[HarleyMYK]

Most of the posts on this board tend to be about the 626R or the RM40.  I wonder “why not the RM 1?”  I have not done an A/B comparison of the 626R and the RM 1, but I have heard the 626R with FST (thank you again John Casler) and I own a pair of RM 1s with sound coat and the standard tweeter.

Advantages of the RM 1 include:
- Lower bass
- No need for a stand (so perhaps cheaper overall, even with soundcoat option)
- Adjustable passive woofer

So maybe the RM 1 represents the best value in the VMPS line.  The only advantage I can see for the 626R is the ability to adjust the exact height of the ribbons, with custom-order stand height.

I invite feedback from those who have done a fair A/B test between the 626R and the RM 1.

[grub]

I've got a pair of the RM1's that I totally love.  I'm sorry I can't give you comparisons between the 626's and the RM1's though because I've never heard the former.
My RM1's provide a very clear soundstage, and a suprizingly powerful low register.  They are a little short though, but shimming them so they face directly at your head helps solve that.  I personally just fold up pieces of paper and stick them under the front of the speaker until it is angled properly, but you could probably get better quality with some thin, wood wedges, or even a permanently attached wedge on the bottom of the cabinet.
I bought my RM1's early on after they went neo, but now you can get lots of options on them if you desire, such as the megawoofers, and even the TRT or Auracaps if you want to make a killer small floorstander.
I would have sprung for the Megawoofs and the Auracaps if they were around when I bought mine, but even with the "regular" trimmed caps and the carbon fiber woofs it sounds great to my ears.
I'd buy them again if I had the chance!
-->grub

[James Romeyn]

Will be available mid Oct.  Same except the dual 8s replaced by single 10.  I agree with the original posts assertions in comparing the 1 & 626R.  But there is some type of musical magic in the 626Rs that is just not quite in the RM1.  Some type of intimacy or transparency the 626R has in spades.  But when you play anything with moderately big or deep bass, forget it.  Then the 1 runs away & hides from the standmount.  They both kick heini.  I think the RM1a will have a little deeper bass than the 1, & the MW upgrade will cost 1/2 as much.  I think that is good, no?

[Tyson]

The narrow baffle of the 626R should allow it to disappear sonically more completely than the RM-1.

[Rob Babcock]

Has anyone here got custom cabinets to make the 626 a floorstander?  This would seem to me to be a great idea.  Naturally the size/volume would be unaffected, the bottom could be hollow (maybe a chamber to mass load) and essentially be a fixed stand.

There are several vendors here that make speaker cabinets.  If I ever take the VMPS Plunge, that's maybe the route I'd go.  That or maybe the RM1/RM2.  The 40 is outta my price range, and I'm not really a fan of standmounts in my particular setup.

[MaxCast]

If I were to see a floor standing 626 I would like to make use of the bigger cabinet.  Something like a mini RM40 maybe.   I believe the whole idea for stand mount speakers is to remove any radiating area around the drivers.

[doug s.]

i've been bugging brian to make a skinnier wersion of the rm40, based upon the 626, since the old harmonic discord daze...  he said someting about sending $20k for start-up!     hopefully, someting is in the works...  i'd like to see at least two midrange ribbons & at least two 6.5" woofers.  three would be better!  

doug s.

[MaxCast]

i've been bugging brian to make a skinnier wersion of the rm40, based upon the 626, since the old harmonic discord daze...  he said someting about sending $20k for start-up!     hopefully, someting is in the works...  i'd like to see at least two midrange ribbons & at least two 6.5" woofers.  three would be better!  

doug s.

That would be very interesting.  He'd probably sell twice as many vs. the RM40.  Keep the two 6.5"ers and add a 12" on the side.

[sharper]

i've been bugging brian to make a skinnier wersion of the rm40, based upon the 626, since the old harmonic discord daze...  he said someting about sending $20k for start-up!     hopefully, someting is in the works...  i'd like to see at least two midrange ribbons & at least two 6.5" woofers.  three would be better!  

doug s.

I hope so too.

[Rob Babcock]

I know what you mean, Maxcast, but Brian recommends using 'bearded' stands that extend all the way to the floor to reinforce the bass wavelaunch, so what would be the diff between that and the speaker being taller.

The idea a bigger version would be cool, but that would involve revoicing, a new x-over; it would essentially be a different speaker.  And yeah, Brian would probably want $20,000 to build it!

[James Romeyn]

How about approximately 50" x 10" x 19" HWD?  On the front from the top down: (2) spirals, (2) Neos, & (1) 5-1/4" WCF midbass.  The 10 or 12 goes on one side with the PR on the opposite side (cabinet too narrow to fit a 10" PR at the bottom).  The 5-1/4" cone would compensate for the extreme distance between the woofer & the Neo.  What do you folks think about that?  It could have RM2 dynamics/low bass, better transition range performance, & the 626Rs narrow baffle & nearfield, staging & imaging.  Is that not good?

[sharper]

How about approximately 50" x 10" x 19" HWD?

That makes it taller and deeper than the RM40. I think the idea that many have floated over the last couple of years is one with a narrower baffle with height and depth in the RM1/RM2 area. I like the woofer on the side idea; I'd like to have a baffle not much wider than the Neo mid.

[Brad]

The RM40's are taller than 50"

[doug s.]

the rm40's are 66" tall.  

i'd like to see a speaker w/two (or three) 626 woofs, two (or three) neo midrange ribbons, & an fst tweet.  no wider than the present 626.  i'm not interested in any side-firing woofers.  i'd be using these w/subs...  

doug s.

[James Romeyn]

How about approximately 50" x 10" x 19" HWD?

That makes it taller and deeper than the RM40. I think the idea that many have floated over the last couple of years is one with a narrower baffle with height and depth in the RM1/RM2 area. I like the woofer on the side idea; I'd like to have a baffle not much wider than the Neo mid.

Where you wrote RM40 I think you meant RM2.  50" is only 1" taller than the 2.  The mid is 4" wide.  A 5" to 6" wide cabinet would require extremely large H &/or D for enough internal volume to accomodate the woofer.  This promotes standing waves & would look too wierd.  I think advantages of such a narrow baffle are minimal to none.  Its ability to work would be increased if it only had 6.5" woofers, because cabinet volume requirements are minimized.  Then you'd need subs for fullrange.

[sharper]

I think advantages of such a narrow baffle are minimal to none.

Depends on your situation. I happen to have limited space for speakers on either side of my screen. I need something narrow. The RM2s I had were too wide (after we changed the location of the projector and screen). Something shaped like the top of the line Infinity would appeal to me.

[James Romeyn]

the rm40's are 66" tall.  

i'd like to see a speaker w/two (or three) 626 woofs, two (or three) neo midrange ribbons, & an fst tweet.  no wider than the present 626.  i'm not interested in any side-firing woofers.  i'd be using these w/subs...  

doug s.

Doug
I like it, I like it...check this out: with a good sub, one that is clean up to at least 70Hz or so, 5-1/4" midbass drivers should suffice.  The 5-1/4s might be faster than the 6.5s, will allow a narrower baffle & less cabinet volume (smaller, cheaper, more rigid, less diffraction).  Power handling might be less, don't know.  A good 5-1/4" should do 65-75Hz in a sealed system.  Sealed is quicker, more musical, & with cleaner transients vs. reflex.  Mate with a good active sub/4th order XO & maybe...?

[doug s.]

jim, does brian even make 5.25" drivers?  i *know* he has the 6.5" drivers...     if he has to tool up for new drivers, forget it!     and, he's extolled the wirtues of his 6.5" drivers before...  

but, if he awreddy has smaller drivers, 5.25" drivers will get ya to 50hz easy - at least the eton drivers, as used in gr-research's diluceos & criterions, do...  and, *i* know these are killer drivers.  i've heard the criterions, & i have eton's 7" iteration in my meret re's...  

any of these drivers cross over to my vmps larger subs w/my 24db/octave marchand w/no problems.  i've set the x-over as high as 125hz, & the big vmps' can handle this no sweat.  no slowness or boominess even a *little*, even at this high a setting.  quite impressive, really.  i'm presently running a pair of tiny proac reference 8 signatures, w/4.5" woofers, crossed over at 100hz.  amazing sound in my huge room, from such diminutive monitors, w/help from the vmps subs...  

doug s.

[James Romeyn]

jim, does brian even make 5.25" drivers?  

i *know* he has the 6.5" drivers...     if he has to tool up for new drivers, forget it!     and, he's extolled the wirtues of his 6.5" drivers before...  

but, if he awreddy has smaller drivers, 5.25" drivers will get ya to 50hz easy - at least the eton drivers, as used in gr-research's diluceos & criterions, do...  and, *i* know these are killer drivers.  i've heard the criterions, & i have eton's 7" iteration in my meret re's...  

any of these dri ...

At the "Plant" (two guys in a garage) I was stuffing Brian's own 5-1/4" mids into the Towers way back in the early 80s at least.  He could design a small sealed midbass like that in his sleep.  Your above described drivers are made for reflex systems aren't they?  I remember whenever assembling even the old refrigerator-styled LSW, just listening to it burn it all by itself was an incredibly satisfying & fun experience.

[doug s.]

jim - yes, the speakers i refer to are ported.  yure right - a sealed box wouldn't extend as low.  but, for marketing, i bet brian would wanna make 'em full-range...  either way, *i'd* be happy, w/my subs!  call him up & talk him in to it - ya obviously have more pull than *i*  do!    jeez, if he can design it whilst sleeping, then what's the big deal?  

doug s.