[Brian Cheney]

With our departure for CES six days away it's time for a brief summary of how the RM 30 turned out.

As Jim Romeyn pointed out, the RM 30 is perhaps the cleanest, most transparent speaker we have ever made.  There is a technical reason for this beyond the narrow baffle, ideal height for listening (sit with your ears anywhere from 36" to 46" from the floor), three midrange panels, the FST, and the side-firing 10" Megawoofers.  There has been a major change to the crossover filter, specifically the lowpass to the midrange, that has dramatically improved system clarity.  This change will be incorporated into all the other ribbon speakers in our line and will be retrofittable.  The changes involve about $50 worth of parts and can be done in the field.

Still I could hardly be more surprised and pleased with the RM 30.

Let's get what it can't do out of the way: there is no first octave bass available  The cabinet is so narrow that from the standpoint of internal volume it is about 2/3 the size of the RM 2.  The capacitive effect of the enclosure dictates this effect.  Remedy: the new 215 Subwoofer, which fits two 15" woofers into the cabinet of the Original (and slightly cheaper) Sub.  The 215 boasts a 22Hz F3 and is wonderfully clean and furniture-moving powerful.

A stereo pair of RM 30M sounds very engaging, tactile, and forward with excellent depty and image height to the ceiling.  Good as this sounds, adding a single 215 sub to fill in the first octave transforms the image to an astonishing degree, making it more powerful and three dimensional.
I didn't think possible to do better, but adding an RM 30C to the center and driving all four speakers from the Trinaural Processor doubles listening quality once again.  It is this configuration we will show at CES.

Pricing: RM 30 M $3500pr, RM 30 C $1600 ea. 215 Sub $650.  We will offer the usual cap, finish and driver options.  A lowpass passive xover on the 215 will be $80 and Soundcoat $75.  Caps for the RM 30 will be $550 for Auricaps and $1200 for the TRT's as usual.  When ready we will offer an extremely long-throw woven carbon fiber 6.5" woofer (Xmax nearly 12mm!).  The upgraded 6.5 will be available around June and will be easily retrofittable in the field.

We are entered with the RM 30 in the Best of CES competition and if we hadn't won twice before, I'd say the system would be a lock to win.
We shall see what happens.

The CES demo will utilize my fully burned-in Ampzilla 2000 monoblocks on all speakers (I have four of them, running continuously for over a year).

We will have many surprises at the Show, with all the best new gear including the Wadia 861SE as our redbook source.  Plus the new laser-stylus turntable from...(you'll see).

[wshuff]

Brian, it sounds like you are more than pleased with the results you've achieved with the RM30.  Congratulations and good luck next week.  

What will the woven carbon fiber 6.5" woofer add to the performance that isn't already there with the (I'm assuming) new graphite woofers?  In what way will the new woofers be better than what you will be taking to CES?

As far as the bass goes, where does the RM30 fall?  Between the 626R and RM1, between the RM1 and RM2?  I'm assuming from your comments that any lack of bass extension is something that is remedied with the use of a sub or subs, which is the way that I use my 626Rs now anyway.  

Finally, how will the RM30 stack up against the other VMPS offerings once they too receive the new crossover filter?

[Redbone]

Brian, I too am quite interested in the new crossover.  You say that this is the "the lowpass to the midrange" filter.  Is this what separates the 10" Mega Woofer from the 10" Mid Woofer on the RM40s?  On the RM30s I believe that it would separate the 10" side-firing woofer from the two other cone speakers.

Best wishes for the CES show and 2004.

[James Romeyn]

Replies inserted below in italics.

...As far as the bass goes, where does the RM30 fall?  Between the 626R and RM1, between the RM1 and RM2?  

The RM30s overall resolution is so beyond the prior models that comparing one part of the spectrum to another lesser model is difficult & possibly unreasonable.  Even its bass quality is better.  That said, if we were comparing only its overall tonal balance to another model, I'd estimate somewhere between the RM1 & RM2, but definitely closer to the RM1.  The RM40 has less but higher quality bass vs. the RM2

Finally, how will the RM30 stack up against the other VMPS offerings once they too receive the new crossover filter?
 ...

I'd estimate that overall the RM30s dual 6.5s will always have an advantage in the range directly below the mids over all other current models.  

[James Romeyn]

Brian, I too am quite interested in the new crossover.  You say that this is the "the lowpass to the midrange" filter.  

B is posting about the filter passing low frequencies only, on the 6.5s & active 10 combined.

Is this what separates the 10" Mega Woofer from the 10" Mid Woofer on the RM40s?  

No, absolutely not.  The 2 active 10s are parallel with a sum total of one low pass filter acting equally on both woofers together.  Beyond that each woofer has a different free-air resonance (Fs) causing the MW to cut out before the upper woofer, in spite of the single filter shared equally between the drivers.      

On the RM30s I believe that it would separate the 10" side-firing woofer from the two other cone speakers.

Extremely unlikely.  Brian has to my knowledge never (I assembled spkrs for him) used more than one LP filter on any combination of compound woofers.  The 30M woofers are series/parallel but still have only one LP filter acting on all woofers combined.  Same as the 40s woofers, the 6.5's higher Fs means it plays higher than the 10MW, in spite of the fact there is only one filter acting equally on the 3 woofers.    

Best wishes for the CES show and 2004.

[/i]

[Marbles]

Jim,

How do you think an RM30 C would sound as a center channel sitting on an RPTV in an HT setup?  This would have RM40's as FR/FL speakers.

I understand BC would have the FST turned 90*

Thanks

[James Romeyn]

Jim,

How do you think an RM30 C would sound as a center channel sitting on an RPTV in an HT setup?  This would have RM40's as FR/FL speakers.

I understand BC would have the FST turned 90*

Thanks

That's an interesting question.  At first I thought you meant vertical, & of course thought maybe you should start drinking more...but then realized it is I who need a drink...anyway...hmmm, how bout this: I've got the LRC atop my RPTV & 626Rs for L-R.  B4 the spkrs burned in there was too much midbass with my room's two bass nodes.  So I replaced the LRC with a 626R & preferred it.  (Now that everything's burned in & I've got the para EQ I prefer the LRC at the center.)  But the point is that the 626R sounded superb with its Neo mids sited horizontally.    

So maybe a horizontal RM30C will kick butt up there, with a slight tilt downward.

[Marbles]

So maybe a horizontal RM30C will kick butt up there, with a slight tilt downward.
...

Thanks Jim, that's exactly how I intend to do it, with the speaker tilted so it's baffle is straight at the main listening position.  I run the RM40's full range, and my current center XO'd at 80hz to an EQ, then to my subs.

I think I would try the RM30 full range first, then XO'd at 80hz if I didn't like it full range.

I like the fact that the 30's image a bit better than the 40's.  Sounds like it will make a great center channel.

[John Casler]

Brian, I too am quite interested in the new crossover.  You say that this is the "the lowpass to the midrange" filter.  Is this what separates the 10" Mega Woofer from the 10" Mid Woofer on the RM40s?  On the RM30s I believe that it would separate the 10" side-firing woofer from the two other cone speakers.

What Brian is talking about here is the low pass from upper woofer to "MIDRANGE" driver or the neopanel.

He is saying that the midrange neopanel will now cross-over at a higher point from the woofer below it.

I believe he was playing with 180-220hz but haven't heard where it actually ended up.

This would effectively move more air in the lower midrange and upper bass.

As I stated in an earlier posting on the RM30, it also "frees up" the Neopanel to handle a smaller frequency range and this means higher output capability and overall performance which may allow the 3 neopanels to "approach" levels of the 4 panels of the (non-retrofitted) RM40.

He is also saying that this x-over point can also be retro-added to some of the other speakers already in the field, for those interested in higher impact in the upper bass.

This is relatively unimportant in Symphonic Pieces and light Jazz, but can be very valuable in rock and more modern music with high impact drum or percussive instruments, as well as Bass Guitar.

[John Casler]

How do you think an RM30 C would sound as a center channel sitting on an RPTV in an HT setup?  This would have RM40's as FR/FL speakers.

I understand BC would have the FST turned 90*

While Big B did mention this possibility, I'm not sure I can see the horizontal implementation being as effective as say "head to head, dual 626Rs" as done by another VMPS'er here on AudioCircle.

The limited dispersion of the FST being all the way to one end would seem to be a bit of a problem. (I could be wrong)

Price wise it would be rather similar $1598 for the dual 626Rs and $1600 for the RM30C.

In fact even the RM40 would probabaly work better since it has a centrally located ribbon tweeter (can any RPTVs take 240#???)

Can you just see a horizontal RM40 on top of the new 80" Mitsubishi?

I do think the best implementation of the RM30C is vertical and sitting just below a 50"-60" plasma, or behind an "acoustically transparent" screen.

Just my thoughts.

[Sa-dono]

What Brian is talking about here is the low pass from upper woofer to "MIDRANGE" driver or the neopanel.

He is saying that the midrange neopanel will now cross-over at a higher point from the woofer below it.

I believe he was playing with 180-220hz but haven't heard where it actually ended up.

This would effectively move more air in the lower midrange and upper bass.

As I stated in an earlier posting on the RM30, it also "frees up" the Neopanel to handle a smaller frequency range and this means higher output capability and overall performance which may allow the 3 neopanels to "approach" levels of the 4 panels of the (non-retrofitted) RM40.

He is also saying that this x-over point can also be retro-added to some of the other speakers already in the field, for those interested in higher impact in the upper bass.

This is relatively unimportant in Symphonic Pieces and light Jazz, but can be very valuable in rock and more modern music with high impact drum or percussive instruments, as well as Bass Guitar.

It's good to see this change finally going on...it proves I was right (and not crazy) all along So is this change going to go to be implemented into all new speakers, and does this mean you'll be getting a pair of RM30's John?

[Redbone]

What Brian is talking about here is the low pass from upper woofer to "MIDRANGE" driver or the neopanel.

He is saying that the midrange neopanel will now cross-over at a higher point from the woofer below it.

I believe he was playing with 180-220hz but haven't heard where it actually ended up.

This would effectively move more air in the lower midrange and upper bass.

As I stated in an earlier posting on the RM30, it also "frees up" the Neopanel to handle a smaller frequency range and this means  ...

John, thanks for the reply.  I guess what is confusing me is that the RM40 has two sets of binding posts.  One set drives the cones and one set the ribbons.  How does the low pass from upper woofer to "MIDRANGE" driver manage to filter two separate inputs ?  Are there two separate low pass filters or does a single one accept input from both sets of binding posts ?  Thanks.

[John Kotches]

Redbone,

I'm not Brian or John Casler, but here's my understanding.

Let's look at a signal coming into the loudspeaker. Make it easy on me and use a 3-way loudspeaker  Further assume you are connected to the lower binding posts (woofers).

OK, you have your jumpers connected, so you aren't going to biamp.

The woofer crossover implements a "low-pass" filter.  Frequencies below the crossover point pass through to the driver.  Frequencies above the crossover are sent across the jumper cable to the midrange/tweeters.

The midrange crossover is a "band pass" design, which only allows certain frequencies to go through the crossover.  The portion within the pass band gets sent to the Neo panel, and the portion that isn't passed is routed to the tweeter crossover.

The tweeter crossover, is not mandatory, but if there is a discrete tweeter crossover, it's  a "high-pass" design.  Frequencies above the crossover point pass through to the driver, frequencies below the crossover point are dumped.   Technically speaking, the tweeter shouldn't get an inappropriate signal, but I haven't torn apart B's speaker to tell you if he has a tweeter crossover or not.  IMO, it's a good safety mechanism.

In a passive biamp setup, which uses the internal crossovers the jumper is removed, and full range signals are presented to each binding post.

The woofer crossover implements the same way, but frequencies above the crossover are now ignored.  This will actually mean a  little heat is generated.

The midrange/tweeter input works identically as well.  The midrange crossover takes frequencies within the band pass and passes them to the midrange.  Frequencies below the band pass are now ignored, ie dumped and some heat is generated, while frequencies above the band pass are sent to the tweeter crossover or directly to the tweeter depending on design.

I'm sure if I've totally botched this both Brian and John will correct me


Cheers,







When the jumper is hooked up, the  output of the crossover(s) connected to the lower binding posts are passed to the crossovers connected to the upper binding posts.

When you are biamping, the

[Marbles]

While Big B did mention this possibility, I'm not sure I can see the horizontal implementation being as effective as say "head to head, dual 626Rs" as done by another VMPS'er here on AudioCircle.

The limited dispersion of the FST being all the way to one end would seem to be a bit of a problem. (I could be wrong)

Price wise it would be rather similar $1598 for the dual 626Rs and $1600 for the RM30C.

In fact even the RM40 would probabaly work better since it has a centrally located ribbon tweeter (can any RPTVs take 240#???)

Can you just see a horizontal RM40 on top of the new 80" Mitsubishi?  

I do think the best implementation of the RM30C is vertical and sitting just below a 50"-60" plasma, or behind an "acoustically transparent" screen.
 ...

John, thank you for your thoughts.

It seems the trade off would be with RM30 you get one more midrange to match the output of the RM40's a bit better.  With the dual 626's the HF might be covered a bit better with the dual FST's.

In my setup, I can have the FST on the 30 pointed at the main listening position.  Everyone else will be off axis from this.  With dual FST's in a symetrical array, the person in the "middle" seat, one over from my main position would be on axis.  In a reverse symmetrical array (both woofers of the 626 together, tweeters to the outsides) two people could be on axis of the FST's.

Almost all RPTV's can take 240LB's if spread over the top of it.  In fact, mine has had 80lbs concentrated in the middle of it for four years without a warp yet.  I actually measured my RM40 to see if it would fit on top of my 71", but it would overhang a few inch's on each side and look kind of funny.  Besides, the thinner width cabinet of the 30 should make it image better than the 40 and that is a desireble thing for a center channel.

Anyway, since the FST will be on axis with the main listening seat, and the midrange should have about equal output to match the 40's, and it is my beleif that the frequencies below 7000hz are more important for a center channel than those above 7000 hz, I'm going to go with a 30 with TRT.

I wouldn't be offended if anyone else went with the dual 626's and could certainly understand why they might.

I also beleive that the best implementation of the 30 would be in a verticle position, but I've had my TV for four years now and I don't plan on changing it anytime soon.

Another advantage to me getting the 30 now would be if I ever decided to get a FP or Plasma, I could easily rotate the FST 90* again to orient it in its correct vertical position and be all set .  Of course I will get it with an end cap on it over the passive radiater.  I don't know how easy that would be to make fully operational (if I would ever desire to redue that part).

[Redbone]

Redbone,

I'm not Brian or John Casler, but here's my understanding.

Let's look at a signal coming into the loudspeaker. Make it easy on me and use a 3-way loudspeaker  Further assume you are connected to the lower binding posts (woofers).

OK, you have your jumpers connected, so you aren't going to biamp.

The woofer crossover implements a "low-pass" filter.  Frequencies below the crossover point pass through to the driver.  Frequencies above the crossover are sent across the jumper cable to th ...

Gotcha.  So if the midrange neopanel will now cross-over at a higher point from the woofer below it, that is a change to the midrange crossover "band pass"filter.  

Now Brian said " There has been a major change to the crossover filter, specifically the lowpass to the midrange".  My interpretation is that this is a change to both the woofer "low-pass" filter and the midrange neopanel "band pass" filter, I guess.

[ekovalsky]

Just found out from Big B my Rm/X have the new crossover circuit in them.  Speakers are at the freight terminal in town, delivery scheduled for Monday afternoon !!!

   

Thanks for the great review Jim.  I guess the Rm-30's will be adequate for center and surround duties in my temple of high end audio, with the RM/x dominating the alter of course

[John Casler]

I'm sure if I've totally botched this both Brian and John will correct me  

John,

looks like you nailed it, with the exception that on the RM40s the "upper" binding posts supply the woofers.

[ekovalsky]

There has been a major change to the crossover filter, specifically the lowpass to the midrange, that has dramatically improved system clarity. This change will be incorporated into all the other ribbon speakers in our line and will be retrofittable. The changes involve about $50 worth of parts and can be done in the field.
 ...

Low pass filter to the midrange is 7khz.  Low pass to the woofer (or high pass to the midrange) would be 166hz.  Obviously the 6.5" woofers of the RM30 will go higher in frequency than the 10" woofers in the RM/X and RM/40 so so maybe the high pass to the midrange has been adjusted in the RM30 too.

I didn't pick this up on first reading Big B's RM30 progress report -- I was thinking the 166hz was adjusted upward.  But he clarified via email when I inquired.

[lkosova]

I do think the best implementation of the RM30C is vertical and sitting just below a 50"-60" plasma, or behind an "acoustically transparent" screen.

John I agree with you. I would like to see a "center" rm30 with the tweet in the middle(for horizontal placement) but having it vertical you  can also take avantage of TriP. This might make the vertical center even a "clearer" choice.

Now off to making my meeting with the Acoutical transparent screen people"screen research"

I will be bringing my "plans" of my room for opinions so if you are approached......

See you in a couple days.

Larry

[John Casler]

It's good to see this change finally going on...it proves I was right (and not crazy) all along

Not sure it "proves" that!!!!       (I still think your a little crazy )