[Iguana Man]

RM40 owners; Before you ended up with your RM40's, what speakers did you also demo, and what did the RM40's do better (or worse) than those you demo'ed ?

[jgubman]

Dynaudio Contour 5.2s -- the RM-40s had a more spacious, detailed midrange, the treble and midrange sounded "quicker" and didn't "linger" like the 5.2s. The bass was a lot more defined and lower as well.

Dynaudio Confidence C2 -- close. Very nice speaker, but it costs $12,000. I left happy, thinking the RM-40 easily matches the quality of the C2.

Vienna Acoustics Beethovens -- the RM-40s did just about everything better. Better dynamic range, better detail, no sibilence, much better bass.

VMPS RM=2 -- Again, the 40s had more detail and space in the midrange and tighter bass.

Dali MS4 -- These were pretty close. The treble of the Dali's was very nice and, in my memory, seemed just as "sweet" and defined. The bass of the Dali's didn't go as low, but the midrange and the bass seemed very tight. I liked these speakers, but there was something (hard to put my finger on it, but probably the detail of the midrange) I preferred about the RM-40s. Plus, the price of the RM-40s was almost 1/2 that of the MS4.

Paradigm Studio 100 v2 -- RM-40s crushed this, dashing all hopes for a super-cheap solution. Trebles were harsh and made my ears bleed, midrange lingers and flaps around, and bass was anemic. RM-40s were just on an entirely different level.

[John Casler]

Hi Iguana Man,

Welcome to AudioCircle/VMPS.

Glad you made it over.  I think I have already mentioned that I had the Focus and the Sig IIIs preceding the RM40s.

I know some of my clients have had or demoed against, Legacy Classics, Magneplanars, Theils, nOhr, Klipsch, Paradigm, Dynaudio, Avante Garde, Sonus Faber, B&W, and many others.

[Tyson]

Compared them against some Dunlavy SC-Vs (very good speakers, close to the quality of the 40's, but missing a bit of transparency and microdynamics).

Also compared them to Accustat 2+2's, which are also some very good speakers, but they are bi-polar radiators, which is a personal pet peeve of mine, same thing with the Apogee speakers.

Wilson Watt Puppies 7 - big improvement over the 6's, but the 40's still just kill them for accuracy, especially in the bass (non-bloated), and the highs (non bright).

I've also heard the Legacy Whispers, and I would not put them in the same class as the Dunlavy's, let alone the 40's.

In fact, the only speakers I've heard that give the 40's are real run for their money are the Excelarrays from Selah audio, those are some damn fine speakers!  Just another example of an Audio Circle based manufacturer kicking the crap out of the B&M store offerings.

[SWG255]

Hi,

I haven't compared the RM40s to anything yet, or even heard them. Next Monday I'll be spending some time at Dynamic Sound in Washington, D.C. as a guest of Lucius Morris and we'll be listening to the RM40s and the VR-4s. The winner gets my money. Based on everything I've read here and other places on the net lately, these two speakers are the primary contenders in the $6000 price range. True, there are many others out there, but these two seem to be lauded for very musical and involving reproduction, especially for the price. I'll happily report on the results of the "shootout" next week.

[Tyson]

Just remember that the 40's sound can be adjusted, so if you think they sound bright, have the mid and tweeter turned down, or if you thing they sound too bass heavy, turn up the mid & tweeter.  Just something I learned from personal experience.

[Rob Babcock]

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that session.  BC has a link on his website in which a reviewer compares the RM40's & the VR4's.  I recall he thought both were superb, with the VMPS having an edge for a real world system.

[Iguana Man]

Thanks jgubman, John and Tyson,
 
Has anyone compared these to B&W's, say the Nautilus 800's ?
 
I've never heard the Watt Puppies, but from what I've read, they are 'supposed' to be incredible speakers. I'm impressed you (Tyson) felt the RM40's bested them.
 
I'd like to hear more.....so keep it coming folks!

[JoshK]

I know of at least two former Watt Puppy owners who sold them for RM40s.  I have heard the 6.1s, which aren't my cup of tea lets just say.

I have heard the B&W 800s and neither were they my cup of tea.  Not horrible, but not great.

[SWG255]

Man, if the RM40s sound as musical and involving as the Puppies I remember from several years ago I'm gonna love them!  I've had the pleasure of spending some time in the Conrad-Johnson "private" listening room where they used to have Wilson Puppies, Version 4 or 5 I think, and at the time I remember them as very musical and involving. They just seemed to sing with everything played through them. Later C-J got Wilson WHAMMs, and although these were more extended on top and bottom, and played louder, and had less overall distortion, I found they only sounded musical and involving when C-J's best gear was feeding them. i remember thinking at the time that I wouldn't spend the extra money for the WHAMMs over the Puppies.

I can hardly wait until Monday evening!

[ekovalsky]

The RM-40 if a big step up from the Watt/Puppy speakers.  Haven't heard the larger Wilson speakers but they are far too overpriced and ugly for me to ever consider buying.

Although not compared side by side, I prefer the RM-40's I have now to my previous the Magnepan MG20's, B&W 801, Infinity IRS-beta (except for bass), and Soundlab A-1 (close one here).  Only speaker I have owned that equalled or surpassed the RM40 is the Apogee Diva with DAX crossover and Muse18 sub with Diva personality card.  That was about $15k retail worth of speaker, a much more complex system requiring lots of cables, and needed four channels of powerful amplification plus the built-in amp of the Muse sub.

[SWG255]

Hi,

Interesting you compare the RM40s to the Apogee Divas. When i heard the Apogee ribbon speakers in the early 80's (circa '84-'85), I didn't like them. They were too "hot" They seemed to have good bass extension and drive, but the mid-bass and "warmth" region of the lowest midrange was at a lower level than the rest of the spectrum. With a bright phono cartridge like many MCs of the time, they were unlistenable. They also were nearly impossible to drive with most of the high-end amps of the era.

I think this is a credit to BCs designs that he's overcome these problems (well, we'll hear about the sound on Monday), and offers the RM40s at substantially lower prices than the Apogees.

[rblnr]

Compared to the Waveform Mach Solo speakers I used to own, the RM40's create more depth and sound quicker, which significantly ups the involvement quotient for me.  Walking around the room, however, the Solos present a more stable image, although this is far less important to me than other factors.    Thought they blew away B&W Nautlius' I A/B'd in my setup, though that brand's speakers have always put me to sleep.

[Iguana Man]

Thought they blew away B&W Nautlius' I A/B'd in my setup, though that brand's speakers have always put me to sleep.

 
Can you elaborate on this please ?

[SWG255]

Greetings:

I've just spent a great evening auditioning the two speakers above in the home/dealership of Lucius Morris at Dynamic Sound Audio in Washington D.C. We had his two-channel listening room mostly to ourselves, and the experience was a real ear-opener.

I'll write a full review of what we listened to and my observations later this week, it's too late tonight.

The result...drum roll please...I bought the VMPS RM40s with FST & TRT caps. Lucius will be ordering them from Brian tomorrow if he hasn't done so already by email.

As I said, I'll provide a full account of the speaker shoot-out later, but I want to stress that i'd be happy with either loudspeaker in my listening room. They are both excellent transducers, and the VR-4s have much to commend them. i felt (and heard) that the RM40s delivered more of the music on the CDs i brought. They had a larger image, more inner detail, played louder with less fatigue and seemed more musically satisfying. Again though, it wasn't like the VR-4s were "bad" speakers, the RM40s were just better to my ears.

[Tyson]

I feel exactly the same way about the Dunlavy SC-Vs and the RM40's, and it didn't hurt that the 40's were WAY less $$

Congrats on the purchase, I don't think you'll be upgrading for a very long time

[SWG255]

Hi,

It was telling that i spent most of the evening listening to rock, jazz and classical pieces on the VR-4s, then we hooked up the RM40s. I was hooked within a song or two. Then it was just a matter of playing an additional  piece or two from each genre to confirm my decision.

More later, it's time to see if I can get some sleep. It's going to be like waiting for Christmas!

[Turk]

I compared the RM 40's withTNT caps and FST tweeters to my ML Prodigy's, JM Lab Mini Utopias with REL Storm III subs, My Silverline Sonata II's Infinity's big floorstanders given an A rating in Stereophile.  ML's when properly set up are not bad as are the other speakers.  The $0's with the VMPS larger sub are IMHO superior.  Why?  The ML's are hard to set up and the bass still drags behind the panel.  Also they loose their composure before the ribbons do.  JM's and REL's are nice but I cannot get by what seems to have been a rising response in the tweeter.  Infinitys are a bit dry, bass and imaging are good.  The Silverline's are quite musical but are bass shy no matter what Alan Yun says and they will play only so loud.

[rblnr]

Over the years, whenever I've heard B&W's either in my setup, or at a friends or dealers, they always sound compressed/lacking in dynamics to me.  There's something missing.  Found this recently w/the Nautilus vs. my RM40s, originally noticed it years ago in a comparison to some Epos ES14's using the $$/size competitive B&W.  Just don't get what the hype is about, but it's all personal taste I suppose.

On another note, I've found over the years that the speakers that involve me usually have first or second order crossovers.  Don't have the technical knowledge to know why, and of course, there are a thousand other factors at play in speaker design so this might be meaningless.

[Val]

Found this recently w/the Nautilus vs. my RM40s

I have what I think is the same question as IM. Nautilus is either a whole B&W speaker line or the made-to-order, active-crossovered, 4-amp channel-per-side, $40,000 B&W speaker. What are you talking about?