[pmcneil]

Well, direct and reflected sound from the newest VMPS, the RM50. Why am I reminded of the Bose 901? I guess, because it was the speaker that, in the early 70s, got me into the magic of reproduced sound. And most of the sound was reflected!

Anything new? Or just pretending?

[flintstone]

Bose 901 and RM-50? I don't get it  ......where is the connection?


Dave

[Venkman]

I'm confused on the question.  Are you asking if the RM50 provides anything new, or is just pretending to be a 901?  Or, are you asking if your statement about reflected sound is something new...or maybe i'm missing the mark entirely?

[Pez]

I'm confused as well, this is hardly the first dipole/bipole speaker since the 901. Nor is it the first one from VMPS. 

[Brian Cheney]

As a former 901 owner (in 1970) I can tell you the differences between the Bose and the RM50.

The 901 produces mostly reverberant field. About 88% of its output is towards the rear, and full range.  Rear dispersion is very broad.  It uses inexpensive ($4.50ea) cone drivers made in China.  Cabinet is moulded plastic, with MDF top and bottom. It sells for under $1800pr

The RM50 is a bipole but rear energy is restricted to 220Hz and above.  Reverberant energy is 40% of its output up to 9kHz and  about 22% of its output above that frequency.  The amount of reflected energy is user controllable, as is its dispersion pattern.  It uses expensive drivers (over $100ea) from domestic manufacturers.  It has a thick, heavy, inert MDF cabinet and digital correction of speaker and room, plus user selectable digital crossovers.  It sells for just under $13,000pr.

Other than that.... 

[srb]

The 901 produces mostly reverberant field. About 88% of its output is towards the rear, and full range.  Rear dispersion is very broad.  It uses inexpensive ($4.50ea) cone drivers made in China.  Cabinet is moulded plastic, with MDF top and bottom. It sells for under $1800pr

The RM50 is a bipole but rear energy is restricted to 220Hz and above.  Reverberant energy is 40% of its output up to 9kHz and  about 22% of its output above that frequency.  The amount of reflected energy is user controllable, as is its dispersion pattern.  It uses expensive drivers (over $100ea) from domestic manufacturers.  It has a thick, heavy, inert MDF cabinet and digital correction of speaker and room, plus user selectable digital crossovers.  It sells for just under $13,000pr.

Other than that....

Other than that.... the 901's cheap 4-1/2" drivers weren't really full-range and depended on additional noisy active analog equalization just to give the speaker an acceptable frequency response.
 
Steve

[JerryM]

Other than that.... the 901's cheap 4-1/2" drivers weren't really full-range and depended on additional noisy active analog equalization just to give the speaker an acceptable frequency response.
 
Steve

And of the few folks I knew who had them, the "speaker equalizer" slides were always set to look like a "W". 

[srb]

And of the few folks I knew who had them, the "speaker equalizer" slides were always set to look like a "W".

Actually, I wasn't referring to a third-party multi-band graphic equalizer, but the active equalizer that was part of the 901 speaker system.
 
Steve
 

[pmcneil]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply any resemblance, beyond the use of reflected sound between the two. And I would guess that adding some reflected sound adds to the VMPS line-up. I think it has been demonstrated in blind tests that listeners prefer speakers that incorporate reflected sound. I guess I am just getting old and wondering, is there anything new!

I actually have a pair of the original 901s, in my garage, and, yes, they use cheap drivers and an equalizer, and they their sound is never beautiful, but they can rock, because of that reflected sound, I think, and in any case sound good even when I'm working behind the lawn tractor!

I also have some VMPS RM2s, which I love, and which can make beautiful sounds, but I do have to sit in the right spot, but that's ok, because they are in my home theater room!

[pmcneil]

One more comment r.e. reflected sound. I added the VMPS 'Ambience' tweeters to my RM2s, pointed them to the sides, and got a much wider soundstage by adding these reflected highs.

[tbrooke]

Actually this thread brings up an interesting question. I don't have the ambiance tweeter but if I added the ambiance tweeter to my RM30 would I be closer to a RM50 and what if I went further and put neo -panels on the back would U have a mini RM50

[pmcneil]

Interesting idea, tbrooke! Certainly, the tweeters are easy, you just attach the provided wiring to the rear terminals of your VMPS speakers. Wouldn't you have to go into the cross-over to do the Neo mid?

[Zheeeem]

As a former 901 owner (in 1970) I can tell you the differences between the Bose and the RM50.

Other than that....

OMG...  Big B comes out of the closet.

Tragically, I also had a pair of 901s, although it was probably 1971.  With enough power, they could fill a room with sound.  Not exactly good sound.  But sound.  There was something pleasing about them, in a highly distorted way.  (Not surprisingly, I evolved (?) into being a maggie user.)  From there, it was only natural to evolve further into being a VMPS owner.

Ironically, over the course of my "evolution" I shifted away from reflected sound and into the pursuit of better planar drivers. 

[doug s.]

Actually, I wasn't referring to a third-party multi-band graphic equalizer, but the active equalizer that was part of the 901 speaker system.
 
Steve
 

i still have my 1st-gen 901's, purchased back in 1969.  getting them at half-price thru a relative that worked at a stereo shop made me wery happy!  i used them as bed-side tables for many years after they stopped being allowed to make noise.  they're now stored away in the basement of the house i still pay for, where my ex-wife lives, haha! 

a few years after their purchase, i got one of those equalizers w/the pink noise generator built-in.  even w/the factory eq still in the loop, the 10-band eq definitely had its sliders in a "w" configuration for relatively flat response - and it did sound a lot better...

hearing thiel 3.5's in 1985 was certainly a real ear-opener...     some day i may be fortunate enough to hear the rm50's.  the most modern vmps' i have heard are their old super-tower-lll's, killer speakers in their own right.  i ended up yust buying the bass-part of those speakers - the tall-boy style larger subs, which are still in use, playing as i am typing this.  (upgraded w/megawoofers quite a few years back.)  it will take serious money to improve on their performance...   

doug s.

[srb]

a few years after their purchase, i got one of those equalizers w/the pink noise generator built-in.  even w/the factory eq still in the loop, the 10-band eq definitely had its sliders in a "w" configuration for relatively flat response - and it did sound a lot better...

Holy double dippin' EQ Batman!
 
Steve

[daniloreyes]

So much misconception and urban legend stories about the 901's. Bose had a lot of research (for the time). A properly set Bose 901 with enough power sounds good. Maybe not audiophile $1400-speakers-good, but still good. Is it worth $1400, nope.
However,If you listened to them and commented that it did not sound with enough base or quality it was probably not a good setup, or you just say what you hear from other naysayers. And yes newer Bose quality is cheap.
I bet that many of people never listened them and the ones that have, now have real audiophile speakers.     
Newer equipment (Denon, RM50) are using the tech now.
Denon and Audissey are now promoting the DSX technology in which "extensive research" has shown that human ears can not get better resolution than 24bit. so their solution is adding more channels, then our ears can perceive the difference. That is also how the reflecting speakers work. As a side note, it is so funny that the original Denon videos showing the DSX technology had the same graphs that Bose used in the 70's (showing the refections from the rooms/concerthalls) and seems that they remove those now...

Of course we now prefer a planar direct two speaker setup with quality sound, but we have to pay premium for it. Unless you have the perfect environment (and $ )  for the RM50.

[Jack D.]

Sorry daniloreyes,

I heard the Bose 901's.  They sounded like crap!

Dr. Amar Bose studied acoustics at M.I.T., unfortunately he never grasped the concept

of physics.

The speakers are widely known as inaccurate, high distortion, everywhere nowhere

imaging, with no real bass.


Brian Cheney makes great speakers.

Bose corporation has great marketing ability.

[John Casler]

OMG...  Big B comes out of the closet.

Tragically, I also had a pair of 901s, although it was probably 1971.  With enough power, they could fill a room with sound.  Not exactly good sound.  But sound.  There was something pleasing about them, in a highly distorted way.  (Not surprisingly, I evolved (?) into being a maggie user.)  From there, it was only natural to evolve further into being a VMPS owner.

Ironically, over the course of my "evolution" I shifted away from reflected sound and into the pursuit of better planar drivers.

I had a pair in the closet too for a few years.  Took a Phase Linear 400 to wake them up.  Eventually they were relegated to the "rear speakers" with Altec Lansing "Santiago" mains.

The Santiagos were "home" versions of the Voice of the Theater speaker with the Sectoral Horn and the 15" woofster.







Listening to Emerson Lake and Palmer late on a Saturday night often was a religious experience.

[DFaulds]

Very nice John. 

Those were later renditions and not real easy to find these days.  More common were the slightly earlier versions which were called Valencia's.  Altec made quite a few home speakers using the same basic speaker setup as the VOT, but only one used a horn loaded woofer.

I owned Valencia's a few years back and they worked quite well with my vintage tube amps.  In a way I'm sorry I let them go.

[John Casler]

Very nice John. 

Those were later renditions and not real easy to find these days.  More common were the slightly earlier versions which were called Valencia's.  Altec made quite a few home speakers using the same basic speaker setup as the VOT, but only one used a horn loaded woofer.

I owned Valencia's a few years back and they worked quite well with my vintage tube amps.  In a way I'm sorry I let them go.

Oh yes I remember the Valencias, in fact if my memory is correct there were at least 3 models on that platform because I had considered all of them before settling on the Santiagos.  i think the Valencias were more expensive for some reason.  And of course they also had a powered version.

I think there was a Santana, and a Milano version.

Here are the Valencias:







They were my first and only Horns, but were wonderful speakers.

Brings back system memories:

Empire 598 turntable
Sansui Tuner
Harman Kardon "cassette tape" deck
Harman Kardon Citation Preamp
Phase Linear 400 amp
Altec Santiagos

The year was like 1973'ish and had a Pantera in the driveway and a full set of Ludwig drums and Zildjian Cymbals in the stereo room.

Life was good.