the truth about vinyl

pickdropper

I am Soldering Iron Man
Vendor
Messages
7,192
It won High End product of the year in 2003 at CES vs more than 15,000 other manufacturers.

Beat 15,000 other High End manufacturers.

It does work, and you ARE WRONG.

Stereo is actually not stereo because of the math flaw, which was never corrected, until this device came along.

Mr Bongiorono.. RIP.... was also chief engineer for Dynaco, Marantz, Harmon Kardon, and several other manufacturers.

James also invented Class A Solid State Power Amps.
Invented Servo Control, and many other electronic innovations.


James Bongiorno’s long and storied career spans two entirely distinct eras, from Hadley, Dynaco, Marantz, and SAE in the 1960s, to Constellation Audio in the second decade of the 21st century. Bongiorno designed amplifiers in six different decades, working alongside other industry legends such as Richard Sequerra, Sidney Smith, David Hafler, Morris Kessler, John Curl, and Bascom King.

But Bongiorno will best be remembered for Great American Sound (GAS), the company he founded in 1974 after leaving SAE. The GAS Ampzilla power amplifier was an instant classic, outperforming many much more expensive amplifiers and sending ripples through the industry. This was the dawn of the high-end renaissance, right about the time of Phase Linear and Audio Research, when the demand for relatively high-powered amplifiers was exploding. The 200Wpc Ampzilla was the first to feature a full dual-differential complementary amplifier circuit, a topology that is the basis for nearly every modern solid-state power amplifier. The Ampzilla not only sounded terrific and sold in huge numbers, but Bongiorno exemplified the maverick entrepreneurial designer who created his company from nothing but talent, a dream, and (literally) a kitchen table.

Here’s an overview of his work:

Hadley Laboratories 622C Power Amplifier, contributing engineer

Marantz Model 15 Power Amplifier, contributing engineer

Dynaco Stereo 400 Power Amplifier, Designer

Dynaco AF-6 AM/FM Tuner, contributing engineer

SAE (Scientific Audio Engineering)

XXXIB Power Amplifier, Designer

IIIC/CM Power Amplifier, Designer

IVD/DM Power Amplfier, Designer

VIB Stereo Tuner, contributing engineer

IC Stereo Preamplifier, contributing engineer

The following products continued to use my circuit topology:

2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, “A” series, “X” series

GAS (The Great American Sound Co.) Chief Designer

Ampzilla Power Amplifier

Ampzilla II (World’s first servo-controlled power amplifier)

Thaedra Preamplifier (World’s first (and only) servo controlled preamp

Thoebe Preamplifier

Son of Ampzilla Power Amplifier

Thalia Preamplifier

Grandson Power Amplfier

Sleeping Beauty Moving Coil Cartrdges

Sumo Electric Co. Ltd. Chief Designer

The Power, World’s first 450 watt/channel fully balanced Bridge Power Amp

The Gold, World’s first patented solid state Class A Power Amplifier

The Nine, World’s first low cost solid state class A power amplifier

The Nine+, Ruggedized version

Electra Preamplifier

“Charlie” the Tuner, world’s first premium low cost stereo tuner

The Half-power, stereo power amplifier

Andromeda, world’s first low cost solid state class AB Balanced Power Amp

The Sumo I, Magnetic Phono Cartridge

The Sumo II, Moving coil Phono Cartridge

Harmon-Kardon, Consultant, Completely redesigned the Citation 23 Tuner

Crown Radio, Japan, 4 luxurious Power amps, 2 Luxuious Preamps, a fully

Equalized (phase & amplitude) 3-way electronic crossover.

Spread Spectrum Technologies Inc.. Chief Designer

Ampzilla 2000, fully balanced monobloc power amplifier

Trinaural Processor

Consulting Analog Engineer - Constellation Audio
That’s quite a resume. That, in and of itself, does not make this new product viable. There have been many weird hifi accessories over the years released by folks with prior success as engineers.

But I’m an open minded guy. Is there a white paper on this device that I could read? I may be a touch skeptical, but I’ve been wrong enough in my lifetime that I could accept it again.
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
Wrong. A good properly calibrated/isolated table won't experience this. At all.


Correct.


All vinyl is colored. Yes, even black.

Nautilus and Columbia was crap. MFSL did some great things in the late 70s and 80s but by the time the 90s rolled out, they would goose the highs and lows and have a hollowed midrange. That period for MFSL isn't looked at very fondly.


On cheap crap vinyl gear with LPs in terrible condition which haven't been cleaned, sure. CDs are technically superior but the mastering is oftentimes what ultimately makes the end result sound utterly terrible.


MiniDisc is a terrible format which uses compression. IIRC, it was MPEG-2, MP3's predecessor.


Wrong. There is way more to the RIAA equalization than cutting highs and rolled off highs aren't part of the sound of vinyl on a good system. Only cheap stuff. Then, there's that whole source and mastering bit which changes how things sound dramatically from pressing to pressing...


Incorrect. Some are, some aren't.

As for what is inferior, that's another blanket statement in a thread full of them.

The source and mastering is what will ultimately make or break how the end result sounds. One technique is to digitize the source and provide the mastering engineer with those files. In some cases, it's the master tape but in others, it's a safety copy or a 4th-generation copy, for instance. The source is crucial. If that process is followed, the mastering engineer now has to master what he was sent. If the source is terrific, the potential for amazing sound is there. In the hands of capable pros like Bernie Grundman, Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray and the like, the results can be spectacular. In the hands of idiots like Joe Reagoso, it's bound to suck!

And then, there are plenty of times when the actual master tape is directly used to master a new release in which case, that will almost always sound better pre-master. Again, if the mastering engineer is great, usually the end result is terrific. Master tapes in the hands of a dolt won't turn out sounding great either.

Vinyl records of old, as you call them, had tons of issues as well. All the pressing plants needed access to plates so the albums could be manufactured. The label would often provide some based on safety copies or Xth-generation copies so everyone could be ready for the release date, leading to quality dips all over the place. Who had access to plates created from the master tapes? Were there ANY? In a lot of cases, no. That, along with the far superior mastering gear, allows releases of today to easily eclipse ones of yesteryear.

I could name dozens of examples, easily.


All true.


It is but that is due to mastering trends. How albums were mastered 30 years ago is quite different than how the same task is tackled now. The volume wars opened the door to music fans who told themselves "Wait a minute. How come the digital version sounds so aggressive and horrible but the vinyl version sounds natural?"

There are a lot of associations done by some in this thread without much (if any) experience. There are a lot of factors contributing to the confusion and needless debating which is why a lot of disclaimers have to be used when making a correct statement of fact.
[/QUOTE]
Vinyl is prone to static, and how you set a turntable up has nothing to do with the fact that static attracts dust, and no matter how meticulous you are at setting up a turntable, dust noise is always a risk and happens. Tracking noise is just part of the sound of vinyl, again no matter how your turntable is adjusted. I know, I am a lifelong audiophile and had wonderful gear for playing albums before CDs came along and blew vinyl out of the water.
The myth that vinyl is "warmer" is absurd. It is only "warmer" because vinyl is not capable of containing and conveying the frequencies that digital is capable of.

Everything I ever got from Nautilus and Columbia was fantastic, and sounded far better than stock vinyl releases did. Either you have a huge imagination or you are reciting some rhetoric you read on the internet.
Minidisc is a wonderful format. It does indeed color the sound some, being a digital compression format, but it works well and the way it colors the sound is quite pleasant. Most specifically it warms up the lows some. Aside from it is very editable, compact , and convenient.

The whole fairy tale about vinyl being better is absurd. I was a vinyl collector and supplied dealers with vinyl for a long time, I was fanatical about it.
But CDs sound far better, just like Half Speed Masters did, except they are far more capable of accomplishing what original master recordings did.
CDs are far superior at reproducing the clarity, silence, and wide frequency range that running the cutting disc and the master , and using the original master instead of a copy, are.

It amazes me the nonsense that those who enjoy pissing their money away on vinyl will buy into and recite.
If you enjoy the rituals involved in the work it takes to maintain a vinyl collection, fine. I get that.
But it doesn't sound better, or nearly as good as CDs. Vinyl is barely better than MP3s.
Unless you have Nautilus or MFSL half speed masters. Which still aren't up to what CDs can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJH

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
Uh, no. Completely wrong in every way.

Driver size doesn't have a direct correlation with how capable a loudspeaker is. Subwoofers came into play because of home-theater but quality musical ones are now integrated in some stereos to more faithfully reproduce lows and fill out the bottom-end. Plenty of loudspeakers made today are full-range but won't reproduce the entire frequency range. Speakers of yesterday were far FAR more limited in every way.

This is yet another one of those nostalgic ignorant comments boiling down to "Things were better before" when they factually weren't.

What did you use back in the day?


Where are you getting this? Speakers such as the famed LS3/5A model were available in the 70s and are praised for their accuracy. Why is it that every thread you post in, you do so with a sense of authority and knowledge on the topic when you're always wrong on every level? Doesn't that ever get old?


That was due to yesteryear's designs being incapable of having a linear response from low to high volume and is just an arbitrarily set EQ boost which obviously wouldn't take into consideration in any way how the music was mastered.


Wow. So many crazy things written here.

Realistic? Seriously? Any $200 speaker at Best Buy wipes the floor with that junk. Volume doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you're concerned about volume exclusively, there are plenty of brands like Cerwin Vega that'd appeal to you.

Efficiency also doesn't have anything to do with sound quality. If you had the choice, would you rather have an efficient speaker that sounds like crap or an inefficient one that sounds great? Thankfully, there are efficient speakers which sound good.


Based on what? What system did you use to make that determination? Do you have an acoustically treated room?

SOME speakers are made to be accurate whereas others aren't. In fact, accurate flat-response speakers are actually a niche market so again, no idea why you keep posting made-up crap like this.


That's not a proper dampening scheme. You'd also need suspension for the slab, such as using isolation pucks, otherwise what you describe will continue to happen.


Where are you getting this? Designs of audiophile-caliber speakers are and away entirely unique from the ones from decades ago and have next to nothing in common from an engineering POV.


Bose? They sound like crap and are rightly regarded by every audiophile as being horrendous. Using them as some sort of example of great sound is laughable! Their designs are for lifestyle types whom need their wife's approval to buy gear and those tiny cute things are so much nicer looking than those big awful boxes (i.e. regular loudspeakers).


Wrong again.

Bose sold a system together that way which was popular but it was a 2.1 solution released in 1987. Surround as a 5.1 system wasn't released by them until 1996.

There were solutions on the market by other brands before each of those years.

An experience rooted in nostalgia as a direct comparison would present you with an easily dethroned set of Bose speakers. It's not even close.

Just like when I thought some shows I liked as a kid were amazing then, if I watch them now, I'm wondering "how did I ever think that was any good?" Same thing. Nostalgia is fine. Reality can be brutally honest.


That's a healthy model for any business. Audiophile-caliber speakers is a niche market. And I'm talking about high-end stuff. Not the 70s Radio Shack stuff, here.


I have no idea what is meant by this. Makes no sense whatsoever in every way imaginable.


There are many more components to take into consideration when using a vinyl setup. For the stylus, it's about its profile. If you have a conical-shaped one, you won't have much detail in the music and it will be much more forgiving of scratches and any other problem with the LP. If you have a Shibata-shaped one, it'll run into the groove a lot deeper and provide much more musical information but will also reveal every imperfection along the way.



You can either get cheap $1 records which aren't in great condition or you can buy near-mint ones which will be more expensive but it's much more worth it, IMHO. And there are so many pressings of all those albums we love that if you dive into this, finding the right pressing to get the very best sound quality possible is fun.
The only ignorance is in those who believe all the read and no nothing of the history of audio gear other than that.

Speakers of the past were not only not limited, they had much more realistic and smoother bass than the crap being made now.
Subwoofers came into existence well before home theaters did. They were a limited market originally, most found them unnecessary because speakers were already highly efficient and could do the same thing.

Realistic was not junk, at one time Radio Shack sold some of the best gear on the market before they became a toy store for those addicted to cell phones. Their speaker systems were some of the best on the market, and they acted as a test market for other brands, for example many of their recievers were actually rebranded Pioneer.

Bose was the trailblazer whose designs and ideas were rapidly gobbled up by other makers who tried to make similar things as they could without infringement.
Bose did not invent surround, nor did they invent 5.1, and I didn't say they did.
What the did invent was the satellite system of speakers rather than full sized speakers that were previously used. Prior to Bose design the typical home theater had two full range speakers in the front and larger speakers in the back with a subwoofer. Bose changed all that with smaller speakers that could handle midrange better in the front and back and a very superior subwoofer.
Again, a design that is now the standard.

You just don't know what you are talking about, and I suspect you aren't old enough to have experienced gear the way it was during rock and during the time when audiophiles were numerous enough to keep a huge market for expensive gear going.
Again, you post is nothing but a bunch of tired old ill informed rhetoric. Obviously containing information you are reciting and didn't actually experience yourself.
 

Beano Addict

Member
Messages
860
Vinyl is prone to static, and how you set a turntable up has nothing to do with the fact that static attracts dust, and no matter how meticulous you are at setting up a turntable, dust noise is always a risk and happens.
This is the first word on static you've written here. Again, instead of addressing the counterpoints with valid facts, you'd rather try to divert the conversation elsewhere to distract. Might work on others but not on me.

FYI, only some formulations of vinyl can attract static. A good cork mat will address that which costs next to nothing. There are also anti-static guns which work but this isn't the way to address the problem permanently.

Tracking noise is just part of the sound of vinyl, again no matter how your turntable is adjusted. I know, I am a lifelong audiophile and had wonderful gear for playing albums before CDs came along and blew vinyl out of the water.
Yeah, right. BS. Everything you say is false and absurd. Talking about Realistic speakers as if they were high-end and declaring they were great because they could rattle the windows is most definitely not what an audiophile would write. Those are laughable statements which contradict (yet again) your statements. No, you're not an audiophile, sorry. lol!

As for tracking noise, a great cart will reduce it to such a degree that it cannot be heard by human ears when music is playing. Sorry you never experienced that.

Everything I ever got from Nautilus and Columbia was fantastic, and sounded far better than stock vinyl releases did. Either you have a huge imagination or you are reciting some rhetoric you read on the internet.
Nope. I have a much more extensive background in audio and far more knowledge about the matter than you'll ever have. I know in your world, that is impossible but almost everything you write on this board is laughably wrong and can be verified as being factually so.

Nautilus rarely (if ever) got the real master tapes. They got dupes, safety copies, or Xnth-generation tapes. You can deny this however you want but that is what happened. They were pimped at audio shows and people drank the Kool-Aid just on their say so. Sorry you were duped.

Minidisc is a wonderful format. It does indeed color the sound some, being a digital compression format, but it works well and the way it colors the sound is quite pleasant. Most specifically it warms up the lows some. Aside from it is very editable, compact , and convenient.
No audiophile would want compression in their chain. It's also a terribly limiting format which has been easily surpassed a quarter of a century ago in every way imaginable.

The whole fairy tale about vinyl being better is absurd. I was a vinyl collector and supplied dealers with vinyl for a long time, I was fanatical about it.
But CDs sound far better, just like Half Speed Masters did, except they are far more capable of accomplishing what original master recordings did.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever. There are dozens of pressings of some albums. Supplying dealers doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about the mastering process than you've demonstrated here. Mastering at half-speed has nothing to do with better sound quality. Theoretically, it would allow for some additional musical information to be imprinted onto the LP. In reality, that's all BS and counts for nothing. Bottom line is the source and mastering engineer are what matter. I highly doubt you know your way around any of that stuff which renders your thoughts on the matter completely moot and invalid. Apparently, you weren't fanatical enough to know any of this crucial info which explains your pattern of unfounded blanket statements.

CDs are far superior at reproducing the clarity, silence, and wide frequency range that running the cutting disc and the master , and using the original master instead of a copy, are.
Again, this makes no sense. It certainly sounds like you have no idea how records are made.

It amazes me the nonsense that those who enjoy pissing their money away on vinyl will buy into and recite.
If you enjoy the rituals involved in the work it takes to maintain a vinyl collection, fine. I get that.
But it doesn't sound better, or nearly as good as CDs. Vinyl is barely better than MP3s.
Unless you have Nautilus or MFSL half speed masters. Which still aren't up to what CDs can do.
Again, you know nothing of what you write here.

So let's recap. You say you're an audiophile but used crap equipment and praise a format (MiniDisc) that uses compression then dismiss MP3s. You state being fanatical about vinyl in years passed, yet are unfamiliar with how a record is actually cut, how half-speed mastering is pure marketing BS, are entirely ignorant of which mastering engineers are great and who isn't, which source was used, and mention vinyl barely sounds better than MP3s.

There's so much ignorance in your posts that it's hard to know where to start educating you. I suggest you gain real-world experience with REAL high-end gear before writing complete nonsense as if you have any idea about what you're writing.
 

Beano Addict

Member
Messages
860
Speakers of the past were not only not limited, they had much more realistic and smoother bass than the crap being made now.
Subwoofers came into existence well before home theaters did. They were a limited market originally, most found them unnecessary because speakers were already highly efficient and could do the same thing.

Realistic was not junk, at one time Radio Shack sold some of the best gear on the market before they became a toy store for those addicted to cell phones. Their speaker systems were some of the best on the market, and they acted as a test market for other brands, for example many of their recievers were actually rebranded Pioneer.

Bose was the trailblazer whose designs and ideas were rapidly gobbled up by other makers who tried to make similar things as they could without infringement.
Bose did not invent surround, nor did they invent 5.1, and I didn't say they did.
What the did invent was the satellite system of speakers rather than full sized speakers that were previously used. Prior to Bose design the typical home theater had two full range speakers in the front and larger speakers in the back with a subwoofer. Bose changed all that with smaller speakers that could handle midrange better in the front and back and a very superior subwoofer.
Again, a design that is now the standard.
Repeating what you wrote doesn't make it any less laughably wrong.

You just don't know what you are talking about, and I suspect you aren't old enough to have experienced gear the way it was during rock and during the time when audiophiles were numerous enough to keep a huge market for expensive gear going.
Again, you post is nothing but a bunch of tired old ill informed rhetoric. Obviously containing information you are reciting and didn't actually experience yourself.
Sure. Believe that if you will. My cart costs more than your whole system. There's a reason for that.

You surely don't know the difference between a push-pull and SET amp, probably never owned a dedicated phono preamp, have never looked at matrix info of an LP, and I could go on. It's just pathetic how over your head you are and yet can never admit you don't know what you're talking about.
 

pickdropper

I am Soldering Iron Man
Vendor
Messages
7,192
Repeating what you wrote doesn't make it any less laughably wrong.


Sure. Believe that if you will. My cart costs more than your whole system. There's a reason for that.

You surely don't know the difference between a push-pull and SET amp, probably never owned a dedicated phono preamp, have never looked at matrix info of an LP, and I could go on. It's just pathetic how over your head you are and yet can never admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Just curious, what cart do you use?
 

S. F. Sorrow

Member
Messages
8,002
What the heck is all this nonsense about records skipping? What are you guys doing to destoy them? They don't come from the factory with noise and pops either (though by the 80s pressings were sh*t if that's how you are judging them).
I have over a thousand LPs and the only ones that skip are albums from when I was a wee kid of seven years old like the Partridge Family.
I started taking care of LPs around the time I was 10 and those records still sound great.
 
Messages
2,542
Whatever the sonic differences are, vinyl LPs were big enough to make the cover art interesting and a rewarding part of the whole experience.
 

pickdropper

I am Soldering Iron Man
Vendor
Messages
7,192
What the heck is all this nonsense about records skipping? What are you guys doing to destoy them? They don't come from the factory with noise and pops either (though by the 80s pressings were sh*t if that's how you are judging them).
I have over a thousand LPs and the only ones that skip are albums from when I was a wee kid of seven years old like the Partridge Family.
I started taking care of LPs around the time I was 10 and those records still sound great.
I’ve had a couple of brand new records that were quite noisy. One in particular had tracking problems. Somewhat surprisingly, many of them cleaned up perfectly after a proper cleaning.
 

71strat

Member
Messages
8,984
That’s quite a resume. That, in and of itself, does not make this new product viable. There have been many weird hifi accessories over the years released by folks with prior success as engineers.

But I’m an open minded guy. Is there a white paper on this device that I could read? I may be a touch skeptical, but I’ve been wrong enough in my lifetime that I could accept it again.

Its NOW NEW. Its been out 16 years.

James has been DEAD, 6 years.

He WON CES AWARD in 2003. vs 15,000 other Innovations.


The CES Innovation Awards is an annual competition honoring outstanding design and engineering in consumer technology products.
 

Badtone

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,057
I’ve had a couple of brand new records that were quite noisy. One in particular had tracking problems. Somewhat surprisingly, many of them cleaned up perfectly after a proper cleaning.
This! Cleaning and care of vinyl is way more critical than many think. It's all part of the ritual for me, giving the disc a scrub before each play. With the occasional deep clean when needed I have well played vinyl that is remarkably noise free. I also have to add that when I upgraded my TT and cart a couple of years back it made a huge difference. And getting the alignment and VTA set right makes a big difference. I do A B tests with the same recordings, CD and vinyl, and my friends like the sound of vinyl. Is it better? Not necessarily. Do I like it better? Yes. YMMV
 

CharAznable

Member
Messages
16,763
You cant have True Stereo in Digital.

Also in Analog, you must use the Trinaural Processor to correct the Mathematical Flaw in Stereo production, that was never corrected in the 50s, until the early 2000s.

The device won Best Highend End Stereo Component at CES






Trinaural Processor
3,000.00
Closer to the Live Event
TRI-CHANNEL PROCESSOR
The Trinaural Processor is a totally unique device that addresses what Jim Bongiorno considered an inherent flaw in the traditional music playback system—specifically, that it only produces sound in two channels. According to Jim, there is very little absolute left or right information. The sonic panorama is shaped more like a large arc across the sound stage, wherein the most important information comes from the center. Thus, for tangible, truly live-sound emulation, it’s necessary to add a center channel to the setup.

The initial hurdle is how to properly integrate a center speaker. It won’t work to simply add a summed center channel, because normal power levels are not created to accommodate three channels and moreover, things would sound odd. Proper implementation requires re-vectorization of the composite stereo information for three channels. Enter the Trinaural Processor. Using the Trinaural Processor, typical two-dimensional stereo sound is transformed into immersive, life-like acoustic reproduction like you've never heard before.

An important technical note is that the Trinaural Processor is a linear, completely analog device with no digital processing. The Trinaural also has a bypass switch which allows you to connect your home theater pre/pro/receiver as a pass-through, enabling you to use your two-channel preamplifier for music reproduction without having to go through the Trinaural. So get ready—listening to music will never be the same again!

Quantity:
Add To Cart
Share

FEATURES CES “Best of the High-End” Award and Stereophile Magazine “Class A” Recommended Component

Creates a more real, live sounding experience than any traditional two-channel system can.

Completely analog processor; no digital processing

Home theater bypass

Subwoofer-out with built-in crossover and level control

Balanced design

XLR and RCA inputs and outputs

Compact design

SPECIFICATIONS Input Impedance 50kΩ Maximum Output Voltage 11V RMS unbalanced; 22V RMS balanced Output Impedance 47Ω THD (Awt) .001% max 20Hz-20kHz, 4V out Weight 6 lbs. Dimensions 6 ½" L x 17 ⅜" W x 2 ¾" H
For that price, I think I'll live with the Mathematical Flaw.
 

Beano Addict

Member
Messages
860
Nice!

It’s a lot better than my 17D2. I’d love to have an XX2.
Depends on what you're looking for. The 17D2 is more neutral-sounding but I wanted something with a luscious presentation. Definitely no ear fatigue with this bad boy! Before that, I had a 20X2L. Amazing cart for the money.

This! Cleaning and care of vinyl is way more critical than many think.
Yep. I've had a bunch of friends and family members with preconceived notions about vinyl sit down. Once I dropped the needle, they were expecting the sound of a bowl of Rice Krispies, a nasal tinny sound, and the tonearm to bounce around. When they got hit with an engaging ear fatigue-free fun listening experience, they were convinced.

Unfortunately, none of them are audiophiles and therefore won't ever spend the money to get that sort of sound but it was nevertheless interesting to see their reactions once they experienced the difference.
 

71strat

Member
Messages
8,984
Heres the speakers they used in 2003 with Trinaural Processor.

They won best speakers CES Award in 2002.


The VMPS RM 40, under review here, won the BEST OF CES - 2002 award in the High End Audio category from Tech TV, a media arm of the Electronics Industry Association.


The following year, the Ampzilla RM/X-Trinaural processor was exhibited driving three RM 40s, won Best of CES - 2003. Such awards, combined with an unbelievably low MSRP (for what you get), have made the VMPS RM 40 a long-standing favorite among audiophiles.


Specifications

  • Two 1" Tweeters, Four 8" Neodymium Midrange Panels, Two 10" Woven Carbon Fiber Woofers

  • Nominal Impedance: 4 Ohms

  • - 3 dB at 24 Hz

  • Power Handling 500W

  • Bi-Wireable

  • Dimensions: 66" H x 12.5" W x 17" D

  • Weight: 240 lbs each

  • MSRP: $5,000/Pair USA Depending on Finish; $6,200/Pair for Review Units
VMPS Audio
 

Rockledge

Member
Messages
5,557
Repeating what you wrote doesn't make it any less laughably wrong.


Sure. Believe that if you will. My cart costs more than your whole system. There's a reason for that.

You surely don't know the difference between a push-pull and SET amp, probably never owned a dedicated phono preamp, have never looked at matrix info of an LP, and I could go on. It's just pathetic how over your head you are and yet can never admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Over my head, sheeeesh...... you are a hoot Gomer.
You consistently reciting the same rhetoric trying to justify to yourself that you piss money away because you fell for the sales pitch is the only thing laughable.
And you haven't a clue what my vintage systems, of which I have five set up right now in various places on my property. are worth. You are just another cork sniffer trying to justify the basement full of wine bottles that have turned to vinegar.
Chances are I was reading specs and knew about scratchings on the blank space on vinyl before you quit sh!tting the bed.
Your very rude ill informed arrogance and bizarre sense of self importance doesn't make anything you have said true.
Meanwhile the rest of the world accepts reality and moves on to better more convenient technology.

As I say, I am a vinyl guy from WAY back, from when most albums were in mono. And an audiophile. And have been such all along. I learned decades ago how to separate the roses from the B.S. , and you are doing the same old thing, the rhetoric of trying to recite specs and analysis that is well beyond your comprehension. And as a result, obviously have fallen prey to it.

I know, I once was there. I was the guy that was so wrapped up in the specs and the gear that enjoying the music came secondary to being a cork sniffer. And it is a dead end street with no rewards.
Being so distracted by some ill conceived notion of "perfect sound" to the point where you can't enjoy the music without what you have been conned into perceiving as flaws completely bypasses the true purpose, and is the act of a fool trying to find the end of the rainbow.

Keep hooking your oscilloscope up to your gear and watching the music disappoint your illusions while the rest of the world listens to music with great pleasure.
 

Beano Addict

Member
Messages
860
Over my head, sheeeesh...... you are a hoot Gomer.
You consistently reciting the same rhetoric trying to justify to yourself that you piss money away because you fell for the sales pitch is the only thing laughable.
And you haven't a clue what my vintage systems, of which I have five set up right now in various places on my property. are worth. You are just another cork sniffer trying to justify the basement full of wine bottles that have turned to vinegar.
You're delusional, blowhard.

Your very rude ill informed arrogance and bizarre sense of self importance
Good thing I wasn't drinking anything as I would've done a spit take. Of all the people, that's quite rich! :spit

Every time you paint yourself as a know-it-all about a topic I'm obviously far more knowledgeable about, I interject because I don't want anyone to actually believe your BS. The fact you have never addressed any counterpoint easily destroying your blanket statements speaks volume.

You drive a Pinto and argue you know cars and a Porsche is a waste of money. Keep listening to your high-end Radio Shack gear, Mr Audiophile. LOL!
 
Last edited:




Trending Topics

Top