond that.

Tori Amos 'Professional Widow'... She's got a very high voice, and we played it loud. There's a part where her voice just rises so high and loud that it's very telling.
I've heard this sound very harsh on many speakers.
On the 40's is was sharp, detailed and bright, just short of being harsh which is basically the same as it sounds on my system, both I think being very accurate to what's recorded. It's a tough track to hit the upper end of a speaker with.

Roger Waters -several tracks... this CD's in Q-Sound and has an awesome discrete quadraphonic surround effect 'on the right set up'.
It works perfectly in my system, and it worked very close to perfect in his system, with probably 100% of the diff. being the room just slightly hampering this phase effect.

I've heard many systems where the effect just doesn't work at all, and this 40 system does it better than my previous Newform 645's did w/ everything else in my room the same.

Dire Straits 'Private Investigations'... There's a high noise floor in this recording, but beyond that it's awesome acoustic guitar, very dynamic, and great percussion bits too, etc...

Mostly overall it seemed like the guitar was about as dynamic as my system here, but hard to say if it was any less. It wasn't more dynamic though.
I do probably listen to it even louder here than I did there. It didn't seem to be terribly different, but I think I give the edge to my system for what I think is more dynamic impact (from top to bottom) and a bit richer more wooden sounding guitar body.
It felt just a little flat/dry from the almost all planar output in the acoustic guitar range.

To sum it up....

My friend said it sounded 'great' but still gave the edge to my system. I felt the same.
There weren't any glaring flaws in ekovalsky's set-up, but a bit thin/not seamless bass did stand out, and a bit dry/flat less dynamic sound from the mids. The high end sounded very close to equal, but imaging was a bit hampered from the room I think.

I hope ekovalsky comes over and posts his comments. I really tried not to be biased at all here. He's got a great sounding system! I'd love to hear his opinions as he knows the RM-40s very well and have him play tracks he knows very well.

[ekovalsky]

Thanks for the honest review, azryan.  You and your friend are GREAT guys too and also have very good ears!  I look forward to personally hearing the G-R Alphas in your awesome dedicated listening room, particularly since you made them yourself.  I let the VMPS factory do the dirty work on mine, although I have become intimate with the neo panels after replace them several different times  

My dedicated room is completely untreated right now (14.5' x 17' x 9-10' ceiling, with double sliding wood & beveled glass sliding doors on one long wall) which is probably the single biggest limiting factor.  In the future, corner bass traps, absorbing foam on the walls behind the speakers, and diffusor panels behind the listening position will be added.  Once the treatments are added, I expect to move the speakers closer to the wall which will help the bass response.  Also, it will increase the distance from the speakers to the listening position which will aid in driver integration.

I believe the level settings of 11:00 and 10:30 on the mids and tweeter, respectively, give the most neutral frequency response.  At the factory recommended settings of 2:00 and 2:30 the sound is far too bright.

Adjustment of the bass damping, i.e. "playing with putty", has been very frustrating, and I'm not sure it is optimal on my speakers.  I've removed about a lima bean size amount of putty from each passive radiator.  I don't hear dramatic differences when removing or adding tiny fingernail scrapings.

The most important thing from the review:  the VMPS and G-R speakers sound similar despite differences in room quality, setup, and conceptual design -- probably both are approaching "truthful" sound reproduction.  I always found it frustrating that Stereophile "A" speakers,  several of which I have owned, sound so different from each other.  Although some were exceptional, none were probably very "truthful".  Maybe the G-R Alpha's and the RM-40's (maybe the Excelarray's too, anyone in AZ have them?) belong in the "A+" category!

[Juan R]

e kovalsky.    Check eighth nerve, my room is far from ideal and after I did  Kris recomendation, the bass is incredible.

[azryan]

"-I always found it frustrating that Stereophile "A" speakers, several of which I have owned, sound so different from each other.-"

Great point.

Eric and I talked about this a bit, as the very first impression I had was how similar the sound quality was to mine.

I don't care what a cabinet is made out of, what type of drivers it uses, (cost of the dirver's wholesale. hehe), etc... and think when you get to this level of 'realism' any two speakers "should" sound far more the same than "well... they're 'different' and I just prefer A over B..."

I feel Eric and I both have terribly realistic systems IMO, and I probably just have the more optimal room as of now (though his house kicks the crap out of my house! hehe).

Then again.... he might come over here and after listening think I'm totally insane and my system's awful!?! Who knows? hehe

I'd trust whatever he writes to be accurate though and whatever he finds my sound to be -good or bad. Can't wait to hear his view.

[Tyson]

Man, 2 threads going on the same topic - tough to keep up with!  But, I also wanted to throw in that my own observations agree 100% with what you are saying - the Excelarrays sounded MUCH more like the 40's than either speaker sounded to many other supposed "high end" speakers I've heard before.

So, 3 sets of killer speakers that all sound more alike than different - hmmm. . . .

[warnerwh]

Thanks for the review as I've been curious about just that question between those two speakers, especially with the crossover on the GR speaker being where it is.  One point to note is although I know not everybody can get away with it but room treatments help ALOT.  Like getting a much better version of the same speaker.  Without the treatment you are not getting everything you paid for.
 I heard some fully opted RM 40's belonging to Soundguy3 and believe I have to agree with the bass not having enough weight in the crossover region.  The speakers were several feet from the back wall. John claims though that his new set of RM 40's with the Analysis Plus wiring and the extra day of being broken in at VMPS made all the difference. Other than that they did everything amazingly well, at least better than I've heard before.  Hopefully I'll be able to go over and have another listen. Bass is extremely important to me. Imaging though was outstanding.

[John Casler]

Great Review AZ,

I think most of the points you brought up are relevant and probably do display differences in both set up, electronics, room and speakers.

I too find it difficult to accuratly discuss what I hear without diplomacy getting in the way.

Another point is familiarity and intimacy.  You are intimatly familiar with your speakers.  You built them and have spent (I assume) hours listening to them.

This very fact leads to all of us who have done it hearing what our speakers do is what things are supposed to sound like.  That is not saying it is right or wrong, but we are "familliar" with it.

I have a friend who too says that the VMPS have no "kick" to the kick drum, or sound muffled in the rimshots.  I listen and I can physically feel the impact of the kickdrum and snare, so go figure.

I also had a couple other comments,

Some of your music selections are great, especially the DIRE STRAITS cut of "Private Investigations".

And the Q-Sound albums by Waters and Madonna are great.  Since I have "no" side walls to speak of I get a Q-Sound effect that is startling in its breadth.  Again locked images where there are "no" speakers.

Glad your getting that too.

Also your questioning the intrgration of sitting 7 feet away.

I have the RM40s also and have them over 10 fee apart (no sidewalls) and sit 7-8 feet from the speakers.

Soundstage is solid, strong, no holes and lifelike.  Center images are locked, and equally as strong as the direct on axis images.

Hard to imagine that yu can get by with 6.5' width with speakers that large.  I assume they are that close because of side walls???

You comment on the height of the perfromers or stage is interesting since that was the first thing I noticed between my Legacy Sig IIIs and the RM40s.  When James Taylor or Diana Krall are singing it is as if you are at the front table of the venue.  James is 6' 3" and Diana is up on a small platform stage.  Actually their voices are about the height of the center speaker on my projection TV.  So much so that more than a few times listeners have gotten up and walked up to the speaker to make sure I wasn't playing the Center just to fool them.

In my set up never am I sitting back in the hall or club.  With the Legacies, the image was maybe 4 feet high at best.

Although you didn't mention the ceiling height.  Since the RM40 has a woofer at the top, it does sound clearer in the mid and upper bass, with no ceiling, a higher ceiling, a treated ceiling, or the simple tweak of blocking the upward wave I mentioned in a recent tweak thread.

The Bass "thinness" is a result of the 7 foot listening position and having the speakers well out into the room.  It could be "brought up" by further reducing the "pots" slightly, which would mean more power to the woofers at any given power setting.

But the RM40 will produce prodigious amounts of bass if moved a bit closer to room boundaries and moving the listeining chair back a few feet.

I heard Brians a few weeks ago and the BASS was incredible in his LEDE 15x30 listening room.

To bad you live so far away.  I'd like to hear your speakers.  If nothing else I look forward to Eric giving a report.

If your ever in LA, give me a shout and you can stop by and give mine a listen (different room/set up)

[azryan]

Sorry about the trouble of two 'same' threads. I was going to post just one in the general forum, but Eric suggested I post in GR's and VMPS's, and I thought that sounded good.
I was really afraid I'd get called a troll here, but gald to see people aren't taking it that way.

"-I've been curious about just that question between those two speakers, especially with the crossover on the GR speaker being where it is."

I honestly don't think you can't tell the x-over point in the Alphas in any way, and I think I have a bit more detail here, but I know Eric's going to erase much of his room w/ treatments now I think that'll do a great deal. I'd love to hear both in the same room and front end.

I'd also like Eric to hear the Alphas and hear his opinon on the midrange (and everything else of course).

I think Eric's going to really bring up the 40's bass quality w/ treatments and probably a further placement.

I do think the 40's a lot more work to dial in than the Alphas. I just made some comments on my positioning the Alphas on the 'sister thread' on GR's forum.

"-I too find it difficult to accuratly discuss what I hear without diplomacy getting in the way."

Yeah, I hope this thread stays cool on both forums. Cheers to both B&M ass kicking designs! THese two are nothing but BOTH winners.

"-Another point is familiarity and intimacy. You are intimatly familiar with your speakers. You built them and have spent (I assume) hours listening to them.
This very fact leads to all of us who have done it hearing what our speakers do is what things are supposed to sound like. That is not saying it is right or wrong, but we are "familliar" with it."

I REALLY tried not to do that. I totally understand what you mean. I honestly don't care that I made my speakers either, and if anything having anything to do w/ the sound I get from them -I'd imagine I made them worse than one of Brain Bunge's cabinets, and having Danny Richie wire everything up! I'm harder on my own build quality than I am so proud I made them. Heck, I keep telling people it was damn easy and I have no woodworking skills. hehe

"I have a friend who too says that the VMPS have no "kick" to the kick drum, or sound muffled in the rimshots. I listen and I can physically feel the impact of the kickdrum and snare, so go figure."

I really thought there was a lack of impact compared to the Alphas impact, but I certainly believe the two could come even closer together w/ both in perfectly optimal placement and rooms.

I'm 100% sure the kick of a kick drum could come up a lot from where Eric has it now, but I'm not so sure about a snare, though I wouldn't call it muffled at all.

Some of your music selections are great, especially the DIRE STRAITS cut of "Private Investigations".

And the Q-Sound albums by Waters and Madonna are great. Since I have "no" side walls to speak of I get a Q-Sound effect that is startling in its breadth. Again locked images where there are "no" speakers.

I WISH more CD's were recorded in Q-Sound. I do have many others that also do this effect to here and there. I don't know it they meant to do it and put these sounds out of phase, or if it was just a mistake they made or what, but when it works, and I can tell that there are sound coming out of my rear surrounds (but there isn't!) I have to wonder why people are so damn hard on the CD format, and 2-chan in general!?!

"-Also your questioning the intrgration of sitting 7 feet away.
I have the RM40s also and have them over 10 fee apart (no sidewalls) and sit 7-8 feet from the speakers."

Hmm... ok. I've now heard 7-12' from RM-40 owners. I think I'd personally feel the need to try 10' to get the whole speaker to act totally as one, but hey, I'm guessing.

I did just adjust my Alphas for the first time since new and am now sitting further away, and they're further apart, but I won't bother re-writing what I wrote in the other thread on GR's forum. (probably shoulda only made one thread. hehe).

"Soundstage is solid, strong, no holes and lifelike. Center images are locked, and equally as strong as the direct on axis images."

I hope Eric gets that 100% after he treats his room. I'd love to try out his system again after that!

"Hard to imagine that yu can get by with 6.5' width with speakers that large. I assume they are that close because of side walls???"

I have just adjusted the speakers further apart and I think it's better, but I'd have no prob. putting them back (though I'm not going to do that) as close as I had them and having people hear it, but yeah... it was too close as the soundstage has more breathing room now. Sound quality was very much the same I feel though.

I was waiting for them to break in and was too lazy to experiment w/ placement like I had planned to do.
Danny suggested a MUCH wider triangle, and feeling that was just a bit too large (the center image wasn't 'laser sharp' anymore, and the bass strength felt diminished) I ended up almost splitting the diff. from what I had, and feel that there it sounded the best.


"-You comment on the height of the perfromers or stage is interesting since that was the first thing I noticed between my Legacy Sig IIIs and the RM40s. When James Taylor or Diana Krall are singing it is as if you are at the front table of the venue. James is 6' 3" and Diana is up on a small platform stage."

I really think it was the short distance that we were looking 'up' too much. I think it'd probably image much like my speaks at the further distance.

I had said I thought I was only 1-2' further from my Alphas than from Eric's 40's, but I might've been a bit further than that even?
I'm now 12' from them though, which is quite a bit further back.

"-Actually their voices are about the height of the center speaker on my projection TV."

Is that center on top of the set? If yes, then yeah, I think that's what I heard.

When I used to have use a center (and my friend too who still uses one) both found we prefered the center on a stand below the screen than on top angled down.

The Alphas image in the center of my 65" set, so I feel it lines up just right w/ the images. That's at the closer and now farther distance too.

"-So much so that more than a few times listeners have gotten up and walked up to the speaker to make sure I wasn't playing the Center just to fool them."

I 100% believe that! I just do not want a center again. I hope the DVD-A/SACD player I think I'll eventually get will properly downmix a phantom center, 'cuz I just don't feel the need to actually have one (plus the matching amp for it). But that's probably best for a diff. thread.

"In my set up never am I sitting back in the hall or club. With the Legacies, the image was maybe 4 feet high at best."

I'm not sure I get what you mean? sorry.

"-Although you didn't mention the ceiling height."

Eric's is 8' or 9'? He's got a recessed lighting edge all the way around.
Mine is 8' on the sides and 10' in the center.

"-The Bass "thinness" is a result of the 7 foot listening position and having the speakers well out into the room. It could be "brought up" by further reducing the "pots" slightly, which would mean more power to the woofers at any given power setting."

I know Eric had them further back before, and even in the extreme corners of the room. I think he can say why he felt it better pulled out. Maybe the bass had some boom to it, and thinner, but cleaner was better? His bass traps he's getting I hope will give him clear, strong, and tight bass.

Maybe this sounds trollish, and I don't mean it to, but I think at best it'd equal the Alphas bass loading. The placement is just so easy compared to what seems like a very complicated pot turning, heavily room dependant set-up for the 40's... but hey, if you've got either, you're going to keep working at making them optimal, and when you hit it, they're both stunners!

Thanks for inviting me to L.A. too.
My uncle's out there, and if I go again, I think I would try to look you up. Thanks.

[KeithR]

Man, 2 threads going on the same topic - tough to keep up with!  But, I also wanted to throw in that my own observations agree 100% with what you are saying - the Excelarrays sounded MUCH more like the 40's than either speaker sounded to many other supposed "high end" speakers I've heard before.

So, 3 sets of killer speakers that all sound more alike than different - hmmm. . . .

Which high end speaks Tyson?  Curious...

[Housteau]

It has been so long since I have had single cabinet speakers per channel, that I had almost forgotten how hard it was to set them up properly.  This thread has reminded me of that.  I have heard some home set-ups that were able to pull this off quite well, but I always had trouble and was never satisfied.  Either the image, soundstage presentation , or the bass had to suffer.  I could never get it all until I went with speakers that had separate bass towers to augment the upper frequency sections.

Just for fun, try moving your RM-40's into the absolute best location for image and a breathtaking presentation of space without any consideration given to the bass.  Then, tweak in the bass the best you can by reducing the upper range frequency controls and playing with the putty removal method.    

Next, beg, borrow , or steel to get loan of a VMPS subwoofer and support equipment to augment the RM-40 as a test.   I have found that by placing my bass towers fairly close to my main speakers allows enough separation for both optimum  bass and proper integration.

You may find that your room really likes dedicated multi-enclosure speakers per channel to give you the best of both worlds.  The key is to only have them as far apart as necessary to get the optimum position for each.

Dave

[John Casler]

After thoughts:

First Driver Integration:

I was thinking about the Bass/Mid integration  issue AZryan raised in the review and "DUH"!!!   It is probably due to a bit of over dampening.  I certainly don't have that issue with mine using full frequency sweeps.

Barring the room induced bass affects, the dampening would seem to be the likely culprit.

Seems to me that Eric has mentioned that he had not adjusted the putty other than removing the original "pea".

Although I might use frequency sweeps to really ascertain the problem since Nine Inch Nails is not an absolute from which to judge, although it  might display a symptom.

Second:

AZ, you made the following statement:  

"Both of our speakers are set 6.5' apart. I think a lot of people have their speakers too far apart IMO. ~8' max for most designs for tightest center image, plus further apart in typical rooms will put the speaks too close to the side walls otherwise I think. No 'absolute rule' though IMO.
Further apart doesn't mean 'wider soundstage' IMO.

Now I know you are a critcal listener and find this an interesting statement.  Is this based on the Alphas? or any/every speaker you have had?  Or is it just a room width limitation?

I know that with many "high dispersion" speakers this is quite true, but I have had excellent results placing the speakers more than 12' feet apart.  

And I mean "razor sharp" pin point imaging and wide expansive sound stage.  I currently have my RM40s over 10' apart and I have my 626Rs "OUTSIDE" of them over 12' apart and the only apparent difference is that the soundstage of the 626Rs is wider.

But it is just as clean and pristine as it can be.  

Now if I moved them in to 6.5' I would certainly say that the soundstage would shrink and "bunch up" a bit.

I am interested in your perceptions, since you also mentioned that you didn't think the soundstage "width" would be affected.

As I understand it, the soundstage cannot exceed the outside limits of the actual speaker unless two things happen.

1) There is "reflected" sound off a side wall offering the perception of greater width.  In which case you are listening to the room.

2) There is specific "phase" information (generally not natural) that tricks the brain into hearing sound outside the speaker (such as  Waters' "Amused to Death")

What are your thoughts?

[Housteau]

"1) There is "reflected" sound off a side wall offering the perception of greater width. In which case you are listening to the room."

This sounds logical to me, as the room is a large part of the presentation for two channel music reproduction.  There is definately a balancing act that goes on in determining what room control measures need to be there to allow the room to interact and add to the performance in a positive way.  With the wrong controls, or lack of, in most cases the room will take away from the precision and, what I call magic.  

Multi-channel reproduction is a different animal though, or so I have been lead to believe.  My understanding is that a room for this sort of presentation should not add or subtract from it, as encoded within the source itself are all the spacial cues required.  These ambient effects are then sent to the appropriate channels that set-up the proper soundfield.  Diffusion and diffraction would not serve multi-channel listening as it does stereo.  It tends to smear the carefully placed directional information.

Two channel reproduction relies more on a properly set-up room and a different set of acoustics to recreate the width, breadth and life to be found within stereo recordings.

My speakers placed wider apart, as John mentions, have always served me well creating a wide presentation with a solid and precise center fill.  I guess that is why I opt to use the longer wall.

Dave

[audiochef]

Azryan , first of all ,I thank you and appreciate your honest and undispariging thoughts and opinians of the 40s in comparison to your set up. As an 8 year VMPS owner , 17months of them 40s, I'm biased.Would you please post a picture or describe your set up , paricularly the speakers?  thank you .                                                                                                                        SONY SCD777ES-modified  .GW LABSDSP .MONARCHY 22B -modified. AUDIBLEILLUSIONS L1. ARAGON 8008 .MONSTER3500 .KIMBER KCAGs and TARALABS .LAT POWERCORDS W/WATTGATES. TICE RECEPTICLE.RM40S W/REBUILT MIDS ,TWO FSTs EACH SPEAKER AND  JUST INSTALLED NEW BASES WHICH  DOES IMPROVE  THE OVER ALL SOUND

[JoshK]

How did you cram two FSTs into each speaker?

[wshuff]

Yes, Audiochef, how did you cram two FSTs in each speaker?  How about a picture of your setup.

[audiochef]

Because Ilive in San Francisco , I can easily visit Brian. Brian insisted 1 would do the job. I went home and felt I didn't  like the apperance of the wasted space so I discovered if I sawed and filed about a half inch off the faceplate that it would fit perfectly. So Icalled  Brian and he said ok and redesigned the crossover for this . I purpossly  took my time posting this because i wanted mine to be unique and a curtesy to Brian so he wouldn't be unindated with all these special request .They are awsome . BIG B IS THE BEST !    I do not own a digital camera, but will have friend post a picture for ne soon . thanks guys

[bkwiram]

So, Big B - any comment on the sound of this 'extra-tweeter' rig? Overkill or an unexpectedly good idea?

[shokunin]

Brian still placed only 1 tweeter on the RM/x, which has 50% more Neo panels than the Rm40's.  I think due to the efficiency of the new Free swinging tweeter, that one would be sufficient.  I guess by adding two you'd have to pad down the overall output, but I guess theoretically, you benefit from lower distortion.  

How does it sound compared to the dual spirals? Or is it worth the extra $400 for another pair of tweeters?

[audiochef]

I first got just the FSTs and the sound was definately more extended,sharper iff you will. It wasn't till I had the mids rebuilt that the mids speed caught up to the excelent FSTs and blended quite well. Mids must be up graded first though,then RM40s will have potential to be in upper range speakers 5 times their modest 6k range. I trully have one of the widest range of musical types from Social Distortion to Bach to folk-micro or macro Dynamics. Thanks for reading. If it wasn't for Mr Brian Cheney, none of us would be endowed with this great dying passion wich Brian is keeping alive for us working stiffs. Half off to you Mr. cheney-the under apprciated one.You are special!  Sincereley Stan and all the rest of your fan club.  KEEP BEING YOUSEF, THE LEGEND

[Audio Architect]

I first got just the FSTs and the sound was definately more extended,sharper iff you will. It wasn't till I had the mids rebuilt that the mids speed caught up to the excelent FSTs and blended quite well. Mids must be up graded first though,then RM40s will have potential to be in upper range speakers 5 times their modest 6k range. I trully have one of the widest range of musical types from Social Distortion to Bach to folk-micro or macro Dynamics. Thanks for reading. If it wasn't for Mr Brian Cheney, none of ...

What do you mean by the mids must be upgraded? From what to what?