RM30 photo

lkosova · « **Reply #40 on:** 16 Dec 2003, 08:46 pm »

Q

I would start with a one larger subwoofer and see how that does first. I think you will be amazed that the larger subwoofer with the Mega subwoofer will probably outperform both of the subwoofer is that you have currently. I know that is a bold statement they think you will be pleasantly surprised. You Could always another larger subwoofer at another time.
Larry

doug s. · « **Reply #41 on:** 16 Dec 2003, 08:50 pm »

q, i would have to disagree w/larry's adwice for the simple reason that subs should be two or none, imo...

re: size of vmps for yer room, i'd suggest querying brain cheney directly - he may recommend two original subs for yer room... but, mebbe not. yer room, while not huge, is certainly large enuff for two largers, imo...

doug s.

lkosova · « **Reply #42 on:** 16 Dec 2003, 08:56 pm »

Doug,s.

This is why I said to start with one larger sub. Q's room is about my size with 21ft longby15 wideby 8.5 ht. He has other subs he might be able to use to balance the sound out etc.

Larry

doug s. · « **Reply #43 on:** 17 Dec 2003, 03:14 am »

Quote from: lkosova

Doug,s.

This is why I said to start with one larger sub. Q's room is about my size with 21ft longby15 wideby 8.5 ht. He has other subs he might be able to use to balance the sound out etc.

Larry

this may work to get an idea, but i'm not sure how *well* it would work, trying to match two different subs - one per channel. now, i could see two different *pairs* of subs - one pair in front, the other in back, wired outta phase...

doug s.

Q · « **Reply #44 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 01:05 pm »

Tell me why this wont work:
A pair of largers that sit next to each RM40. Set the crossover at 166Hz, or thereabouts, thereby fully augmenting the woofs of the 40. Fine tuning could be accomplished with the pots to balance. See, when I say that I was lacking bass, I meant it in the upper bass, not lower, as in above ~80Hz or so. This is where the Legacy Focus really shined...And this is where I say that the RM40s that I auditioned lacked impact and bass. The lowest octave seemed adequate during my auditions, but it was the upper bass (Im guessing like 80-200Hz) that lacked the impact, presence, and resolution that I miss with my old Focus speakers.

Would crossing over this high give interference or lobing issues near the xover freq...or even cause other probs in the higher rolloff freqs? Would I need a steep xover to make sure this is minimized?

Recommendations on an amp for the Largers? Something below $1000 would be REALLY nice!!!

doug s. · « **Reply #45 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 01:25 pm »

q, if yure lacking upper bass, then i would talk w/brian cheney about getting a pair of rm40's w/o any passive x-over at 166hz built in. run an active x-over, between the rm40's 10" woofers & the midrange ribbons, like the marchand, & set it at, say, 200hz... (or, spend ~$800 & get vmps' dedicated active x-over, as used on the ff2/ff3.)

a while back, brian suggested something like the above to me. if ya still wanna run subs, get a three-way active x-over, & cross the subs lower, say 40-60hz... if/when i end up w/rm40's (or now rm30's?), i may order 'em w/o the low/mid x-over, or get this x-over externally, so i can easily remove it if i wanna run active x-over here.

doug s.

Q · « **Reply #46 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 03:02 pm »

Quote from: doug s.

q, if yure lacking upper bass, then i would talk w/brian cheney about getting a pair of rm40's w/o any passive x-over at 166hz built in. run an active x-over, between the rm40's 10" woofers & the midrange ribbons, like the marchand, & set it at, say, 200hz... (or, spend ~$800 & get vmps' dedicated active x-over, as used on the ff2/ff3.)

a while back, brian suggested something like the above to me. if ya still wanna run subs, get a three-way active x-over, & cross the subs lower, say 40-60hz... if/w ...

You really think that the change between 166 and 200 would make that much difference?

OR, do you think that going active would be the key?
If the diff between 166 and 200 makes that much diff, I'm sure it would be cheeper to get B to change the passive slightly.

Frankly, I think its a combination of output capabilities (as in total area, and dynamics), and crossover points. This is why id like to have that sub covering the high range, cuz it would provide so much more capabilities in that critical area between 80-200. DO I have to worry about beaming at those freqs with such a large driver?

doug s. · « **Reply #47 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:05 pm »

Quote from: Q

You really think that the change between 166 and 200 would make that much difference?
OR, do you think that going active would be the key?
If the diff between 166 and 200 makes that much diff, I'm sure it would be cheeper to get B to change the passive slightly.

Frankly, I think its a combination of output capabilities (as in total area, and dynamics), and crossover points. This is why id like to have that sub covering the high range, cuz it would provide so much more capabilities in that critical area between 80-200. DO I have to worry about beaming at those freqs with such a large driver?

i'm not sure, but i tink the combination of higher x-over *and* going active, w/24db/octave x-over, is what will help. ya can always talk w/brian about this... re: cost, if yure gonna go w/subs, getting a three-way marchand is not a lot more $$$ than a two-way.

personally, i'd think the rm40's two active 10" drivers & the slot-loaded 10" passive should be more than enuff for dynamic output in the 80-200hz range. re: running the larger subs that high, i have run mine only as high as 125, where they worked fine - still really tight, no beaming. never had 'em set higher, tho they are rated to 250hz... i'd imagine if run in pairs, directly flanking the monitors, ya could get away w/running 'em to 200hz...

bottom line, imo? ask brian!

oh, and, re: amps - any used decent-quality s/s amp should work great. bryston, aragon, nad, adcom, b&k, etc... i ran a pair of original adcom gfa555's which worked great. really, only one is needed; until brian sent me a second pair of binding posts to run each subs' individual drivers separately, i was using only one channel of each amp to drive each sub, cuz it sounded better than when i bridged the amps... i presently use a pair of older electrocompaniet aw75dmb's... if ya want new, then look at the qsc plx series amps - quite inexpensive, when procured from a place like fullcompass.com (joel @ x1116)

doug s.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #48 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:41 pm »

Mid bass suckout is a common room mode problem. Adding more power in the bass range with subs may just make it worse.

A TacT RCS 2.0S or 2.2X is probably what you need. The Rives parametric EQ will do similar things in the analog domain.

Q · « **Reply #49 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 07:26 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

Mid bass suckout is a common room mode problem. Adding more power in the bass range with subs may just make it worse.

A TacT RCS 2.0S or 2.2X is probably what you need. The Rives parametric EQ will do similar things in the analog domain.

Never had that problem with the Focus in the same locations. Why is it that both RM40 auditions I heard had the same issues? AND, why were the RM30's purported to increase the midbass impact over the RM40?

Dangit, I want the best of everything! I am such a capitalist American Pig.

lkosova · « **Reply #50 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 08:59 pm »

Dangit, I want the best of everything! I am such a capitalist American Pig

Get the RM/x for the best of everything!!!!!!

Larry

ekovalsky · « **Reply #51 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 09:19 pm »

Have you tried the QuickCARA program at http://www.rivesaudio.com/PARCcalc.html ? VMPS speakers aren't on their list, I modeled the Piega C-10 LTD instead. You'll be surprised at the response curve in the low and mid bass regions

I'm not familiar with the Focus. I did have definite mid-bass weakness with the RM-40's but a MDF board placed atop the speaker did the trick (Casler's super-duper tweak thang

).

I'm hoping the RM/X, with its floor positioned mid-bass driver, will not have the same problem. But I won't know until they're in my room ...

flea · « **Reply #52 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 03:16 am »

Just wanted to let everyone know I went by VMPS today to listen to the 626Rs, and the 30's happen to be sitting there, so I had to listen. I've had Newform Research 645's for a few years and have always been a fan of ribbons in general. The 30's didn't disappoint in any way. Expansive stage with detail that could never fatigue from a compact floorstanding package.

I have to admit I felt a bit unworthy as I didn't pick up every sound change as tweaks were made in preparation for CES. Interestingly, at one point we made a wiring error that had us listening to a 626R on the left and a RM-30 on the right. It took a minute for me to think, "there's no way that 626R goes that low" to figure it out, since they matched so perfectly. Time to start saving my pennies for RM-30s, LRC, and 626R rears. They sound amazing, and my wife will be thrilled when the ribbon towers come down and these come in! btw, if you're lurking, thanks for the listen today, and I apologize for the interruption of your CES prep. All you guys going to CES are in for a treat.

zybar · « **Reply #53 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 03:24 am »

Eric,

Just curious, why the Piega for a substitute?

I used this tool when trying to figure things out with my Silverlines.

Now, if I could only afford the Parc...

GW

ekovalsky · « **Reply #54 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 03:35 am »

No real reason, other than they have fairly good low bass and use a ribbon driver. There are other speakers you could choose from, the Wilson Sophia, JM Labs, B&W, etc.

If I have problematic bass response, a TacT will be in my future. The new TacT comes with the ParEQ software which will do the same thing as Rives' product in the digital domain.

Audio Architect · « **Reply #55 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 11:37 am »

Is there any new or more definitive information available on the RM30. The last available information was somewhat tennative.

ctviggen · « **Reply #56 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 01:27 pm »

I'm surprised at how many people like B&W speakers. I always thought they were too bright for my tastes. Now Wilsons on the other hand, I like them. I also like the fact that he's not afraid to make an extremely ugly speaker (have you seen his center speaker? Hideous!) all to get it to sound good. The bad thing about Wilsons is that they are way overpriced.

Where do you find out about or buy a TACT? I'm into this kind of stuff (I bought a color analyzer so that I could perform grey scale measurements on my TV).

John Kotches · « **Reply #57 on:** 24 Dec 2003, 02:49 pm »

Bob,

Start at their web site, http://www.tactaudio.com

I would personally love to feed a digital out of my Meridian into a Tact digital amp, but I doubt Meridian would remove MHR encryption just for me

Cheers,

kana813 · « **Reply #58 on:** 25 Dec 2003, 09:32 pm »

"The new TacT comes with the ParEQ software which will do the same thing as Rives' product in the digital domain." The TacT does a whole lot
more than the Rives. 12 channel ParEq vs the Rive's 3, 3- channel tone control, room measure/correction, built-in 24/192 DAC and the preamp
functions.

"Wilsons on the other hand, I like them. I also like the fact that he's not afraid to make an extremely ugly speaker." VMPS has been making ugly speakers for years. I guess that makes BC the bravest man in the
speaker business.

I really like the RM30. Can I get with wheels on the bases, so I can roll
them into a closet. I don't want to frighten the grandkids when they come over.

zybar · « **Reply #59 on:** 26 Dec 2003, 12:45 am »

Any idea on the price of the Tact?

GW