Do you prefer to listen with or without the CDWG's?

satfrat · « **Reply #40 on:** 25 Nov 2010, 02:37 am »

Quote from: fredgarvin on 25 Nov 2010, 02:30 am

Turkeys have weird fleshy tumor-like objects that hang in front of their faces. It makes you wonder if what they say makes any sense. They also sh*t a lot in unwelcome areas.

Glass houses hea.

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #41 on:** 25 Nov 2010, 02:43 am »

The new device attaches easily and is lightweight. You can even hide it under the standard cloth grill. Price will be about $50 per side. It even can be used with other brands and configurations of planar speakers.

Hope this helps!

Pez · « **Reply #42 on:** 25 Nov 2010, 02:46 am »

Well now this I've gotta see!!!!

neilwill · « **Reply #43 on:** 11 Dec 2010, 08:19 pm »

"I have a new version of the CDWG which eliminates both problems. Sorry, had to wait for the patent to issue. This version is add-on, inexpensive, and available in about two weeks!"

Are these available yet and how much?

rbbert · « **Reply #44 on:** 20 Jan 2011, 08:32 pm »

Any update on the new waveguide?

Russtafarian · « **Reply #45 on:** 20 Jan 2011, 10:59 pm »

I'm already on record saying that I don't care for the CDWGs. To my ears, whatever improvement they bring to dispersion is more than offset by the FR anomalies they cause in the mids/highs.

If I could use EQ compensation, it might work. But I haven't found a reasonably priced digital EQ that's transparent enough in the mid/highs for my ears.

Russ

rbbert · « **Reply #46 on:** 20 Jan 2011, 11:18 pm »

Quote from: Russtafarian on 20 Jan 2011, 10:59 pm

I'm already on record saying that I don't care for the CDWGs. To my ears, whatever improvement they bring to dispersion is more than offset by the FR anomalies they cause in the mids/highs.

If I could use EQ compensation, it might work. But I haven't found a reasonably priced digital EQ that's transparent enough in the mid/highs for my ears.

Russ

True for me as well, but Brian's quote suggests those problems may be less or gone with the "new" CDWG's that as of yet we have no information on.

PLMONROE · « **Reply #47 on:** 21 Jan 2011, 02:14 pm »

In addition to the other changes did the improved RM-50s have the new CDWG's at this year's T.H.E.Show?

Paul

John Casler · « **Reply #48 on:** 21 Jan 2011, 03:49 pm »

Quote from: Russtafarian on 20 Jan 2011, 10:59 pm

I'm already on record saying that I don't care for the CDWGs. To my ears, whatever improvement they bring to dispersion is more than offset by the FR anomalies they cause in the mids/highs.

If I could use EQ compensation, it might work. But I haven't found a reasonably priced digital EQ that's transparent enough in the mid/highs for my ears.

Russ

Hi Russ,

Haven't seen you in a while. Gotta get down and hear your setup someday.

Your pair actually preceded the CDWG by some time, so they were not originally voiced to accomadate for the WG.

Normally with the older (preCDWG) RM30's there were some cap changes and dehorning of the tweeter. If that was not performed, or performed correctly you would likely get what you describe.

If you do go to digital equalization, B might be able to offer you the correct parameters.

John Casler · « **Reply #49 on:** 21 Jan 2011, 03:54 pm »

Quote from: PLMONROE on 21 Jan 2011, 02:14 pm

In addition to the other changes did the improved RM-50s have the new CDWG's at this year's T.H.E.Show?

Paul

Hi Paul,

Missed you this year.

The answer is Yes. . . .and No

The CDWG will not work on a Dual Line Array, so the front (which seems to have excellent Horizontal Dispersion) cannot have CDWG.

However the rear drivers are not a dual, but a single line and they DID have a CDWG.

I was often behind the speaker working the electronics (for Bybee demos) and the sound was spectacular way off axis and behind a single RM50.

rbbert · « **Reply #50 on:** 21 Jan 2011, 04:30 pm »

Still wondering when/if we get more details on the new CDWG??

krikor · « **Reply #51 on:** 21 Jan 2011, 09:19 pm »

Curious about these new CDWGs as well... details?

And a few questions. I've got a pair of 626r with the oxo setup for CDWG. If I run them without the waveguides, is it simply a matter of turning down the tweeter level to compensate? Or is there more to it in the crossover?

In other words, if I keep them as non-CDWG, should I explore changing the xover to get the most out of them and perhaps re-horning the tweeters?

Thanks... and I gotta say I am really enjoying the VMPS speakers. This past month has been my first experience with them.

Scottdazzle · « **Reply #52 on:** 3 Feb 2011, 05:59 pm »

Quote from: rbbert on 21 Jan 2011, 04:30 pm

Still wondering when/if we get more details on the new CDWG??

My RM30M definitely sound more open and balanced without the wave guides, but they look much better with them on. I'm very curious about the new ones. Can the originals be modified?

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #53 on:** 3 Feb 2011, 06:25 pm »

Yes, the new waveguides are small, plastic and foam stickons. They are adjustable in several ways, do not roll off HF response, and insertion loss is small, about 1dB. It's taking a long time to get them done as the foam people can't seem to get the die done correctly. Also, we are swamped with backlog from the Show.

The new CDWG will be cheap, about $25pr, with one pair required per panel or tweeter.

werd · « **Reply #54 on:** 3 Feb 2011, 06:40 pm »

I use to mimick cdwg with my Acoustic zens. The Zens come with a nylon packingbag. I know its sounds ridiculous but the nylon bag placed over the speakers seemed to disperse energy building up around the speaker. I use rugs now so the nylons came off but speakers sitting on bare laminate flooring benefitted from this lots. There was a mild db drop in sensitivity but the speakers sounded way more localized (in agood way) which gave a really nice center image.

My approach was hack but looking at these cdwg i would say bravo

since it can really help the speaker/room interface with out getting to far into complete room overhauls for sound.

JP78 · « **Reply #55 on:** 4 Feb 2011, 03:53 pm »

Since forums are all about the two cents...

I think a base of the problem is that VMPS does not offer model revisions in the nomenclature (like RM40A,RM40B,RM40C or RM40.1,.2,.3) etc it is impossible to know how hard it is to retrofit the CDWG for a particular pair of speakers. Brian is so good at continually making improvements on his speakers this becomes a double-edged sword for knowing what the latest and greatest level of sound can be from his speakers. Also, I've noticed a significant improvement in sound quality from the first version of the RM40 to the more recent ones shipping today...enough so to think I wouldn't be comfortable calling it the same model. I think this may cause some upgraded CDWG speakers to be incorrectly upgraded to be compatible with the CDWG. I'm just thinking out loud here, but how can a casual enthusiast know how to adjust the crossover settings depending on if they vitrified their passive, the measurements of their particular neo panels, if they properly dehorned the tweeter, the type of woofers, etc?

Unfortunately I haven't heard CDWG yet from VMPS. I do know, however, I will probably reserve final judgment of this technology for when I hear a pair that was shipped CDWG from the factory, or similarly a pair that was sent back to the factory for upgrading. I do trust Brian's ears, and imagine if he's heard the sound and is willing to stick his name on it then it's gotta be at least pretty good.

Best,

JP

John Casler · « **Reply #56 on:** 5 Feb 2011, 01:06 am »

Quote from: JP78 on 4 Feb 2011, 03:53 pm

Since forums are all about the two cents...

I think a base of the problem is that VMPS does not offer model revisions in the nomenclature (like RM40A,RM40B,RM40C or RM40.1,.2,.3) etc it is impossible to know how hard it is to retrofit the CDWG for a particular pair of speakers. Brian is so good at continually making improvements on his speakers this becomes a double-edged sword for knowing what the latest and greatest level of sound can be from his speakers.

Hi JP,

Any speaker that did not come with the CDWG will need to be adjusted to use it properly.

That adjustment might include a XO mod, and dehorning the tweeter.

Anyone considering adding a CDWG on a non-CDWG speaker should check with their dealer or Brian for how that might be possible.

Quote

Also, I've noticed a significant improvement in sound quality from the first version of the RM40 to the more recent ones shipping today...enough so to think I wouldn't be comfortable calling it the same model. I think this may cause some upgraded CDWG speakers to be incorrectly upgraded to be compatible with the CDWG. I'm just thinking out loud here, but how can a casual enthusiast know how to adjust the crossover settings depending on if they vitrified their passive, the measurements of their particular neo panels, if they properly dehorned the tweeter, the type of woofers, etc?

All good questions.

The first RM40 was introduced in 2002.

Since that time we have made any number of changes to the design and parts such as: (not in any particular order)

1) From Spiral Ribbon to FST tweeter

2) Vitrified Passive Radiator (can be owner updated)

3) Midwoofer Upgrade

4) Crossover change from 166hz to 260 or 280Hz

5) CDWG

However, with the RM40 and really any VMPS speaker, the menu of upgrades and options would also have the potential to change the sound.

TRT Caps
Auricaps
OXO (outboard XO)
D-OXO (digital outboard XO)
PBS (powered bass system)
SR-71 (silver wiring)
Cabinet upgrades
Lambs Wool Neopanel Damping

etc, might all cause different versions to sound even more different.

I suppose we could have "model years" like the 2002 RM40 or the 2008, but I haven't kept track of when we instituted some of those changes (might be able to find them in the old threads)

Quote

Unfortunately I haven't heard CDWG yet from VMPS. I do know, however, I will probably reserve final judgment of this technology for when I hear a pair that was shipped CDWG from the factory, or similarly a pair that was sent back to the factory for upgrading. I do trust Brian's ears, and imagine if he's heard the sound and is willing to stick his name on it then it's gotta be at least pretty good.

Best,

JP

If Brian gets hold of it, you can rest assured that it will get the latest updates.

If you are looking at "previously owned" VMPS speakers however, you should always attempt to find out the year they were built (should be stamped on the instuctions on the back or the owner should know) and you can contact your dealer, Brian, or myself and maybe we can offer up what was available at that time.

Pez · « **Reply #57 on:** 5 Feb 2011, 01:13 am »

You should just use the old standby MK I, MK III, etc. By my account they should be MK CXLIII by now.

rbbert · « **Reply #58 on:** 15 Feb 2011, 11:34 pm »

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the RM-40 is the only VMPS floor stander to have a MTM d'Appolito configuration. In theory, this should make its horizontal dispersion different from the other models, and perhaps to have better imaging (than they do) even without the CDWG?

PLMONROE · « **Reply #59 on:** 16 Feb 2011, 02:47 am »

It is my understanding that in a true d'Appolito configuration the top and bottom drivers are identical. I don't believe this is true of any of the various RM-40 iterations.

Paul

Poll

For those of you that own the CDWG grilles, do you do most of your listening with them on or off?

Do you prefer to listen with or without the CDWG's?