[Hoots]

I read a lot about the rm40 but I'm not sure what the cost and speaker recommendation would be for a complete 5-speaker setup.  I think I saw a ribbon center and some candidates for surrounds.  I don't suppose there are any packages (price bundles)?  

In a 16'x20' closed room above my garage I currently run Cornwalls and 4 Heresys with vintage tube electronics and an AVR for HT.  I'm trying to get a feel for the improvement and cost of updating.  I've been impressed with some expensive 2-channel setups (mbl 300e, KEF Ref205, ML Odyssey but I'm concerned about the bass (I haven't tried integrating a sub yet) on some of the popular sub $4k/pr speakers (ie N804, SF GP, MA GR60) plus these aren't cheap in 5-speaker setups.   I'm mostly critical about 2-channel but I don't want to loose the enjoyable HT I already have.

Would the rm2's be a strong cost effective solution for my room or should I focus on the rm40?

I have a 250w Carver C500 which I could use for a sub amp or perhaps simply sell for cash towards a new one.  I would assume the VMPS subs would be a nice mate for music and HT? Do you use a sub for music?

I know that eventually I should get down to Austin (I live in Dallas) for some evals but at this point I'm just learning about different options.  A 5.1 VMPS speaker setup might be one.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Ken,
You are welcome to come down any time. The setup I have in my demo room is basically exactly what I would recommend for a "no excuses" combination HT/stereo system: RM40s, LRC, 626Rs for back, and a New Original sub (or Larger sub if you really want to see things rattle   ).

Your 250W Carver would make an excellent sub amp. You could use your tube gear in a bi-amp configuration but a high-current SS design would still likely be necessary for the bass on either the RM40 or RM2.

With the RM40s, I personally find that a sub is not needed for music. A sub might be needed with the RM2 depending on how you like your bass. My guess is that once you hear the RM40s, that is what you are going to want  .  However, the RM2 will provide a significant amount of the performance of the RM40s at a lower cost (and potentially require a slightly less powerful/expensive amp). There are several people on this forum that upgraded from the RM2 to the RM40 so hopefully they can provide you some good feeedback.      

Happy listening.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[rblnr]

I use the following for HT and 2 channel.  FYI, I'm a more critical listener to music vs. movies.

2 RM40's L/R w/TRT and FST
LRC center w/TRT and FST and borosilicate (cabinet damping)
2 Def Tech.  BP-1 dipoles for surrounds

rest of system:

Meridian 598 DVD-A/V
Meridian 568.2 proc./preamp
Llano design Trinity 200wpc tube/ss hybrid amps

For music I'm very happy; the RM40's are a significant upgrade to my old Waveform Mach Solo speakers which were very good.  I also use the Meridian in Trifield mode for a lot of music; the LRC really pays off here as it blends well w/the RM40 mains and maintains the VMPS sound.

Thusfar, I haven't pulled the trigger on a pair of 626R's for rears.  Though the Def Techs are not in their league they seem adequate to me for movies.   I probably lose some spatial coherence  and the quality I get from them for multichannel DVD-A is compromised, but in the interest of saving $$, it ain't killing me right now.  Having said that, when I had Waveforms all around, the coherence of the soundfield was stunning.  

I'll get a sub soon, primarily for movies.  

My point here is that I think you can wait, or 'cheap out' as Bob Carver used to say, on the rears and still have a pretty fantastic HT setup, that absolutely rocks for 2 channel.   I had considered the RM2's for awhile, and would have had VMPS all around in that scenario, but am glad I went the route I did.  To my ears, and most people on this forum, the 40's are a major step up.  I feel that those extra ribbon panels certainly energize the air more, and should cut distortion some.  

I like having tubes somewhere in the line, so biamping might be a good option w/ your existing amps.

[shokunin]

Hoots,

I would definitely try and integrate a sub for HT, which can be used for music as well.  I've not had the VMPS larger sub in my system, but have built my own DIY stryke sub which has performed admirably in my system.  I'm using RM40's as mains, LRC center, currently running dipoles as rears, but will change to 626R's in the near future.

Julian, when I heard the RM2's at Brian's I thought the bass was very deep and powerful, I thought he had a sub on!!  Compared to the RM40's, which had good bass, but not as low nor as deep as the RM2's.  Have you felt the bass on the RM2's were not as powerful as the rm40's?

[rblnr]

I thought the RM2's went a bit deeper to when I heard them.

[John Casler]

In a 16'x20' closed room above my garage I currently run Cornwalls and 4 Heresys with vintage tube electronics and an AVR for HT. I'm trying to get a feel for the improvement and cost of updating. I've been impressed with some expensive 2-channel setups (mbl 300e, KEF Ref205, ML Odyssey but I'm concerned about the bass (I haven't tried integrating a sub yet) on some of the popular sub $4k/pr speakers (ie N804, SF GP, MA GR60) plus these aren't cheap in 5-speaker setups. I'm mostly critical about 2-channel but I don't want to loose the enjoyable HT I already have.

Would the rm2's be a strong cost effective solution for my room or should I focus on the rm40?

Hoots,

Your question is somewhat of a musing, since you obviously would like to keep costs down, focus on 2 channel, but wish to keep a HT system at a high quality.

RM2s would be a "cost effective" route, but they are not the RM40s.  They do, however have their own strengths of which, a slightly deeper bass (22Hz vs 24Hz, when well placed) response is the most obvious.

Only you can make the value judgement of if they will fulfull your two channel requirments.

Since your "most critical" listening is 2 channel, you will find that a move to The VMPS ribbons will be a significant move upwards regarding sonic sophistication and detail.

You could always start with a pair of RM2s and a LRC, and if you found yourself "lusting" after the RM40s, just move the RM2s to the surround position and add the RM40s to the front.

You would then have the ultimate system for that sized room, for both 2 channel and multi-channel music,...and HT.  You could even add a LARGER Sub to push it over the edge

Do be aware that the VMPS will take more power to reach the volume levels of your old Klipsch system so take a good look at your AVR and plan accordingly.

But also be prepared for a 2 channel musical presentation that can be just incredible when set up well.

Good luck in your decisions (not sure you can make the wrong one here, since they're all good)

[lkosova]

So....

what are you guys reccommending for the side surrounds for ht?????????? (7.1 system)

If vmps dipoles(bilpoles) are not the answer then what company side speakers would work well????  Triad???  M&K????(they have a new tripole that sits in a column fashion).

I need reccomendations for inwall and onwall side surrounds.

larger sub with rm 40 is great for ht BTW.

Larry

[John Casler]

For Multi-channel music/HT combos, I like the RM1 in applications where a floorstander can be used.

626Rs are a good choice for that app also if they can be mounted "off the wall a bit, or else the port needs to be stuffed.

I have a couple clients who use the LRCs for side surrounds mounted on TV wall mounts.

Brian is begining to ship the Ribbon Dipoles for those who don't care about "multichannel music, but want the ribbon sonic character in surrounds.

[lkosova]

I was thinking lrc also for the rears. How do they match sonnically compared to the 626-to the rm 40's?? What does "stuffing the port" do? to the sound???

Larry

[John Casler]

I was thinking lrc also for the rears. How do they match sonnically compared to the 626-to the rm 40's?? What does "stuffing the port" do? to the sound???

Larry

LRC is designed to "match" all the ribbon speakers in character.

Stuffing the port reduces low frequency ability. (won't play as low)

[wshuff]

Hey John,

Any pictures of these ribbon dipoles?

I'm using 626Rs and an LRC up front, with Def Tech BP10s at the sides and BP8s in the rear.  I like the combination.  Initially I had planned to move the 626Rs to the rear eventually and add something bigger up front, RM2 or --dream dream -- RM40s, and while that may still happen at some point in the future, I don't feel any great compulsion to get ribbons for the sides or rear.  The Def Techs do very nicely there and the VMPS speakers up front are just everything I hoped to get.  The point?  I'd definitely get the VMPS speakers for the front, whatever I could afford, from the 626R/LRC combo up to the RM40/LRC combo.  Worry about the sides and rears later.  That is at least the process that has worked well for me.

[John Casler]

I share your sentiments.  Do whatever you can to get the VMPS "frontal array" then go from there. (after all we're talking HT here)

As far as far as a picture, you'll have to petition Big B, for that.

I haven't even seen (or heard) them yet.

[lkosova]

I guess I am asking which is "better" for 7.1 and possible multichannel for the rears the 626 or lrc????

Larry

[John Casler]

Rears are not currnetly used in "multi-channel music" (no 7.1 sources)

And they are less important than side surrounds overall in 7.1 HT. (so as long as the rear port didn't affect you the 626Rs would be fine.

For side surrounds in multichannel music, the LRC would be superior due to greater frequency balance and front porting. (there is nothing that says a speaker has to be vertically oriented for surrounds)

In fact, if you have low 8-9' ceilings and are thinking HT surrounds (not multichannel music) mounting the LRC (angled down to your listening position) at the ceiling/sidewall junction (to kind of horn load it/couple it to the wall/ceiling boundaries) could be very effective, as long as your room is not too narrow.

For multichannel music the side surround ribbons should placed the same height as the front ribbons. (ear height)

If you grasp what I mean

[lkosova]

John,

I understand the concept and made a mistake what I said before...has anyone tried the lcr in the vertical mode not horizontal for side surrounds????

Is there anyway to use the triuranal without having a full size center???I know the answer to that is no but I wonder if anyone has tried different options.

Larry

[John Casler]

I don't know of anyone using the LRC vertically

And the Trinaural can be used with the LRC in the center, but obviously it would perform at a higher level, if the center speaker is of equal or better perfromance than the sides.

In fact, Jim always reminds me to tell people, that the TriNaural "can" be used with exisiting HT set ups, but "optimally" it would have the three equal speakers, just as a Multichannel Music system would "optimally perform best with 5 equal sized, and placed, speakers.

In fact when you get right down to "optimal" a HT system would perfrom "optimally" it it had three equal speakers across the front too.

[lkosova]

In fact when you get right down to "optimal" a HT system would perfrom "optimally" it it had three equal speakers across the front too.


Of course..i was just wodering if anyone has tried it,though. a lcr on a larger sub for the center would be interesting...not my idea but interesting...huh Roop???

Larry

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Larry,
An LRC sitting on a Larger would be pretty killer for HT. It would likely also be a big improvement in a Trinaural setup as well . However, I think a 626R sitting on a Larger would actually be better for the Trinaural setup (see the review on my website). Since the tweeter and Neo are located beside each other in the LRC, the center image is not quite as pinpoint horizontally as a vertical array. Integrating a sub into the Trinaural setup with a smaller center speaker will give you a significant amount of the "warmth" back caused by the loss of cone area but will still give you the the other Trinaural sonic benefits. The Trianuaral has a built-in sub output/crossover specifically for this situation.  

I have not tried the LRC in a vertical orientation but I think there are a few folks here that have. If I remember correctly, it did not work very well. That does not surprise me given the directional dispersion pattern of the Neo and FST (a spiral ribbon tweeter would probably work a little better since it is non-directional).  

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[lkosova]

Thanks Julian,

I would not think that the lrc would work good in a vertical array either...but I don't remember anyone saying that they tried it either.

I can't see how I would get a rm 40 behind the perforated screen area(plus how good a center channel would it be??). but.....I might need to make some changes.

It's a hard thing to figure how to great two or three channel AND home theater.......

Larry

[rkapadia@ROOP]

Larry,

I currently have a beautiful setup with LRC's on custom-isolated stands on top of larger subwoofers for my rear surrounds - the look is beautiful, and the spikes and decoupling really minimize vibration problems.  I'll post pictures soon, but the effect is really striking.

Regarding LRC's in vertical orientation - they do sound surprisingly good when positioning is right.  Out of curiosity, I have hooked up the LRC's vertically on my system to listen to them as mains, to speed up the break-in process and also to experiment a bit.

I'm not sure as to your ideal width of a sweet spot for HT, but if it's not more than 3 people wide you can have a great surround effect with vertical orientation.  They are definitely more directional with vertical orientation versus horizontal, but the sound quality is identical with good positioning.

The bass has much more impact with the LRC versus the 626R, and I think it allows for a lower crossover for the bass from the rear surrounds, for true non-directional subwoofer application.

Kind Regards,

Rup