[simon wagstaff]

I am hoping to get some opinions here, and what better place?  I am going to be moving into a new house in the next 3 months or so and have the itch,new house, new speakers, no? I have a friend who is interested in my current speakers so it seems like a good opportunity. I am not sure which is the best set up for me.

Currently I am running the following:

Pioneer DV 79i connected via fire wire to
Pioneer TSX 59i
AVA u70 to drive the front two channels
Infinity Intermezzo 4.1 (with integrated 850 watt sub amps so the U70 just sees what is above 80 hz)
Infinity Center (which I will probably keep, I am 80% music, 20% video)
Kef XQ1 for rears
I also have a pair of smaller VMPS subs which I run with a Sony 5 channel amp in bridged mode. I run the Infinities as "large" and supplement the bass with the subs. I also have a Richter Scale EQ for them. I EQ everything up and then turn the levels down just a bit on both the subs and the IM 4.1 to get a good balance.

So, I am not sure which will be the best for my new system. The room will not be large, 15X18 perhaps. I listen to a lot of Grateful Dead and Phil Lesh (hence the subs) but also a bit of classical and classic rock (I hate that term)

I think the digital crossover is the way to go. I can use the U70 to drive the planar mids and tweeters, separate the channels of the Sony to run the bass on the speakers and the subs, if that doesn't cut it I can pick up a used Adcom or something to drive the subs and bridge back the Sony for more juice on the bass drivers. I like the idea of crossing over the U70 at 280 hz or so instead of 80 though I get plenty of volume. I am not really a volume freak.

So:

626:  Definitely within my budget. Will it have enough bass impact along with the subs?  Is imaging going to be better than the larger models since it has a small baffle area?  Easy to place. I have stands for them.

RM 2:  Seems to be the forgotten step child?  I guess if you have the cash most people move up to the RM 30? Will imaging suffer compared to the 626 or RM 30?

RM 30 SDE:  pushing the budget a little bit but doable. Better imaging than the RM 2?  Less bass impact but not a problem since I have the subs?

My decision will also be influenced by any "specials" that might be on offer at the time. I also keep my eye out for used VMPS speakers that show up from time to time but I would need to factor in the cost of the SDE set up. I came "this" close to picking up a pair of RM 40jrs when they were on special but decided that the time was not right and they just might be a little on the large side for what I want.

so, somewhat open ended here, I hope this is an appropriate forum for discussion and any help you can offer would be appreciated?


Simon

[Robby L.]

In for the discussion...this should be a good one!

*grabs some popcorn*

[John Casler]

I am hoping to get some opinions here, and what better place?  I am going to be moving into a new house in the next 3 months or so and have the itch,new house, new speakers, no? I have a friend who is interested in my current speakers so it seems like a good opportunity. I am not sure which is the best set up for me.

Currently I am running the following:

Pioneer DV 79i connected via fire wire to
Pioneer TSX 59i
AVA u70 to drive the front two channels
Infinity Intermezzo 4.1 (with integrated 850 watt sub amps so the U70 just sees what is above 80 hz)
Infinity Center (which I will probably keep, I am 80% music, 20% video)
Kef XQ1 for rears
I also have a pair of smaller VMPS subs which I run with a Sony 5 channel amp in bridged mode. I run the Infinities as "large" and supplement the bass with the subs. I also have a Richter Scale EQ for them. I EQ everything up and then turn the levels down just a bit on both the subs and the IM 4.1 to get a good balance.

So, I am not sure which will be the best for my new system. The room will not be large, 15X18 perhaps. I listen to a lot of Grateful Dead and Phil Lesh (hence the subs) but also a bit of classical and classic rock (I hate that term)

I think the digital crossover is the way to go. I can use the U70 to drive the planar mids and tweeters, separate the channels of the Sony to run the bass on the speakers and the subs, if that doesn't cut it I can pick up a used Adcom or something to drive the subs and bridge back the Sony for more juice on the bass drivers. I like the idea of crossing over the U70 at 280 hz or so instead of 80 though I get plenty of volume. I am not really a volume freak.

The D-OXO typically runs two bands: The Stereo Band to the HF/MR drivers, and the Stereo Band to the Woofers.

It does allow a "mono" band to the Subs if you want and B can program that, but if you are using the LFE out, or the Richter Scale to the Sub amps, you might find those options also of consideration.  You certainly don't want complicated combinations.

As a side note, the crossover of 280hz is standard in both the analog and digital x-overs so that is available in both apps.

So:

626:  Definitely within my budget. Will it have enough bass impact along with the subs?  Is imaging going to be better than the larger models since it has a small baffle area?  Easy to place. I have stands for them.

RM 2:  Seems to be the forgotten step child?  I guess if you have the cash most people move up to the RM 30? Will imaging suffer compared to the 626 or RM 30?

RM 30 SDE:  pushing the budget a little bit but doable. Better imaging than the RM 2?  Less bass impact but not a problem since I have the subs?

My decision will also be influenced by any "specials" that might be on offer at the time. I also keep my eye out for used VMPS speakers that show up from time to time but I would need to factor in the cost of the SDE set up. I came "this" close to picking up a pair of RM 40jrs when they were on special but decided that the time was not right and they just might be a little on the large side for what I want.

so, somewhat open ended here, I hope this is an appropriate forum for discussion and any help you can offer would be appreciated?
Simon

Lots of very viable options.


Option 1: 5 626R's or 626jr's

This is a surprisingly capable speaker, and hailed by several online reviewing mags as among the "best" in that price/size range.

Depending on the room and the room diementions/size, this speaker can have incredible bass (beyond its size) and dynamics.  It also has a smart look as per this illustration I put together



If you go with 626, the best CENTER is the LRC (as shown in the above photo)

Option 2: RM2

This speaker is often overlooked but serves a great roll for those who want it all in a single box.  Bass down to the low 20's makes it a great HT choice, as well as the ideal when you can't quite place a sub effectively.  One major difference is that there is no CDWG (except custom order) for this model.  That means it operates best in a "multi-channel" use, or a very controlled (sweet seat) 2 channel app where it would shine.

It is available in an SDE version.

Option 3: RM30 SDE

Hard not to consider this the best option simply due to the fact that it gives you everything except low bass, but then you have subs

In a room your size, it has a nice "slim" size and of course the SDE gives you a lot of control over the use.

Brian can put two curves in the D-OXO for you so that you can remove the CDWG for sweet seat 2channel "lazer vision" detail, imaging and soundstage, or you can run the CDWG on, and sit with friends with a wide sweet spot, and also have "wall to wall" HT seamlessness.

[Scottdazzle]

I have a pair of RM-30RM that have solid measured output down to 31.5Hz.  I tried them with a sub for awhile but decided their response was sufficient for music without the sub. I would only recommend a sub for home theater applications. My two cents worth.

[John Casler]

I have a pair of RM-30RM that have solid measured output down to 31.5Hz.  I tried them with a sub for awhile but decided their response was sufficient for music without the sub. I would only recommend a sub for home theater applications. My two cents worth.

Strangely enough the RM30C can also go rather low in the right room dimensions.

A couple of years ago in Vegas we would occasionally turn off the sub, and sometimes forget to turn it back on.

The RM30M SDE will do what you are talking about due to the improvement of the digital X-over to that Driver.

This was discussed several weeks ago in another post where Russ was by-passing some of the passive components and using an active "analog" unit (if I remember correctly)

I think you might have also posted to that thread.

[woodsyi]

I heard Scott's RM 30's in most of the configurations.  His are firing really good right now driven by RM200. 

[simon wagstaff]

Thanks for the input so far. I will be using my pair of subs hooked up as LFE.  It seems like in all of your comparisons between the different speakers the focus is on the difference in bass response.  Am I to understand then that the three models vary basically in terms of their bass response and that as long as they are using the same mid and tweeter that the "sound" from those drivers do not change that much, just the addition of more mid-range panels gives more output capability?

If that is the case then why go with the RM 30 when the RM 2 has more bass response? It seems like the SDE will correct some frequency response abberations inherent to the drivers (as pointed out in some previous posts) while at the same time improving bass response by taking some energy sucking coils out of the circuit.

Perhaps this is over-simplifying things but if everything from say 280 hz on up is the same it seems to me that the RM 2 might not be my ride, great bass but will be difficult to integrate with the subs.  Unlike my Infinities where I can turn down the response, just a hair, from 80 hz and use the subs in conjunction with them, I won't have any adjustment except at the 280 hz mark? 

With the RM 30 I get slightly less bass output so they might integrate better with my smaller subs?  but from 280 on up will sound the same as the RM 2?

RM 2 might give me more bass than I want when run with the smaller subs? But from a cost standpoint they are attractive.

626 probably isn't going to cut is as I will be dependent upon my smaller subs for all bass output?

Please note, I am not what you would consider in the truest sense of the word a "bass freak", well maybe. I am interested in dynamic range and slam, not necessarily total output, though that is always nice.

However, anybody who has been 20 feet in front of the soundboard at the Richmond Coliseum when Phil have found his string, raise your hand!  Like shifting 100 ton bags of dirt around.

I suppose the crossover could be set up to roll off a couple db at 80 hz in order to make less work for the amp and to integrate better with the subs?

BTW, I am not interested in the CDW, I have no friends, at least who will tolerate my choice in music so it is the sweet spot for me fer sure.
 


A PM in terms of the current specials would be appreciated but I need to get into this new house first.

thanks for all your input!

Simon

[Scottdazzle]

Simon,

I agree you won't need cdw's if you listen alone. You only need them if you want a wider sweet spot. I've not heard the RM2, but the RM30 presents a line source (speakers on axis top to bottom) that presents an amazing stereo image.

Scott

[Zheeeem]

I have the RM30Ms, and am quite fond of them.  If I was in your situation, I would opt for the RM30Cs and keep the pair of smaller subs.  I also very much like the midbass quality of the 6.5 inch cones.

I think the RM2s are meant to be full range, with bass roughly in line with your smaller subs, so a pair of RM2s and a pair of smaller subs would be redundant.

I would not discount the 626s so quickly.  The 6.5 does put out bass, and should be straightforward to integrate with your subs.  The limiting factor on your bass will be the smaller sub, not the 6.5 on the 626.

From my perspective, and ideal system would be RM30Cs with a pair of powered larger subs.  And If I could physically fit the subs in my listening room, that's what I'd be using right now.

[Campindog]

They all have the same "signature sound", but you should go listen to them if you can. I have RM30Ms as mains and RM2s in the back of the room. A friend has RM30s and 626s. The RM2s sound fuller than the 30's but the 30s image MUCH better. I've also got subs that integrate perfectly with the 30s though.

My vote:
RM30s + subs(s) = Best sound
626 + subs = Cheapest (this may also limit volume if you want it LOUD)
RM2s = easiest set up, least floor space

Still.. You should go listen.

[simon wagstaff]

Question for John Casler,

I sent a PM but I am sure you have been busy with the demo and all and I thought I would post this here.  Sounds like either the RM30 or RM 40 would be the way to go due to improved imaging.

Can you describe please the different options for amplification available between the two speakers when using the digital crossover?

For example, is one of the differences between the two that the RM40 would allow two channels of amplification for the woofer and mid-woofer, and then potentially two more, one for the ribbons and one for the tweeter while the RM30 would only allow for one channel of amplification (per side) for the woofers and then potentially two more for the ribbons and tweeter?

I know that there is the ability to use a passive crossover between the ribbons and tweeter so you would only use one amp for that. I want to use my AA U70 for that. Is there any effect on the sound doing that?

thanks!

[John Casler]

Question for John Casler,

I sent a PM but I am sure you have been busy with the demo and all and I thought I would post this here.  Sounds like either the RM30 or RM 40 would be the way to go due to improved imaging.

Hi Simon, sorry I didn't get a notification e-mail of your PM.

All VMPS speakers will image like crazy.  However different models will have advantages due to the amount of front baffle they have that can reflect sound.

That said we also have other factors that affect this effect.

The most significant of these is the CDWG.  All the speakers that have a CDWG will have virtually the same imaging character, since the Wave Guide provides the exact same Directivity to all the same frequencies.

So with the CDWG "ON" they will have the same soundstage and imaging, within the limits of their frequency response and SPL differences.

However, if we take the CDWGs "OFF" then we are opening up the front baffle reflections, and how they might affect the sound.

Can you describe please the different options for amplification available between the two speakers when using the digital crossover?

For example, is one of the differences between the two that the RM40 would allow two channels of amplification for the woofer and mid-woofer, and then potentially two more, one for the ribbons and one for the tweeter while the RM30 would only allow for one channel of amplification (per side) for the woofers and then potentially two more for the ribbons and tweeter?

Actually, the SDE versions have only two channels needed.

The tweeter and neopanels are "bridged" with what B calls a "digilog", that effectively blends then into a single driver.  The woofs then are on the other channel, so all you need in "ANY" of the SDE (Special Digital Edition) models with the D-OXO (Digital Outboard X-Over) is two channels per side.

I know that there is the ability to use a passive crossover between the ribbons and tweeter so you would only use one amp for that. I want to use my AA U70 for that. Is there any effect on the sound doing that?

thanks!

B, can wire an analog x-over as a 3-way, but not as digital, unless two D-OXO's are used.  The current hardware will not allow more than two stereo channels to be used.

The "digi-log" bridge that you refer to blending the Tweeter and MR Panels would work just fine with your AA U70.  Many also like to "TUBE" the top and "SS" the bass.

I suppose B, might be able to build a 3/way and use the D-OXO combined with an analog filter on any combination of the drivers, but the standard configuration is to combine the tweet and midrange.

If someone wants to "tri-amp" we can arrange it.

[Wayne1]

I suppose B, might be able to build a 3/way and use the D-OXO combined with an analog filter on any combination of the drivers, but the standard configuration is to combine the tweet and midrange.

If someone wants to "tri-amp" we can arrange it.

Hello Simon and John,

I can add a little bit on this topic.

I just completed a changeover of Tyson's RM-40s from passive crossover to active. I removed all of the passive components from inside the RM-40s. I then wired the drivers directly to binding posts. I did add another set of binding posts and I replaced his older style with the same posts used in current production of VMPS.

He was going to try to tri-amp. He quickly changed his mind when it was mentioned how easy it is to destroy a tweeter with a small transient from an amp directly connected.

I took the components used to crossover from the mid panel to the tweeter and built them into something similar to a bi-amp jumper cable. Tyson hooked this up and now is VERY happy actively bi-amping his RM-40s with solid state to the woofers and a VTL tube amp for the mids/tweets.

One advantage of having the crossover to the tweeters external is it would allow you to "component roll" to see what brand/type of capacitor and coil would sound best in your system. The components are one particular value of cap and one value coil. Perhaps Brian could build such a jumper with Auricaps and another with the TRT. You could easily change these out to see what sounds best with what music.

If you are handy with soldering, you could try to build a similar network using other brands of parts with the same value. Do make sure they are matched to the same tolerances that Brian uses. Just think of the hours of fun swapping caps and coils to see what suits your ears and system best. 

[simon wagstaff]

If someone wants to "tri-amp" we can arrange it.
[/quote]

I guess that was what I was asking.  It sounds like the SDE crossover though is just two channels per side. I was under the impression that the RM40 would have the option of tri-amping with the digital crossover.

House still has three months to go so a little time still.

thanks!

[Brian Cheney]

The SDE allows you to biamp or triamp as you wish.  There's no problem setting it up either way.  You just need another channel of amplification.

[simon wagstaff]

O.K., well not to be a pain in the you know what, but perhaps others might be interested as well. How about answering the questions?
 

I have a AVA u70, a Sony 9000 ES that is actually 5 channels at 125 watts a channel and am picking up a Mac 200 watt per channel amp. theoretically I could run 4 channels of amplification per side if I wanted to. So I am thinking the following:

Lets assume that the mids and tweeters will run off the same amp. (Is there any advantage to running them off of separate amps?)

RM2 SDE: Maximum of two channels per side, one for the woofer and one for the mids and tweeters, crossed over around 280hz?

RM30 SDE: 2 or 3 channels per side? one for the mids and tweeter, and one for mid woofer and one for woofer?

RM40 SDE: 2, 3 or 4 channels per side?  isn't there an extra driver vs. the RM30?

I am thinking of a previous discussion where B stated that getting the coils off the woofers in their crossovers improved transients and increased output.

If there were an advantage to it I would quad amp, I have the amps.  I am not looking to have anything built special though, just trying to get an idea of what is easily possible using the digital crossover and how it interfaces with the RM2, RM30 and RM40.
Again, not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand how it all comes together.

thanks!
 

[John Casler]

O.K., well not to be a pain in the you know what, but perhaps others might be interested as well. How about answering the questions?
 

I have a AVA u70, a Sony 9000 ES that is actually 5 channels at 125 watts a channel and am picking up a Mac 200 watt per channel amp. theoretically I could run 4 channels of amplification per side if I wanted to. So I am thinking the following:

Lets assume that the mids and tweeters will run off the same amp. (Is there any advantage to running them off of separate amps?)

Some feel that certain amps (generally tubed) have qualities specific to more narrow frequency bands, but much of the time, balancing and blending the amps becomes difficult, but technically you can run an amp to each driver.

RM2 SDE: Maximum of two channels per side, one for the woofer and one for the mids and tweeters, crossed over around 280hz?

RM30 SDE: 2 or 3 channels per side? one for the mids and tweeter, and one for mid woofer and one for woofer?

RM40 SDE: 2, 3 or 4 channels per side?  isn't there an extra driver vs. the RM30?

I am thinking of a previous discussion where B stated that getting the coils off the woofers in their crossovers improved transients and increased output.

Essentially "all" VMPS speakers are 3-ways.  That is they have a driver or drivers, that cover 1) Treble, 2) MidRange, 3) Bass.

All SDE models have 3 pairs of binding posts so that each of those ranges has the potential to be individually amped.

In the standard SDE set up, the Treble and MidRange are blended via what B, calls a "digilog" device.

The digilog connection has some "analog" components and is fed by the "upper" D-OXO channels, so that the digital equalization is present through an analog blending device = "digilog".

So all of the speakers you mention above can be biamped or triamped.

Brian can address the coils issues and advantages, but currently the D-OXO won't do 3 way stereo.  To do so would require TWO D-OXO's one for each speaker. (the Behringer has 6 channels, but Brian has said that they cannot all be used as 3 stereo pairs)

So the option to TRI-AMP requires a Digilog or other analog filter.

If there were an advantage to it I would quad amp, I have the amps.  I am not looking to have anything built special though, just trying to get an idea of what is easily possible using the digital crossover and how it interfaces with the RM2, RM30 and RM40.
Again, not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand how it all comes together.

thanks!
 

I think, you would be better off with the current blending/strapping/bridging of the Tweet and Panels, since running an amp "straight in" without the control/equalization of the D-OXO would mean that it would be an "analog" filter network on that driver.

Your other option as a "tri-amp" system is to go with the PBS (Powered Bass System) which then would drive all the Woofers (and have its own controls, etc) and use the D-OXO as separate channels on the Tweeter and MR panels, using a separate amp channel for each of them.  This would be Tri-amping.

[simon wagstaff]

Thanks so much, I think I understand now.

1) Tweeter and neo-panel mids would most certainly go with the digilog crossover between them and take one output from the DX-O. Here is where my tube amp would go.
2) Bass section, 280 hz +/- would be handled, whatever the driver complement of the model speaker we are talking about, by the second channel of the DX-O and one other amp
3) YOu could use one more channel of the DX-O to cross over to a mono sub channel, more usefull perhaps with the RM30 than the RM40, and could drive my pair of smaller subs if I wanted them to but since I use those for an LFE channel crossed over from my reciever it would be used.

Now, if I understand you correctly and if I really wanted to be a mad man and I also didn't want to spring for a second DX-0 I could conceivably, and perhaps more usefully with the RM40, cross over the lowest frequency drivers of the RM40 with a MONO channel and if that crossover was 80 hz or lower then it could conceivably make sense.

Tri-amp with one DX-0, the sub drivers only driven with a mono signal 80hz or below.

that is a pretty flexible set up.

 

thanks for your time!

[brj]

I just completed a changeover of Tyson's RM-40s from passive crossover to active.

I'm starting to think that all of the Denver audiophiles are heading toward active systems! 

He was going to try to tri-amp. He quickly changed his mind when it was mentioned how easy it is to destroy a tweeter with a small transient from an amp directly connected.

Wayne, isn't a relatively small value cap all you need to protect the tweeter from DC on the line?  I haven't looked up how you would size the cap, but that is what I recall (vaguely, I admit) from when I first started investigating at active systems 3 or 4 years ago.  I assume that a single cap of reasonable value would be easily countered in the active crossover anyway...

I also seem to recall that having such a protective cap is especially important for ribbon tweeters, as they tend to be less able than cone/dome tweeters to tolerate the large excursion you'd encounter from a DC signal.  (In otherwords, don't try the battery-on-the-driver-to-determine-polarity trick with tweeters!)

[John Casler]

Now, if I understand you correctly and if I really wanted to be a mad man and I also didn't want to spring for a second DX-0 I could conceivably, and perhaps more usefully with the RM40, cross over the lowest frequency drivers of the RM40 with a MONO channel and if that crossover was 80 hz or lower then it could conceivably make sense.


thanks for your time!

If I understand you correctly;  The Woofers on the RM40 cross at 280hz, so they shouldn't/couldn't be run in mono.

The only way to power the Woofers separately is to use the PBS I mentioned, that is modded (by Brian) to cover those frequencies.  Or rig up a crossover/amp that does the same thing.