Nothing says more about a product usually than an avid following over the long term!
Hopefully I get to hear a pair of Merlins someday. |
Some have indicated using a sub with the OHMs off of tube amps with excellent results.
Maybe Bobby's RC network could work on other speakers like the OHMs to make them more tube friendly? It would be an interesting experiment to try if someone has both. |
Hard to define thin objectively really.
The opposite to a thin sound is one with weight, authority and power behind it, like a big band or symphony orchestra playing full throttle, or even feeling the weight of the synthesized bass in a BEP tunes in your gut beyond just hearing it. For me, much of the weight comes from the low end where a lot of the power in music occurs. |
Hi Rebbi.
You gotta tell us what aspect of the sound you think you are missing still or can do better with that attracts you towards the Merlins?
I am off the opinion still that no mini monitor can do it all at a realistic scale. Add a good sub, then perhaps, and the choice of viable monitors goes way up depending on preference. |
Rebbi, if it's any consolation, Vegas was only giving you small odds of sticking with the long shot LSAs.
Vegas odds on you are running significantly higher regarding the Merlins! These seem to be a big hit with many! |
I have Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkiis.
I'd be curious if anybody has compared these Merlin monitors to those?
Also I see these have used Morel drivers. I have a pair of OHM L bookshelf speakers that I have custom modded myself using some high quality 8" Morel woofers. That has worked out extremely well!
All the newer OHMs (inclusing my custom Ls) also use an internal bass equalization circuit called the "sub bass activator" which as I recall is somewhat similar in concept to Merlin's BAM. |
What is the price range for the latest and greatest small Merlins?
Also I'm wondering if experienced MErlin users have opinions regarding which configuration in this range offers the greatest value?
I'm assuming the top of the price range offers the best and most refined sound in all cases. Is that an accurate assumption? |
Tvad,
I might be willing to wager Rebbi finds his true loves in less than 7 years, though I don't think that timeframe is uncommon!
For me my path was essentially OHM, Magnepan, B&W, Triangle, Dynaudio and back to OHM 30 years later.
My original OHM Ls and Walsh 2s stuck around for comparison the whole time while the others came and went. Well, the Dyns and Triangles have stayed as well mainly because I have room and use for them and each is quite nice.
When I upgraded my OHM Ls myself, I almost decided to punt on updated Walshes, but I decided to go for broke.
I've never missed the B&Ws. I would consider giving the Maggies another run with newer models if I needed new speakers again and I were able to set them up correctly just to hear what the rest of my upgrades since could do. But practically, the Maggies just are not a good fit in any of my listening rooms in my current home.
I would have liked to have heard your impressions of your OHMs when you had them if they would have worked out somehow. |
"I could never get the Dyn to totally disappear and go invisible, the Merlin's do a great job in that regard."
I've accomplished that with the Dyn Contour 1.3mkii when able to optimize placement away from walls. They are rear ported. Not as much where currently located only a foot or so out in my wife's sunroom. The sealed enclosure should work well closer to walls I would expect.
I'm guessing the sealed enclosure is a big part of the Merlin's magic in some setups in comparison to other monitor designs that are ported in order to extend range.
I think I read some Merlins actually use Dynaudio drivers. |
OK, but not meeting listener expectations does not mean the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed, only that the buyer chose the wrong speaker.
I've heard magico mini but never Merlin.
Even the mini's sounded "thin" to me on an absolute scale, despite being one of the best speakers I have heard in most every other regard.
I've heard higher end Totem monitors in the past as well and they were also quite good as has been similar Dynaudio (not thin).
I have some pretty good Triangle monitors ($500 new) also. These are thinner than 5X as expensive Dynaudio at higher volumes, but competitive with most anything at low volumes. |
"what good is super transparency if the speakers are thin sounding"
If that is a problem, then adding a sub is a very practical and effective solution. |
"but if the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed there is only so much a sub can do'
It depends on what is meant by "thinness", but thinness can result with a very good monitor that does what it does very well but does not attempt to plumb the depths for low end by design because that is not generally what monitors are designed to do, although there are always ways to stretch performance if desired.
Merlin uses an equalization circuit called the "BAM" I believe to good effect to wean more low end than most small monitors I believe much like the OHM speakers in my system use a similar circuit called a "sub bass activator".
I like that Bobby provides expertise and solutions for his customers like the BAM and the RC network (to help adapt the speakers better to more amps apparently) that allow users to get more out of his speakers in more common listener scenarios as needed. That is a value added service that might not be had from many vendors. |
I don't view a sub as a band aid. That infers it fixes something that is damaged or defective otherwise. If integrated well with good small monitors in particular, it is there optionally to add something that was not there to start with, and only as wanted or needed.
There are many threads around arguing the pro/cons of subs so no sense re-hashing all that. |
"a subwoofer, while it might help, is a difficult thing to pull-off well, when it is not part of the overall design of the speaker"
True, its up to you and not the speaker designer to pull it off, which is a BIG difference. You just have to trust your ears. |
I am a fan of monitors in smaller rooms.
I have heard some like Dynaudio and Totem that can also sound very convincing in a larger room, but in general I would go with a larger speaker, monitor or otherwise, in a larger room or else add a sub.
Also I should note that I find thinness with good moniters relative to larger designs generally only becomes an issue for me when volume goes up. At low to moderate volumes, in adequately sized rooms, most any monitor I would call good does fine. |
"it is an hf filter at 1.6 mghz for filtering rfi and emi. imo a must in a city environment"
Bobby, I have heard differences in sound resulting from shielding low level signals like that in an MC phono stage from EMI produced by nearby amps, transformers, etc.
Can you explain why this is a relevant feature for a speaker? How intense must these fields be to have an audible effect on teh speaker circuitry?
Also, why is this filtering bundled into the same add on circuitry as the circuitry in the option for better performance with some amps? These would seem to be two different problems that might not always occur together. |
Also I am interested specifically in opinions regarding which TSM configurations might offer improvement over the monitors in my system in that the cost of TSMs appear to fall nicely between the cost of what I own and the cost of one of there reference monitors I have heard, the Magico Mini.
The monitors in my system currently are Triangle Titus XS that retailed for $500 new when I bought them in the mid 90's and the Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkii's that retailed for about $2500 I believe about ten years ago. |
Robbob,
I find the Triangle Titus to achieve a "boxless quality" more readily than the Dyn Contour 1.3mkiis, however I have found that both can achieve similar levels in this regard with proper setup and suitable amplification. The Triangles exceeded my prior Maggies in this regard off of decent but less than high end perhaps Carver gear. The Dynaudios required different and more costly amplification to achieve similar results.
The Triangles are perhaps one of the most clear and resolving speakers I have heard at low to moderate volume, competitive even with Magico in this regard.
At higher volumes, the Dyns tend to clearly outperform them in terms of top to bottom tonal balance.
I'd love to do some a/b comparing between what I have and good small Merlins. The nice thing about small monitors is that they are easy to ttransport to facilitate this kind of thing.
Any Merlin dealers in Baltimore/DC metro area? |
"Most speakers have some level of beaming, however subtle, that shatters the illusion."
No doubt, which makes some like my Dyns harder to setup.
The Triangles are top notch in this regard.
Bobby, can you be more specific? Not sure what you are asking. |
Bobby,
My gear is all listed in my system.
Current amp is Bel Canto ref1000m mono blocks.
Rooms where I commonly use monitors to best effect are 12X12. One has typical 7-8 foot high drywall ceiling and the other (sun room) where I use monitors most often has Cathedral ceiling, windows on three sides and tile floors with large heavy oriental rug. The Dynaudio monitors are pictures there currently in my system though I have used both Triangle and Dynaudio in there to good effect. |
Guppy, can you elaborate on how the Merlins bested the Cometes?
Thanks! |
Robbob,
Yes, I would like to put several much less expensive monitors including MErlins up against those.
Have you heard Magico minis? |
Rebbi,
Should you hit that lottery, remember your friends.
I could use an upgrade to newest Walsh 1000 series drivers myself!
Or you can donate the funds to a good charity and I will understand. |
The Magico's I heard sounded very good but then again I would expect most any good speaker matched to the system I heard them on to sound very good also. The electronics and wires alone probably pushed or broker 6 figures. At those prices, there is room for preferences but not for poor performance the way I look at things.
I would not trade my OHMs for Magicos. I'd have to a/b compare on my system to know how my monitors compare. They both might at low volumes and the Dyns maybe at higher volumes. No way to know for sure without comparing on your own system.
Its also typcila that different speaker designs shine best with different electronics feeding them, so comparisons on a single system do not tell the whole story, no matter how good the system is. |
OHm and Merlin have a lot in common as companies I think, mainly a very dedicated and long standing customer base.
Customer service seems to be paramount to both which is a key ingredient.
The biggest difference I think is that Merlin has more appeal to teh audio high end community in general due to its focus on absolute quality and associated costs that go with that in some cases, yet still ranks pretty well in the high end big picture, when you consider companies like Magico, etc.
John Strohbeen, the guru behind OHM, is a unique breed, an MIT trained engineer with a seemingly more blue collar pedigree. Take a look at the OHM shop sometime. There are photos in one of the Six Moons reviews, I believe. VEry low overhead apparently otehr than residing in Brooklyn, NY. The OHm line has always focused on highest quality sound for the lowest prices for maximum appeal. That's the case with their older conventional bookshelve and floorstander designs as well as their more recent bread and butter Walsh designs. |
Guppy,
The OHM 2000 ($2800) or OHM 3000 ($4000) is probably a fairer comparison to the entry level Merlins ($3080) based on list price than the entry level Micro Walsh Talls ($1400) as best I can tell. |
One other difference I think I note between Bobby and John is that Bobby has an absolute vision of what it takes to get the best sound that he believes in and shares that openly with his customers.
John Strohbeen will provide guidance when asked but is more about giving the customer what they want rather than what he thinks is best. He will tweak his standard designs as neededif the customer asks, as long as he does not see any inherent problems.
Both approaches have merit depending on what the customer is looking for.
the downside of John's approach is I think sometimes the customer thinks they know what they want and John oblidges, then they may have second thoughts afterwards.
Intetesting too that generally John recommends NAD amps if someone asks which to use with the OHMs. Personally, I think you can do better if your goal is the "absolute sound", but NAD offers good value for most so I understand why he does that. |
I suspect also that Merlins are more amp friendly than OHMs and Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkii also for that matter.
Not that these sound bad with lesser amps, only that they sound increasingly better with more powerful good amps.
Same true regarding Totem also from what I have heard.
Triangle Titus are very amp friendly. I hear fewer differences from amp to amp. |
I also have a pair of OHM L bookshelf speakers that I have owned for over 30 years. I custom upgraded these myself a couple years back with some very good Morel woofers and the OHM sub bass activator circuit (similar in goals to Merlin BAM). These are not teh smoothest of my smaller box speakers, but for pop/rock music, they may just be the most rewarding. Of course, I am not a speaker designer and would not claim my custom enhancements to be teh best. OHM sometimes offers these completely refurbished with new drivers and circuits for $599. They sold for $499 and were my favorite smaller bookshelf speaker back then in 1978, so you can get an idea of teh potential value factoring in inflation, etc. with these nowadays. I'd like to hear a pair of OHMs professionally upgraded Ls. or even larger C2s or Hs. |
Yes,
I worked part time in college at a Tech Hifi in Jersey and sold many speakers. The OHMs were my favorite and I sold many pair, more than any other line. I bought my Ls there back then and have never been able to part with them.
Trivia fact: John Strohbeen, current whizbang for OHM, was an owner of Tech Hifi and Tech Hifi and the OHM line were affiliated.
So technically I worked for John Stohbeen once but I did not know of him at the time and never met him.
John told me this in a phone conversation a couple years back when I was doing some upgrades to my OHM collection. |
Guppy,
Yes, power and also importantly current.
I've found high power, high current separate amps to be best matches to the OHM Walshes rather than integrateds because it is very expensive to build a high power and current power source into an integrated without having negative effects on the overall sound due to proximity of low level circuits in teh pre to EMI fields generated, etc.
IcePower and OHMs are a match made in heaven that several on this site have latched onto, including me.
Prior to Icepower, the amp requriements to max out OHMs may have made them less cost effective in teh end compared to easier to drive designs, as I suspect the MErlins are. Icepower breaks down those barriers though some better Icepower amps, like the BCs in my rig, are still not cheap. WYred 4 Sound is probably the best value in IcePower to drive OHMs, especially if one is using a tube pre-amp. |
There are a lot of snafus one can encounter in trying to piece together a top performing rig alone.
Merlin seems like a practical fast track to high end performance for many. The design seems well thought out to work well for most user with most available equipment and Bobby provides teh guidance and expertise when needed. That is a very effective combo! |
OHMs are not tube friendly, so if a tube amp is a must, you can get by perhaps, but are not likely to max out performance with any OHM Walshes I suspect.
500 w/ch IcePower is the bomb however with both my OHM Walshes, 5S3 and 100S3. The Dyns and Triangle work fine with the IcePower but the differences with those from prior amps (Carver m4.0t and Musical Fidelity A3CR) is not as significant.
I've also owned B&W P6s and Magnepan mg1c's, and original OHM Walsh 2s in recent years prior to my current setup. The B&Ws were nice in larger rooms but never imaged the way I liked. The Maggies were fantastic for years in the large basement room of my old town home but never clicked in my new house. The Triangle Titus' with sub was the best combo I had with these speaks in house at the time. That was a top notch combo running off a Tandberg tr2080 receiver in my second rig. The original OHM Walsh 2s were nice but not nearly as refined top to bottom as the newer designs (they were over 25 years old though). I traded those in towards the OHM F5s. OHm has a very nice trade-in policy where you can receive up to 40% off new speaker cost by trading in up to two pair of older OHMs that I took advantage of to obtain the F5s at a very favorable price compared to new Walsh 5S3s. |
Yes, as Rebbi pointed out, OHM Walsh (and omnis in general) do imaging differently than monitors, planars or any other more directional designs. I will not say necessarily better or worse, just different. Some will take to it and never look back and others will not. To me, it is more like what you hear at a live event and less like a typical stereo presentation. The large sweet spot is a unique feature as well.
I like good monitors for their ability to allow you to focus into recording details, particularly at lower volumes. You can do this with properly set up OHMs as well, but it is different. Also I like to play music at realistic volumes and delivering a live like presentation at live like volumes is a forte of the OHMs. If not for that, I may have been satisfied with my Dynaudio monitors which I acquired prior up trying out the newer OHM Walshes. |
Bobby,
Thanks for the info.
I'll keep an eye out for the opportunity to audition teh MErlins and see if they convince me to jump from what I have. |
Bobby,
Curious about the two versions and use with SS versus tubes.
My understanding is the difference is the finish and perhaps cabinet construction. IS that correct?
Is the extra rigidity or damping ability of the upper model what makes it more tube friendly?
Thanks. |
Also one last comment about OHM Walshes and monitors.
I see OHM Walshes properly matched to room competing more with full range speakers in general, though they are certainly good for near field listening as well, which is a monitors in general. Other than for nearfield listening, I consider the OHMs and monitors to be two totally different solutions intended for two totally different kinds of listeners. |
I suspect the Merlins and tube amps represent a particularly tasty and effective combo.
I've heard Totem Mani IIs for example. Wonderful speakers, but need lots of good SS juice to peak and justify the cost. Dynaudios are similar I believe.
Even the Magico minis when I heard them were running off a top notch VAC tube amp with more tubes in the VTL pre-amp and a $20,000 DCS player (which does some very special things with its DAC technology). How much of the magic was Magico and how much the tube gear? And or the DCS Ring DAC? Hard to say. The combo was very "sweet" though in the best audio sense.
Someday I suspect I will venture into tube amp waters. WHen I do, I think the Merlins will become especially appealing also. |
