Ohm Walsh 3/3000 upgrade comments.......


Just to provide a little background information, some of which has already been stated in a couple other threads previously, on my quest to find a pair of Ohms. I remember listening to a pair of Ohm Walsh 2’s and 4’s some 25 years ago at a dealer near my home. They were one of the most unusual looking speakers at the time, with the cool looking pyramid-style cabinets and funky metal canister drivers on the top. But what made the deal for me was the music coming from them. Very unique and awesome soundstaging and I didn’t have to be in the sweet-spot!

At the time I had a pair of Magnepan MG-1’s, and while I loved everything about the music they made, I had a difficult time living with the head-in-vise seating in order to totally enjoy them. So, I bought a pair of Ohm Walsh 2’s on the spot and lived with them for about 5 or 6 years. I think I thought about them from the day I sold them and regretted ever getting rid of them. A couple of my friends had Ohm’s, one had a pair of 2’s and the other a pair of 4’s. I always wanted 4’s, but at the time, a little out of reach. Of course we all lusted after F’s even though I had never heard them.

So, moving on to a little over a year and a half ago, I began searching for a pair of Ohm’s. I was looking for a pair that had good condition cabinets. The drivers to me weren’t all that important as my research and a call to John at Ohm confirmed that he could get me set up with a number of driver solutions. I was happy to even find that Ohm was still doing business, as once they went away from dealer reps, I wasn’t sure if they were still around.

After a little searching, I came up with a pair of Walsh 2’s and eagerly awaited for them to arrive. In the meantime, I had already ordered from John a pair of the new Walsh 2000 series drivers and was playing around with them on a friend’s pair of 2’s. This gave me some time to do some small comparisons with the older drivers, and also get some break-in time on the new 2000’s.

Disaster then struck on the delivery of my Walsh 2’s. When I received them from Oops(UPS), one of the cabinets and driver had been crushed. It looked like the speaker had fallen off the back of the truck directly on the driver can. Not a pretty sight at all. I was sick, as was my friend that had sent them to me. So, back to the drawing board. I was quickly able to locate a pair of Walsh 3XO cabinets in near mint shape, and bought them on the spot. In talking with John at Ohm, he told me the 2000 series drivers would indeed work on the 3 cabinet as well, with a little modification to the driver board. As I thought about this, another idea came to mind. Why not just spring for the larger 3000 series driver for the 3XO cabinets and be done with it?

Another call to John and a set of 3000 drivers were sent to me. This was the first set of 3000 drivers that John had sold, and with this brought a couple of complications on the driver mounting. John and I worked through the couple of small problems that I had, and finally, I had a set of Walsh 3/3000’s! I might also add that I was able to get a pretty good impression of the Walsh 2/2000 or Super Walsh 2 as they are called, during the time I spent waiting and playing around with cabinets etc. Briefly, I can say that they are all cut from the same cloth, same great soundstaging, voicing etc. only that the 3000 and the larger 3XO cabinet would allow them to dig deeper. In the end, I think my decision to go with the 3000 in my room was a better choice.

Those of you with older cabinets looking to upgrade, installation of the new cans is very straight forward. The 2/2000 a bit more complicated, but nothing that a person who is handy with a screwdriver and a bit of patience can’t handle. The 2000 can is larger than the original 2 cans, so you get a driver board on which the new driver is mounted, and with 4 screws this is mounted on top of the baffle/driver board. You also receive taller outer grilles because of the additional height of the driver board/can, and also a new terminal cup and mounting board. The hardest part is knocking out the old terminal board and mounting the new one.

The 3000 series driver can is a direct replacement for the 3/3XO driver cans. It drops right into the existing mounting hole, four screws secure the driver to the baffle/driver board, and you also receive a new terminal board as well. The 3000 driver can may be slightly taller, and I believe the driver is a bit bigger inside as well, but the original grilles will work just fine. I might add too that the new drivers have a Molex plug, and just plug into the wiring going from the driver to the terminal board. Nice and easy.

I am also sure that the whole process could have been made easier-and I am sure that John would agree as well-that instead of me looking for cabinets myself, I could have just contacted John at Ohm and had him make me up a new set. But, I am pretty picky, and I wanted an extremely good condition pair of older pyramid-style cabinets. John can supply those as well depending on his stock of older cabinets. So, keep that in mind. All in all, even with a couple small difficulties on the driver mounting, I found that John was extremely great to work with, and the whole process went well. John is a wealth of information on all of Ohm’s products, setup, and history.

Okay, while this might not be considered a review, as I am not worthy of being a true “reviewer”, I will try to give some perspective of the Ohm’s along with a brief comparison of the original drivers as well. I might add that while my 3/3000 project was underway, I was able to find a pair of great condition original 3XO drivers. One of the cans metal grill was loose, but the foam surrounds and tweeters were in fabulous condition. I bought them up thinking about a small shoot-out against the new drivers. I am glad I had them on hand.

After spending a great deal of time with Ohm’s again, I realized what I truly love about these speakers, even after all these years. I find myself totally immersed in the music they make, and instead of music being thrown at me like so many dynamic forward-firing speakers do, the Ohm’s present music in a fashion that I find more realistic, more like true live performances. While I have heard the Ohm’s called too diffuse, and ill-defined, I don’t feel that to be the case at all. Instead, I much prefer the large soundstage and lifelike images that are produced by them. I use live music/concerts as a reference, and while I know this can be a crap-shoot of sorts, I find the Ohm to be more true to live music as many forward-firing speakers that I have listened to.

Speaking of the soundstage that is reproduced by the Ohm, another aspect I find so very realistic is the image height. The Ohm’s present the performers as a real live person in height, not some miniaturization of who is on stage. To me, this is another positive aspect that makes listening to them more fun, more involving and pleasurable. In reference, I have been used to Magnepans for quite some time and thought they would never be replaced in my main system. Image height was always one of the Maggies trademarks as well, and one I find to be important. The Ohm’s do this as good if not better in my listening room.

Of course the soundstaging that stretches out across the room, and image height that is so realistic wouldn’t be much good if the sonic characteristics of the speaker wasn’t good to begin with would it? Well, I can say that the treble is smooth and precise, has all the air you could want, and it doesn’t ever get spitty or sibilant. I would suppose that if you had some really terrible recording, it will only pass that along, but on well recorded music, the treble and midrange just shine. Voices, both male and female are reproduced with a clarity and accuracy that makes me want to hear more. I like to use K.D. Lang as one of my test vocals, and spin her CD “Ingenue” quite often. I also like Norah Jones, and have heard her live as well, the Ohm’s manage both of these vocalists with ease and clarity. I keep coming back for more.

Not to be outdone is the bass. It is solid as they come and not one-note or some blob of booming noise that so often robs music of it’s timing and structure. In living with my Magnepan MG-1’s and MMG’s, there is little bass to speak of, so the Ohm’s bass is a welcome addition to my music room. I find the Ohm’s much easier to place and integrate into the system than trying to get subs to work with the Maggies. I would say the 3000’s dig down into the mid 30 Hz range in my room, and that it is always tuneful and never out of control-unless the music of choice is to begin with. One thing of note too, I mentioned that originally I was going to fix up a pair of Walsh 2’s. I ended up with 3’s instead. If you are going to purchase a pair of Ohm’s, be certain to calculate your room size correctly and consult with John. The Walsh 2’s were just at the minimum requirement for getting the bass out of them that I needed. The 2’s struggled a bit in my room, the 3’s were far better. As with all of the Ohm’s, you get the same basic “family” of sound, same treble, midrange, but the larger cabinets obviously bring about better and deeper bass.

My music choices typically range from pop recordings to jazz, a little gospel and R&B thrown in. I can say that the Ohm’s shine on it all, and while they don’t bring attention to themselves, they just make great music, and that is what I am after. Are the Ohm’s after all these years outdated? No, even as I listened to the older drivers in the 2’s and the 3’s, the music was all still there. Maybe some rougher edges and not quite as detailed, but still wonderful transducers. Briefly, what I found with the new versus older drivers was a level of detail that the older drivers just didn’t have. The midrange and treble of the 1000 series of drivers is just better all around, greater detail, ability to play louder without becoming strident and shrill, and overall just smoother and more listenable. The bass on the newer drivers dig a bit deeper and is not wooly sounding. I thought the original driver bass could lack a bit of definition at times and just not sound as clear. Maybe even tubby at times. The new driver cures this in the 2000 and the 3000. Also I feel as if the speaker as a whole is more open, the soundstaging even more improved and open, and the older speakers were no slouches in that department to begin with.

The newer drivers are supposed to be a bit more efficient as well, I can’t really tell though. I drove them mainly with my Anthem MCA-20 rated at 200 WPC, and also my Audio Research D130 at 130 WPC. Both amplifiers drove them to levels that could be unbearable without any break-up from amp or speaker. I do feel that the Ohm’s do require some power/current behind them, and anyone considering them should watch what amplifier they have to power them. I didn’t find the Ohm to be fussy, they just loved the power. One other thing that goes along with this, I find they like to be played loud(er). While they didn’t lose focus or detail at lower volumes, they were just more fun and enjoyable at a higher volumes(not excessive).

To sum the Ohm’s up, when I think about what they do, is pretty simple. They just make great music, they pass along what is given them in the chain, no more, no less. And for me, they are one of the most realistic sounding speakers I have heard and had the pleasure to own. For me, that is the greatest compliment I can give to a speaker. I think that John Strohbeen has done a fantastic job in voicing these speakers! I come away from a listening session with a great admiration for what he has accomplished with these. I hope Ohm and John is around for a long time to come, I look forward to what he may come up with next. Now if I could just find a way to purchase the 5000’s!

If you are in the market for a pair of speakers, I would certainly urge you to give them a try. Too many people pass them by for whatever reason, not audiophile approved or whatever, but that is a shame. These are great speakers worthy of an audition, and with John’s extremely generous in-home trial period, it is hard to go wrong! If you are just in the market for upgrading your older Ohm’s, again, give John a call, there are many options and he will be happy to go through them with you.I believe the driver upgrade to be worth the money, and to be able to bring new life to an older pair of speakers is an even better deal. Sorry if this sounds like a full-on Ohm plug, it is of sorts, but also I am just a very happy customer! Enjoy the music, that is what we are hopefully after to begin with!

Tim
frazeur1

Showing 13 responses by mapman

Tim,

I agree with everything you said and what you said is quite thorough and accurate, I would say. Nice job!

In that they have traditionally been fairly affordable to the masses, there are a lot of OHMs out there that have never been set up to reach their full potential I suspect.

As a result, many have never heard them reach their full potential, which I think helps explain the mixed reactions many audiophiles have that may have heard them somewhere, sometime.

Also, no doubt that the newer drivers provide a more refined sound overall that helps the OHMs better compete with other quality modern designs

The typical OHM customer is a music lover, not an audiophile. Same true of John Strohbeen, I suspect (though he is a music lover with some solid engineering credentials to go along). There is a big difference there!
Regarding the power requirements and tubes, there is no doubt they can get by for many in many cases with less power (I've used a 20 w/ch NAD 7020 in a crunch on occasion) and perhaps even tube power (haven't tried that but have heard of good results from others). It's all relative. The thing is, I hear differences with pretty much everything I use them with. Some differences matter to some and some do not. In the end, they are quite versatile with tremendous upside. Under the best circumstances, I feel they can compete favorably with the best reference systems I have heard.
Also keep in mind that the CLS driver components have changed over the years. The 1000 series uses a significantly different Walsh driver as I understand it. So exact matching to amps might vary also. Hard to say for sure. My gut feel is that amps that work well with one will likely also work well with the others.
I do not see any unique issues in general using signal processing technologies like those from Audessey with OHMs or omnis specifically compared to other designs.

I see some of their technologies are commonly embedded in other commercially available third party products, so it might be possible to try if you own one of those products and OHMs.

Of course, the devil is always in the details and user expectations regarding whether any particular audio solution adds value or not.
IF any of you guys running the latest 1000 series speakers can offer up any comparisons with the prior series 3 versions, I would like to hear. I have heard from Mamboni who indicates a clear difference and would like to hear from others.
Bondman,

Thanks for that.

Those are areas where it seems possible to me that some noticeable improvement over what I hear currently is still possible

Its often hard to know what isn't there when things are sounding really good until you actually hear it, that's for sure.

It's like how much of an upgrade is trading Tom Brady for Peyton Manning? They are both really good!
Frazeur,

I'm very interested in your observations regarding omni configured OHM CLS drivers compared to standard configuration and will stay tuned.

Are your MWTs configured completely omni, ie upward facing tweeter and no wall facing damping inside the can?

Also I am interested in soundstage depth comparisons and comparisons regarding how much distance from the walls is needed for best results.

Thanks.
I will say that I never found Carver sonic holography specifically to work effectively with the OHMs compared to others.

Sonic holography was more of a spatial processing function, so in that case perhaps omnis might react differently than others. Not so much with other types that deal with frequency balance, loudness, etc, I would think.

The thing is the OHMs are so easy and natural sounding, I would not want to muck with the sound unless absolutely as a last resort perhaps to address room acoustics if nothing else could work.
YEs.

John closes shop for JUly usually and seems to run this sale prior most of the time.

I picked up my 5s during this sale a few years back. Deep discount on new + max trade-in value equaled an especially good deal.

Plus I am partial to the older pyramid shaped cabinets anyhoo.
My understanding is the main parameter regarding the cabinets that affects the sound (degree of bass extension possible) is the size/volume.

Along this line, I believe the newer cabinets tend to be taller to achieve a particular volume/level of extension, which can sometimes result in the "cans" being located above ear level more frequently, which affects the sound negatively at the listening location. You generally want to listen from a location at can level or above.

Aesthetically, I like the older pyramid shaped cabinets and refurbished these tend to cost less as well.

I also like hiving the castors on the cabinets, especially the larger models, in that this makes it easy to tweak placement.
DEfinitely do whatever works to provide a solid foundation and avoid rocking or movement in order to enable best coupling of speaker to room, be the speaker OHM or otherwise.

SOlutions need not be fancy or expensive. Its not rocket science. A trip to Home depot and a little creativity is generally all that is needed.
"I find that the soundstage depth doesn't change much with regard to wall placement, just the bass for the most part."

I'm wondering specifically if the omni versions have a deeper soundstage when placed significantly further out from the rear wall than the standard versions, more like other true omnis I have heard set up this way, like mbl.

With omnis placed further out from rear wall, I would expect driver size would need to be larger in order to maintain bass levels to go along with a deeper soundstage perhaps.

I suspect John leans towards his standard approach in general so that his product fits into most rooms easier and ability to go closer to walls means a smaller driver can be used to achieve bass levels, which keeps costs down for most.
"Map, when I have pulled the MWT omni's out further into the room, the stage does seem to go a bit deeper however, the loss of some impact in the mid/bass tends to thin things out too much. There is a happy medium with it depending on what you want to give up."

Yep, I find the same to be true with my 5's.

I can adjust the mid bass upward using the controls on the 5s to address the bass level issue, and the soundstage is deeper, but not as deep as with the best set up true omnis I have heard (mbl 111s with about 12-15 feet of open space behind them).

I just wonder if the OHMs could match the mbls running full omni and in the right room.

It's something of a moot point for me because I do not have such a room that facilitates that kind of placement, but if so then that would really help make the argument that the OHMs might be able to match the size and depth of mbl soundstage for a lot less (along with all of the other unique attributes of the wide range Walsh driver) if so.

omni OHM Fs would be another interesting test case, but I suspect those are too fragile to match the magnitude of teh mbl sound as a whole.

Maybe Dale Harder's newer designs might better?