[azryan]

DFaulds,

"-speaker manufacturers seldom have systemes where all the drivers have the same efficiency. -"

I agree that's true. It's better when they can be level matched though right?, and I wouldn't bother comparing VMPS to any old speakers.

I've said many times I think they're very good in many ways, and I'd compare them to other high quality designs. Lots of pros and cons out there, but they certainly beat a ton of speakers.

I don't think I'd buy a VMPS speaker personally (but their designs keep changing so who knows), but I'd NEVER buy a store speaker ever again.

I think the VMPS neos could be level matched to woofers w/o needing pots or resistors.

I agree too that L-Pad is the correct term vs. 'pots'.. just like people usually say 'ribbons' when describing the neo 'planar' panels -which aren't ribbons.

Not a big deal IMO. We all understand what we're talkin' about I think.

"-Let's keep in mind that the variety of ideas presented by great designers like Dick Shahinian, Brian Cheney, Jim Thiel, etc., are often contradictory, but still they all seem to create great designs. Go figure...-"

Many people don't seem to agree or acknowledge that point here, and for questionable reasons IMO. I agree with it though.


John B.,

"-I've got one speaker set at the 12 o'clock positions, and a little beyond that on the other, as I need to compensate for how one speaker is next to a corner wall, which is creating a different tonal signature from the other which is next to an open area that leads to a long hallway.-"

As you describe what you did.... you evenly boosted the gain a bit on one speaker in the ~166Hz on up range 'cuz it's not getting a wall reflection boost that the other speaker is.

Do you think the woofer section isn't in need of any boosted gain? Typically corner loading a speaker directly boosts it's bass, so the open walled speaker isn't getting any corner boosting.

Have you tried just adjusting the overall balance of the left vs. right speaker and keeping the pots the same level.

Make sure both posts start at the same spot. Often it seems the pot on one speaker isn't put in the same way as another so 12:00 on one speaker might be 1:00 on another speaker -and why I suggested markers on the back if pots 'must' be there.

When you put up room treatments you should be able to make the wall by one speaker act pretty much as 'acoustically invisible' as the open section by your other speaker -my guess then negating the need to imbalance your two speakers -which I'm guessing isn't actually countering the effect of the open area now anyway.

Like you said... you expect to do more adjusting when you treat the room.

How padded down are your neos now in both speaker?

Is the Neos lower, higher, or 'perfectly matched' to the woofers? Can't say right?

Though one speaker's set diff. from the other, both are setting the neos to lower effi. than the raw driver could be. That's at least a known fact to work with.

IMO, for such a critical driver covering a HUGE bandwidth that's not too effi. in the first place.... I just don't see that as a plus?

Imagine if the neo panel and your 6.5" woofers were the exact same effi. (and they might be? both should be I think ~86-88db) and you could then eliminate pots or sepp. resistors from the signal path again to a factual known improvement.


You'd still need to pad down the super tweeter (whichever type you have), but it could be done w/ resistors at least.

Then you could make the woofer cabient sepp. from the neo and supertweeter. Then you could make the planar section as narrow as possible too.


In the larger VMPS the multiple neos can add up to high effi and could be a match to the spiral or close to the FST.

Same for the woofers. Might take diff. woofers though. I dunno the specs on VMPS's own woofers.

[errivera]

From a design standpoint I assume you would want the levels to match as perfectly as possible at the crossover points. All else being equal, that would assure a seemless integration of all drivers. This would then leave the external factors such as room materials, flooring, etc. as the only tweakable options. Not a bad thing I guess, as long as you knew that you had a flat reference system.

However, being able to adjust the levels of any of the individual drivers allows the end user to personalize the speaker to his own benefit. I guess this is why there are so many happy VMPS customers. They are able to dial in exactly the sound that they like, good or bad (within certain limits of course). I guess it also helps adjust for overly bright or overly dampened rooms. This allows for greater control, I guess.

I personally like the idea of being able to adjust the level of individual drivers. Not so much for personalizing the sound to my preference but to help adjust for the flattest response possible within my listening room. Obviously, room treatment is still needed but hopefully less of it. I've also learned that a good equalizer can help wonders, especially with the low end.

I guess what I mean to say is that having the level controls is a good thing. Whew!!! that was a lot to say.

[John B]

Have you tried just adjusting the overall balance of the left vs. right speaker and keeping the pots the same level.

Make sure both posts start at the same spot. Often it seems the pot on one speaker isn't put in the same way as another so 12:00 on one speaker might be 1:00 on another speaker -and why I suggested markers on the back if pots 'must' be there.

I did check the pot rotations, and to my eye, they appeared to begin and end at similar rotation spots.  I suppose you could create a circular tape overlay in which you could mark spots on the tape as guides for different points, or you could just get used to the feel of the "clicks" as you turn, to where you gain a feel    for the device and don't need visual cues.

As for adjusting the overall balance, do you mean electronically?  If so that's not an option as my Integrated amp does not have a balance control.

The more I think about my experience last night the more convinced I am it's a first reflection point issue.   The left speaker output first reflects off a plastic sliding slat blind, whereas the right speaker first reflects off an overstuffed Lazy Boy rocker.   I'm thinking I'm going to have to move the rocker, and get two stand mounted diffuser panels that I can put in place every time I listen.   Or at least that's one idea.   Could be totally off base, but you gotta start somewhere  

[John B]

How padded down are your neos now in both speaker?

Is the Neos lower, higher, or 'perfectly matched' to the woofers? Can't say right?

Though one speaker's set diff. from the other, both are setting the neos to lower effi. than the raw driver could be. That's at least a known fact to work with.

IMO, for such a critical driver covering a HUGE bandwidth that's not too effi. in the first place.... I just don't see that as a plus?

Imagine if the neo panel and your 6.5" woofers were the exact same effi. (and they might be? both should be I think ~86-88db) and you could then eliminate pots or sepp. resistors from the signal path again to a factual known improvement.


You'd still need to pad down the super tweeter (whichever type you have), but it could be done w/ resistors at least.

This is where you've lost me, this padding down, what exactly is that?  I have the upgraded tweeter, and the only type of padding I see, if you could call it that, is the grey material that sits to either side of the tweeter.  What is the determining factor for judging whether the Neo's are lower or higher than the woofer, I'd say, not really understanding your question, that the Neo is higher, duh... then the woofer.  

Please excuse my level of understanding here, but I did say I was a rookie at this stuff.   And with only two evenings of experimenting time, I'm still in the learning/evaluation stage.   However my speakers are actually calibrated or designed, my initial listening impressions, and this without any fill in the stands or room treatments is very positive.

[azryan]

errivera,

What you describe sounds good, but what that would be IMO is more like an e.q.

Since the neo panels are such a WIDEband driver, IMO adjusting their level isn't at all like a tone control. At ALL.

IMO the supertweeter section adjustment is closer to an e.q. point, but a 1 to 1.5 octave band adjustment still isn't a 1/3 octave e.q. point.

I'm FAR from crying fowl or anything, but those bands are way too wide to describe adjustments in the same way as an e.q. is described.

And e.q.s themselves have been pretty widely scorned in most audiophile circles. That is begining to change though w/ digital parametric e.q's becoming more widely available.


John B,

"-As for adjusting the overall balance, do you mean electronically?-"

A balance knob, but looks like you don't have one. No prob. It was just a thought based on what you described for you situation.

I think you're on the right track with looking at the first refelction points -the idea is however much you dampen on not.... you want both sides to be the same.

I tend to prefer absorbing on the strongest 1st reflection points over diffusion.... unless your room's already pretty dang dead sounding.

IMO, I'd look to do that before you imbalance most of the output of one of your speakers.

I know you're talking slight changes so again... no crime or anything.

You could try homemade diffuser and absorbers (a big fat quilt is great) before you buy something so you hear the effect and see if you like it-and do it yourself room treatment info can be found easily to save yourself some $$.

"-This is where you've lost me, this padding down, what exactly is that?-"

Ahh... sorry I assumed you knew the term. My bad.

By 'padding' I'm talking about the ribbon tweeter you have is a higher effi. than the other drivers.

A LOT higher actually so it needs resistors on it to suck up the amp signal it gets so it ends up sounding only as loud as the other drivers and not WAY louder like it would without padding/resistors.

I didn't mean the foam padding around that driver.

"-What is the determining factor for judging whether the Neo's are lower or higher than the woofer,-"

That's the trick of it.

Typically a speaker company doesn't let you adjust your speakers because they already desinged all the drivers in a specific speaker to output the same avg. volume -and depending on how good the speaker is... should result in a pretty flat output from the high freq. on down to as low as the speaker is rated to play.

In adjustable speakers where you have several db of play to change your speaker's output, you could make the speaker very NOT flat.

Brian said other designers aren't trusting owners to set the speaker to what they want it to be, but IMO they're making the speakers as flat as they can, keeping the x-over as pure as they can and it's up to an owner to not damage the speaker's output.... which is where roomt treatments come in.

VMPS owners aren't free from needing room treatments so I don't see the advantage to the pots in the signal path.

If there was a setting marked on the L-Pads to tell you that at 'these' exact pot settings your speaker is it's flattest top to bottom then you could set it to flat if you wanted/needed to.

VMPS owners have to 'wing it' though and just go by 'sounds good like this'.

IMO, the most 'knowns'/ the least 'variables' is best. There's enough variables with diff. rooms each of us has... it's not THAT hard to get a room to sound good though.

Usually the biggest room prob. is not fixing the prob, it's getting a significant other to approve of the treatment.

[jgubman]

My RM-40s and LRC all came w/ pot positions marked on the instructions that are located right above the binding posts (about 4" from the l-pads). I thought that those markings represented the "flat" settings for each speaker.

Am I missing something? Any time I get the tweak bug, I return the l-pads to the setting indicated on the speaker and go from there.

[Brian Cheney]

The nominal or default settings of the Lpads are indeed the "max flat" settings in nearfield measurements.  I don't publish in-room measurements because each room changes the sound so much.  Go to the Stereophile archives for my 1980 article on reviewing speakers.  You can see three measurements of a speaker made with the same equipment and measurement techniques but in different rooms.  Two curves are quite poor and one is quite good.  

The speaker (not mentioned in the article) is the Quad 57.

The level control adjustments are essential to obtaining optimum performance from any of our systems.  Those who say otherwise show ignorance of basic acoustics and psychoacoustics.

[audiochef]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

[grub]

Uhhh Ohhhh!

I think Azryan is right on the money about the Significant Other being the biggest obstacle to overcome with room treatments.
-->grub

[errivera]

Yikes!!! I don't know if I would go around calling people (customers)  names. I don't think I have ever really read an ignorant post on this forum. I know that there are many other loudspeaker designers that would disagree with you Brian, including some of the top notch physicists. Look at the garbage that Dr. Bose has managed to market. I don't think that you could attack his credentials though.

Most designers, as mentioned previously, intentionally design their loudspeakers for optimally flat response. They don't want anyone messing up their hard work. I think anyone can appreciate that. Although I personally like the adjustability of speakers, I honestly don't think that it is necessary to achieve optimum results as you state. If introducing variables into speakers design is needed to achieve optimum results then there is something wrong in the design. As stated above, the adjustments of VMPS speakers that is done by ear can't be the best way to obtain optimum results. Don't you think?

[errivera]

Yikes!!! I don't know if I would go around calling people (customers)  names. I don't think I have ever really read an ignorant post on this forum. I know that there are many other loudspeaker designers that would disagree with you Brian, including some of the top notch physicists. Look at the garbage that Dr. Bose has managed to market. I don't think that you could attack his credentials though.

Most designers, as mentioned previously, intentionally design their loudspeakers for optimally flat response. They don't want anyone messing up their hard work. I think anyone can appreciate that. Although I personally like the adjustability of speakers, I honestly don't think that it is necessary to achieve optimum results as you state. If introducing variables into speakers design is needed to achieve optimum results then there is something wrong in the design. As stated above, the adjustments of VMPS speakers that is done by ear can't be the best way to obtain optimum results. Don't you think?

[azryan]

See it's posts like your last one Brian that have kept me harping of the fuzzy or flat out fictional claims you make.
I woulda thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Instead of insulting me (which I promise you won't hurt my feeling or make me cry. hehe).... if you wanted to not look like a child or like you actually knew what you were talking about you'd just post specifically how I'm wrong.

I've always said I'm willing to learn something if I'm wrong.

instead you tell me people to look up some 14year old article without stating how it relates to anything I said.

Great point, and one that got your lackey 'chef' to giggle. Congrats.

You said you'd post measurments of your speakers. That was loooooong time ago and I never held my breath. At least now you're saying you won't post any. It's honest at least.
Other designers post quasi-anechoic measurments that ignore the room echo.

If you can measure your speakers to find where there's flattest, then why can't you post those measurments?

Really... I don't care about the answer. I KNOW there are people out there who do though.

[dubravko]

Most designers, as mentioned previously, intentionally design their loudspeakers for optimally flat response. ...

But the small point in space in which they only eventually achieve flat response is irrelevant for users since they can't duplicate the conditions (even to closely imitate is not enough). So what's the use of their achievement then? Therefore I will always better like a product of an designer who cares more about my enjoyment and long-term satisfaction than a sanctity of his own work.

[audiochef]

Simply,in addition to all the above, the pots are there to provide for PERSONALIZED-custom tailoring. A feature ,Im sure 99% of VMPS owners would consider a luxury to have

Oh yeah , my mids and highs are degraded , degraded to a level just above most everything  else out there.

[John B]

See it's posts like your last one Brian that have kept me harping of the fuzzy or flat out fictional claims you make.
I woulda thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Instead of insulting me (which I promise you won't hurt my feeling or make me cry. hehe).... if you wanted to not look like a child or like you actually knew what you were talking about you'd just post specifically how I'm wrong.

I've always said I'm willing to learn something if I'm wrong.

Azryan,

I'm new to VMPS products, I based my decision to buy on what I heard at an audition of the product.   If you don't mind, what are the fictional claims that have been made by the Manufacturer?   Everything I've read, and it's by no means all that's out there, seem to be fairly straightforward and based on accepted acoustic properties.   But now you've got my curiosity up    Though it's just curiosity, I don't know enough about acoustic science to make a product evaluation based solely on Tthat.   I have to trust in my ears, and those little biological instruments tell me good things about what I'm hearing from my new speakers.

[jgubman]

I'm with you John. I first heard VMPS speakers when my brother-in-law got me to go along with him to listen to this tiny speaker company that had just won first prize at CES for these $5,000/pair speakers.
We went to Brian's house and I couldn't believe how good the RM-40s sounded. About the best I'd ever heard.

Two years and a bigger listening room later, I finally got my dream speakers and I love them. They sound absolutely perfect to my ears. Now, my brother-in-law is a big Dynaudio fan, and after our last audition of the RM-40s we stopped off at SF Stereo in Berkeley (so figure about 15 minutes after the RM-40 audition) to get one last listen to the Countour S5.4s (similarly priced to the RM-40s) and even the Confidence C2 (~$11,000 new but only about $1k more than the RM-40s used) before I plunked my money down on the RM-40s.

Well, despite the "impure" signal or published freq. responses, to my ears the 40s bested the dynaudio offerings, and at the end of the day that's what was important to me.

[Tim S]

See it's posts like your last one Brian that have kept me harping of the fuzzy or flat out fictional claims you make.
I woulda thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Instead of insulting me (which I promise you won't hurt my feeling or make me cry. hehe).... if you wanted to not look like a child or like you actually knew what you were talking about you'd just post specifically how I'm wrong.

One might suggest that you should know by now how he is likely to reply to your long meticulous posts and not worry so much about it (or perhaps not continue to engage in the practice).    

BTW, he did explain what the relevance of the article was which is that it shows how different speakers measure in different rooms making adjustability vital to obtain level response in different rooms. Now you may think the proper way to do it is room treatment or that we should all break out soldering guns and redo our crossovers when we change rooms, which is a view you are welcome to have.  Why it is somehow fictional to say that this approach is valid is not a point your arguments been enough to support. If you want him to go into a long theoretical discussion about why one form of adjustaiblity is better than another, well, his argument seems to be that it has been the best he can find after a long time playing with options regardless of what theory says should be right. As John B says, the validity of his argument ultimately is in the listening. You don't agree. Fair enough. We get that. No objections. Move on.



Tim

[rosconey]

i think its time for everone to smoke some pot
chill and listen too some tunes

[maxwalrath]

smartest thing I've read all day...

[errivera]

Wow!!! I can't tell you how I busted out laughing when I read your smoking pot comment. That came from left field and smacked me right between the eyes.

Cool!