[azryan]

Heard the RM/X's at Eric's house (ekovalsky) last Sat.

Great guy as always. Heartattack of a home as always too! hehe

Long post short... big thumbs up to the X's! VERY nice.

I heard the 40's at Eric's place and pretty much everything about his system is totally new.

Great room treatments where before there were none and the bare drywall room I felt really needed some.

Eric had his 40's almost to the middle of the room when I heard them and the bass felt shy to me. I would have pushed the speakers back further but I'm just guessing about that being a better result.
His X's are about a foot and a half from the wall now which I would not have done -thinking it would be too close....
It's not too close though.

The bass was terribly tight clean and deep. People who greatly prefer tight sealed subs would be very happy. It was excellent.

I was pretty critical of the cabinet of the 40's, but the X's are rock solid. Certainly lots of great bracing in there. Very impressed (I still think it could be made far cheaper as a 2-part cabinet and then could be fully veneered but not my company).

The blend w/ the neo line and the soundstage overall was very good too.

I wasn't happy the top 10" woofer on the 40's or how it blended w/ the neos. I felt I could tell pretty easily tell where the woofers were playing and the neos were playing.

The woofer/neo blend worked great on the bottom w/ the X though, w/ the front 10" upper bass driver and side firing 12" subwoofer cone.

They're very efficient too.

Eric seems to typically use 10-20W RMS each on them though he's got I think 1000W per chan. available to him if need be (from the digital Watt meter on the face of his PS Audio powerplant).

I listen louder than he seems to and I spiked the X's on a Chinese drum track w/ peaks of about 100-150W pre speaker. I still wanted to play it louder and you could tell the X's wouldn't have argued with me about it, but Eric figured his wife and newborn would not dig that so it was plenty cool enough that he let me play it as loud as I did.

The planar line is obviously very quick and seems to not interact with the room in the least. That's a thing most people tend to have to fight with so a strong advantage it seems with these broadband planars.

The FST was aimed directly at the seat which is what I'd figure you'd logically want to do.

The level seemed too low. Not WAY too low, but more than a 'bit'. I didn't want to mess with Eric's system but after mentioning that point he got up and turned them up a bit.
I still felt it was too low though for my taste.

I think I just prefer a brighter sound than Eric does and I think Eric can confirm that there was still attenuation on the FST's so if they were my speakers I could have raised the level higher if I wanted so that's cool.

Overall the trasparency and detail was 'polite'... 'clean' I'd say.
I felt like it wasn't quite as transparent as I was hoping, but just a 'bit' at worst.

This might be 100% the top end though, but I can't say. I don't feel I know for sure at all.

There was talk of his digital preamp section lowering volume by dropping bits, but at the levels we were listening to there should not have been any bits lost (I think) so I doubt that was part of it.

Dynamics seemed a bit less than I'm used to also, but the levels were also a bit less than I was used to most of the time and I'm also used to 'feeling' the impact of more of the sound than I did here so maybe that was the only diff. and not actually any less dynamicly restrained?

I'm just trying to make logical guess on a lot of these points.

I did play 'Stimela' a VERY dynamic track off the Burmester Ref. 3 CD to test dynamics and we had to almost yell to really hear eachother say something so I think the levels there were what I'm used to when I really let that track rip at home.

Eric didn't seem that impressed with the track and neither did I. I just wasn't feeling the dynamic impact or the top end detail that thrills me at my place. I could have just changed the track, but at home I happily listen to the whole thing. (it's ~a 10min. track).

There was a further drop off from the FST when I stood up but it was slight. No big deal really IMO.

I wondered if tilting the FST up a bit and then turning up it's level even more might balance those things out better for me. Not my system to mess with though.

When standing I'm at the top of the planar line so I don't lose any of that info and the bottom end seemed to remain great too. Eric's much taller than me though so maybe he has a little more drop off.

Much diff. from the effect of the array of the 40's prominent top woofer and seated height spirals, and the large drop off of the whole planar array of the 30's when standing (not 'crimes/flaws' IMO... just diff. design goals in each).

In my own system I knew I had a peak at about 150Hz. I considered it a 'bit' too high a peak, but after hearing Eric's X's and the totally clean planars I had to say to myself... -"Dude, that's more than a 'bit' of a peak. It's a problem area and you need to fix it!!"

I got off my butt the next day took the spikes out of my bases and moved my speakers more to where their designer recommended them to go in the first place (serves me right for not listening in the first place to his advice).

I was able to knock that peak down after about a half an hour of big moves and little refinements.
A Chesky stereo set-up disc helped me find the tiny inches that kept my balance dead on and phase correct so I get a true surround effect from out of phase recording like Q-Sound.

I forgot I meant to test a Q-Sound disc at Eric's! Damn!!

My speakers are now only slightly in front of my RPTV which is something I thought would NOT be good for the imaging/depth.

I found though I didn't lose any sense of depth of sound IMO (I always flip down a soft fat cloth in front of my RPTV's screen when I listen to music. I guess it works very well to 'erase' the TV reflection-wise even when the speaker are so close to the same plane).

Eric has a large sheet of egg crate foam between his speakers but I personally think I get a bit better sense of depth at my place.

I'm now thinking it's more the actual minute detail of a recording (esp. on the top end) that gives that sense of depth rather than it just being a matter of killing wall reflection (though both seem to be very important).

I wouldn't have guessed that I'd find the X's to be a little less extended and toned down than I'd like when they should extend way past audible and my speaker technically has a little roll off in the extreme top octave (though comes back up above that).
Funny how things work out in actual diff. set-ups.

I'd like Eric to come to my place to hear the diff. and see if he has a diff. point of view. I'm sure he does.
I don't think if we could make our 'perfect' speaker (neither of us believe we already own a 'perfect' speaker) that'd we'd end up with the same result.

My system's currently a bit too bright/edgy on the top end (only using a $250 digital Pannie Rec. which while not 'world class' is shockingly better than $250 should ever be IMO), but I can listen for hours on end and never get any ear ringing or anything like that.

I'd like to see if Eric finds it to be too bright or even harsh or so-so, etc...

I thought the X's were taller than my speakers but they're pretty much the exact same height. A bit wider and a good deal deeper, but my bases are much larger (too large IMO. I wish I would have made them smaller) so the two speakers really look like an even match -though very diff. designs and goals in the two planar/woofer hybrids.

Pluses and minuses on both due to very diff. designs. Almost opposite approaches in many ways for speakers that seem more like eachother than they do to most other speakers out there.

An owner's front end electronics, speaker positioning (and pots/putty on the X) are going to make the largest diffs. between these speakers IMO.

And I don't know what other speakers could match or beat these?

I'm thinking 'None' -'cept the Epiphany 20.21's but the list price on them is really so much higher it's just not the same value.

[zybar]

Thanks for the review.

I only wish that you could have brought over the Dodd Tube Mono Blocs and reported on they worked full range.

Gary told me they would have no problem driving the RM 40's full range.

GW

[JoshK]

Thanks for the great review/thoughts Ryan!  I can certainly attest from having heard Rup's RM/Xs that they don't lack detail or ability to be slightly 'bright' if one so chooses.  I bet it is mostly in tuning and setup to match the owner's preferences.  I would probably be on Eric's side of the camp, not that Rup's was too bright to listen to or bothersome, just more than I typically like it to be or how I tune my RM40's.

[ekovalsky]

Thanks for the review.  I've been intended to do one myself but have been spending most of my free time listening instead of writing!  That alone is very high praise  

A few comments...

I've done limited adjustments of the speakers.  A pea sized piece of putty has been removed from each passive woofer, a fingernail scraping at a time.  I think the bass is "right".  It is deep, powerful, and flat when content demands, and there are no obvious colorations or response anomalies in the room.  As azryan points out, speakers are placed close to the wall which seems to work well.  Don't be afraid to get the RM/X if your room is on the small side!

The midrange is very clean and integration with the woofer system is excellent.   The anti-diffraction design of the baffle works very well and looks great too.  No ugly and finish-marring "supertweak" needed  

I do think azryan and I probably have different taste in the high frequencies.  About a week before his visit I installed a new interconnect, and expecting it to be a bit bright before breaking in, I lowered the tweeter level a tiny bit.  I raised it back during his visit, but seems he still felt there wasn't enough extension at the top octaves.  To me it sounds well balanced, but I do plan on more experimentation with the pots and of course the adjustable tweeter pods.  I've aimed them just slightly above the listening position and haven't messed with them otherwise.  I expect them to be the most challenging aspect of the final setup procedure.

I have no doubt the RM/X can be as extended/bright/detailed (whatever you wish to call it) at the high frequencies as desired.  I do not like bright systems and find them fatiguing (one of the reasons I love the Apogee Divas so much) and am very glad VMPS offers so much flexibility.  

Really, I think azryan has just listened to Hugh Masekala, Nine Inch Nails, Yim Hok-man, (Chinese Drum dude), Jeff Buckley,   etc at 120-130db too much and has no more high frequency hearing.        Just kidding!

I usually listen at 85-95db, both out of respect to my cochlea and my family.  During our session we were well over 100db with many tracks.  There is no doubt the Rowland/VMPS combo had plenty of range left, but the "Poem of Chinese Drums" at 130db would not go well with the wife!  Actually I got some dirty looks playing that tract at 90db  

Azryan, thanks again for the review and for the visit.  Hopefully I can make another trip (with my music this time) to hear the Alphas.  Also thanks for the good music -- I love several of the Jesse Cook tracks, particulaly "Closer to Madness", and the Burmester CD is fantastic.  Hope your enjoying Vienna Teng, and keeping my fingers crossed her next album, out later this month, will be as good.

[azryan]

Hey, can you get me a free hearing test??

I 'think' I can hear past 20kHz as I can easily tell when a freq. sweep stops playing up that high on some test CD's I have.

Maybe that's not a good enough test?

I don't go to rock concerts ever and I stopped riding motorcycles so I wouldn't damage my hearing (and 'cuz I think helmets are dorky but riding w/o one is crazy).

I don't listen to those high levels for hours on end. Short term I think the ear can handle that w/o damage? No?

Maybe I was trying to keep turning it up 'cuz I was trying to feel the impact of those high volumes but didn't ('cept on the bottom end)?

I did have to yell to talk over some of those tracks I cranked up so I think as loud as I ever listen to here?

Yeah... here and there I do crank it up even beyond that though. hehe
Just a song or two though.
Probably stupid of me to do.

I've got that Patricia Barber CD too so you do have to come over w/ your CD's to listen to my system again and get that disc.

The edgyness I have in my top end might not even be something you notice at the levels you typically listen?

I gotta get that Pannie modded soon though. It's NOT as good as your front end that's for sure as is.

The treble e.q. on it seems to not harm the sound in the least so we could always tap that way down and see if you like that better.

On the fully digital Sony 2000ES I had for a month if you touched the bass/treble e.q. even 1 db from Zero the sound cut out for a second and the noise level stepped up quite a bit.
I'm guessing the DSP kicking in and that being designed like crap.

Nothing like that on the Pannie.

[pjchappy]

azryan,

Could you give a little more input / thought on the 45.  I just ordered one last week and want to know more of what to expect.

I will eventually get it modded, but I want to know how it is in its stock form.

Thanks a lot!

p

[maxwalrath]

Nice azryan...I don't think anyone's ever summed up why motorcycles aren't more popular so well.

[azryan]

pjchappy,

"-I just ordered one last week and want to know more of what to expect.-"

1) Seems like you should expect to wait! hehe
I'm waitng for one too!

2) I've got the XR-25. I haven't heard the 45. Of the few people online who's compared both side by side I've seen some say there's no diff. and others say the 45 is a little better (to paraphrase assorted comments).

The consensus seems to be that some parts in it take a lot of break in so initial or early impressions aren't hearing it quite as good as it'll eventually get.

I wrote an early review of the 25 here months ago if you search for it. I think I got all of ZERO replies (guess I was ahead of my time as no one cared about some crappy mass market Rec. here on a high end audio forum. hehe).

I think I was not giving it as fair a shot as I should have and dismissed it a bit as a great bedroom system (and I do also have one in my bedroom hooked now to my Newform 630's and running in 200W x 2 'party' mode).

It's edgy and a little processed sounding on the upper end in world class terms (as I understand it the speaker output runs on a paper thin PCB trace to the crappiest binding posts you could buy, etc...).

Some recordings I don't feel it's edgy at all though. On others it spikes my ears here and there and can't wait to get it (the 45 actually) modded.

Maybe it's just my ears at diff. times of the day/night? Maybe the diff. recordings? Maybe the cheap power supply at diff. times? Or part of all three?
I don't know if I'll ever know which it is.

It never has that realistic liquid smoothness that I got from my eARTwo ICEpower amp. (I'm glad I sold it, but I did love it quite a bit), but it's very dynamic, detailed and has great control of the bottom end on my speakers.

I have no idea how it handles other speakers. Some stuff changes a great deal on diff. speakers types/loads and some stuff doesn't change hardly at all. I don't know which the Pannie is.

It's a weird thing. It's a preamp, DAC, and amps, but in a way... it's not really any of those things. I like the term 'powerDAC' though.

The things Wayne's going to replace and what he's going to replace them with seem to be night and day. Cheap crap for world class parts.

If this doesn't translate to clearly improved sound quailty I'll eat my remote. hehe

[mcrespo71]

I heard the RMX at Roop's place and was impressed.  However, your setup, Eric, looks a bit more finalized in terms of room treatments and I bet that makes a postive difference in the sound.  I enjoy the pictures you put up tremendously.  Your system makes me droooool!