JWC,
Higher damping and higher power are two different beasts, though the two might go hand in hand practically in many cases.
My experience with the larger OHM 5s is that they benefit from both high damping and high power and high current as well. All may often go hand in hand practically with most amps.
Damping is needed to keep dynamic drivers under control to various extents. Some drivers are more highly damped already. Walsh drivers in particular seem to loosen up over time more so than most and benefit highly from higher amplifier damping factors. The vertical mount of a Walsh driver and the increased effects of gravity accordingly might have something to do with this.
In practice, effectiveness of amp damping factors >50 or so is questionable. However, I have found with teh larger OHMs, where low end bass levels are seldom an issue, that more damping is always a good thing in terms of lower distortion and better dynamics and speed in general, ie a lean and mean bass as opposed to a fatter less refined delivery. The amps I prefer with my larger OHM 5s have 1000 damping factor. I have used other amps with 50 or less damping factor (also less power) and can hear the difference even at modest volumes.
Smaller OHM drivers benefit somewhat less from massive power and damping than larger models, but these things are still of benefit I would say, at least up to the point where a combo of high damping and smaller driver negatively affects bass levels, though I am not sure I have experienced that myself practically, even with my smaller OHM 100 driver based speakers. I would say that with the smaller drivers, cases where users prefer less damping in the amp might become more common, depending on preference, room acoustics, and other factors. |
ALso I should note that the benefits of higher damping with the OHMs may be most apparent with the bass, but higher frquencies including all frequencies up to 7Khz or so handled by the vertically mounted Walsh driver part of the OHM CLS benefit with lower distortion and greater articulation and rendering of detail as well I would say. |
Drake.
THere ya' go!
Enjoy!!! |
BlueR,
Theoretically, there is probably little if any practical sonic difference attributable between damping of 300 versus 1000. The consensus seems to be that most speaker wire electrical properties alone negate any differences once damping passes 50 or so. I moved from Carver amp <50 damping to Musical Fidelity at around 50 to current Bel Canto with damping 1000. The Bel Cantos seem to have the most controlled, dimensional and articulate sound top to bottom of any of these with the OHMs by a wide margin. There are many factors that might account for how a Class D switching amp performs versus conventional Class A or A/B. In a nutshell, the 500 w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m amps drive my large Walsh 5 effortlessly and without breaking a sweat at any volume I have attempted. They retain mostly the same sound quality at any volume, however as the volume goes up teh music becomes more full bodied, dynamic and lifelike, like blowing up a balloon. Never any sign of strain, clipping or noticeable distortion at any volume. Things just keep expanding and becoming more full bodied and lifelike as the volume goes up. Midrange is very clean and articulate. Vocals are lifelike and lyrics clearly understandable with most any decent or better quality recording. |
Jwc,
the late john Potis, who ironically I found out lived right down the street from me, was a long time OHM fan. I asked him about amps for my newer OHMs a few years back via email and he responded at the time encouraging me to throw the kitchen sink at them amp-wise, including damping. He was one reviewer whose opinions and insights I learned to always take to heart! |
IF a newer amp has lots of bells and whistles and sells for a price comparable to comparable powered gear with less b+ws sold 20 years ago, I'd say there is a fairly good chance the older unit can outperform the newer since the newer unit does more things and cost does not reflect the impact of inflation on a design from 20 years ago. |
I noticed during spinning class at a brand new gym yesterday that the newer Crown Class D amps were being used with Peavey (horn) speakers there. Sound was very good, much clearer and dynamic than older non Class D Crown amps in similar setup at my older gym. Amps are more commercial looking in design being for professional use mainly but I think they could do quite well in a home application for very reasonable cost. |
Disclaimer: OHMs and Peavey commercial horns are opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of design, but I still would be interested to hear how the Crowns might do with OHMs. From what I read they use some Harmon International proprietary Class D chip circuitry that may or may not be up to the task of driving a less efficient and more difficult load than most pro speakers present. |
TObe,
I am interested in any review or comparisons you can offer on teh new D-Sonic amps as well. They use newer Class D amp technology and reviews and user feedback on them is in early stages. Thanks. |
Dsremer,
Other than cost, what are the biggest differences between m-sonic/Pascal Class D and AVM/Hypex Class D amps?
THanks. |
D-Sonics are worth a try IMHO.
More recent models are better suited for use with a tube pre-amp I recall.
Current delivery/robust power supply is more important than just power/watts.
Using subs should offload low bass from mains and reduce demand on the main amp so lesser amplification might be used if a good sub or two is in the equation.
IMHO, OHMs right sized t o the room with optimal power amplification do not need subs, but using subs is certainly an option if desired. |
Fore Coot, with classical/organ music, and OHM 5000s, 250-500 juicy watts from a good Class D amp or appropriately beefy Class A/B may well add value.
My Bel Cantos I use on OHM 5s are 500w/ch of good Class D. That should do it I would think, but extra power in reserve if needed can probably not hurt, though some caution to avoid overdriving might be in order in that my 500w/ch amps seem to never break a sweat and I have never tried anything even more powerful.
I'd do the amp right first and then determine if any need for subs. With organ music, they may or may not still add something of value if set up right, depending. |
I'd check the input impedance spec of the newer D-Sonic amps.
The older ones were stock Icepower, 10K ohm input impedance, not a great match for most higher output impedance pre-amps, like most tube pre-amps. DOn't know about Placette specifically.
Newer D-Sonics use Pascal Class D modules I believe and I recall reading these have 40K or so input impedance, which is much better for use with high output impedance pre-amps.
I would confirm the D-Sonic output impedance specs though in that I am not 100% certain about specs of the newer D-Sonics. |
Coot,
I might consider a tube amp if not for the cost and maintenance issues. Teh tube amp would haveto have way more tubes than I would care to tend to to have a chance of maxing out the OHMS at higher volumes. Using a sub and offloading much of the low end to that opens up more possibilities in regards to using a tube amp to maximum effect. |
ALso if anyone is interacting with D-Sonic to buy, if you can ask them to confirm what Class D modules their newer amps use, I would really like to know for sure. Pascal Class D modules have been inferred elsewhere where I have read but not confirmed. I'm not sure the specs I see published on D-sonic site match Pascal or not. THat does not mean that those modules are not used and tweaked in some ways by D-Sonic, though I recall in the past D-Sonic seemed to merely put stock Icepower modules in a box with no apparent electronic mods. Not sure what D-Sonics expertise is to be able to do electronic tweaks as opposed to merely packaging amp modules from other sources. |
TObe,
10K ohm input impedance may be fine for many tube pre-amps, but I would just note that there are some Class D amps designed to work well with any pre-amp, inlcuding tube, like Wyred4Sound and Bel Canto, that introduce 60Kohm or higher input impedance for that purpose for best results in all cases. 10K may sound fine but could be more hit or miss for best results in terms of dynamics and low distortion IMHO. The reason is that most impedance ratings including those for pre-amp outputs are nominal for all frequencies but actual impedance varies significantly by frequency, so my opinion is that a high amp input impedance is a good insurance policy in order to be safe. |
BTW, I considered the older D-Sonic Icepower based amps at the time but ended up going with Bel Canto for significantly more cost. THe 10K input impedance rating of those older D-Sonics plus no special robust design for the Power supply to the IcePower module used were the main reasons. I use an ARC sp16 tube pre-amp. Who knows, maybe it would have worked out fine, butI have not regretted going the way I did. THe newer D-Sonics have more appeal for me, especially assuming the higher powered ones have 40K input impedance or higher. That is what I recall reading for Pascal Class D amp modules on the Pascal site, but not certain. Pascal amps also appeared to be stronger out of the box in terms of power supply, current delivery capabilities, and overall switching amp specs compared to older Icepower. Assuming those are what is used, I would expect the product to sound VERY good, at least if they live up to the specs on paper. Were I in the market for another amp today, the D-Sonics would be a much stronger contender than 2-3 years a go or so. |
First question for me is what Class D amp modules D-Sonic uses now. Most of what I have read has been speculation
Reading info on Pascal site again, Pascal may not be the most impressive Class D amp out there on paper compared to other newcomers I have seen mentioned as possibilities for D-Sonics, especially for some tube or other higher output impedance pre-amps, but for the price are still certainly worth consideration in any case. |
Tobe,
My approach in landing on the Bel Cantos was No Holds Barred, to try and land the best amps I could afford that looked best on paper. It worked out well, but you could be right, and I might have been able to save some dough accordingly.
I would like to compare the D-Sonic sometime. One may well be on my list again next time I am looking for an amp.
At least when the time comes, I feel I have a very excellent reference in place currently to compare others to. |
YEs, those pics have come up on another thread about M-Sonic.
ITs still not clear if that is what is being used by M-Sonic currently or not though.
Only the vendor or a customer who has purchased recently would be able to say for sure.
It really would be nice if the vendor would disclose what is used. Without that, they could change at any time for any reason and nobody would know in advance if they will not even answer the question when asked. |
Sorry, meant D-Sonic, not M. |
The difference, at least historically, between D-Sonic and Wyred is D-Sonic merely puts existing third party amp modules in boxes with connectors to make a finished product. No special circuitry. Wyred and some others like Bel Canto add circuitry to stock power amp modules to tweak/improve performance as needed. That's a big difference! |
Tobe,
I suppose Dennis has his reasons and motivations for doing things the way he does.
I'm not judging it, just pointing out some differences between vendor's approaches and value propositions. M-Sonic is certainly one of the vendors that sets the bar in regards to low cost.
Take a look at Audio Research's Class D amps over the years. There is a company known for tube technology that has adapted Class D as well. I tend to trust what they do when designing CLass D amps to run best with tube gear. Whatever the real end benefits when listening are, I think they tend to do things pretty right, but they will never be the lowest cost option. |
I've heard Goldenear speakers recently which is a Definitive spinoff line. Loved the AON monitors, larger Tritons, which resemble Definitive more, left more flat our cold than most anything I have heard in recent years. The setup may have had issues, not sure. |
"I thought that I had read somewhere that the driver materials or something was different between the 1000/2000 series and the 3000/4000 series. "
That's possible but do not know. John Strohbeen would.
I do recall reading Walsh drivers in latest X000 series are of different materials than in past, I think. |
I suspect most of D-Sonic customers are not running tube pre-amps. They are looking for best value in an amp mostly I suspect, and are probably not too concerned about technical details relating uniquely to tube gear. D-Sonic will certainly work with tube gear, though a more detailed investigation by tube gear owner would likely identify other options with something to offer, but probably for a premium. Most folks into tubes probably are less cost conscience than the masses I would guess. |
A solid foundation is key to getting best performance out of the Walshes for sure!
My 5's are in the basement on thin carpet over concrete foundation! Rock solid and perfect! No problems.
My smaller 100S3s are on main level, with typical plywood floor structure used in most modern homes. That is always more problematic, especially since a lot of bass energy emerges via bottom port on the Walshes. Extent and details varies room to room, but I set the 100s on ceramic tiles at a minimum to help tame the bass in this case. I am interested in something more massive for these to sit on as well, especially in my wife's very lively and acoustically challenged sunroom, but extent of problem has not forced me to do anything more there yet. |
YEs, I thought the same thing regarding D-Sonic and JS/OHM.
One downside with OHM that results is that many CLS drivers look the same on the outside but are different by design internally. That makes it very hard to know exactly what you are getting second hand. Even direct from OHM, you do not know anything for sure really about whats inside, only how it sounds.
One difference is that what makes the OHM sound is JS/OHMs design, whereas in the case of D-Sonic, what makes it is determined by what amp module is used, and D-Sonic does not design or make that hence they have limited control of that over the long term. AMp A today, amp B tomorrow? How are they different? How is the sound affected, etc? Very hard to say, whereas with OHM I think JS designs his products to have a particular sound and he has a lot of control over how to do that, especially given the nature of Walsh drivers and how those are quite tunable to produce a certain result. |
Coot,
I would qualify that somewhat further and say in a smaller room, with smaller OHMs perhaps, and for certain musical and listening tastes/preferences, OHMs alone + a modest power tube amp alone might fit the bill. The bigger the room, and the more demand for good extended bass, the less chance of a smaller, lower maintenance tube amp cutting it alone I think.
OHM + modest tube amp will certainly work, especially at lower to moderate volume. A lot has to do with personal preferences and situation. |
" I could be way off on this, but even the D-Sonic amps include a circuit board and other parts of the signal/power chain that are of Dennis' own selection (if not design)."
Maybe, but I am under the impression that this is not the case from what I have read and seen to date. I do not know Dennis's background, but I get the impression from what I have read that this is not his area of expertise.
But you are right that many or perhaps most even (not sure) Class D amp vendors in recent years add circuitry to improve or tweak performance.
It's quite possible from what I read that with teh newer Class D amp module technologies available currently, there is little need to do much more. That may well be the case with D-Sonic now, though it was not the case when they were using Icepower as their main engine. |
Hallelujah!!!!
It's about time that 1990's style website got a makeover! :^)
THanks John S! |
I don't hear much about OHM subs and have never heard any.
I'll be interested to hear about it as things unfold.
Prices look competitive and John S. consulting can only be a bonus. |
I was re-reading a detailed technical review with detailed bench measurements of the older Walsh 200 mkII Here. The impedance measured mostly between 8 and 25 ohms for most of the frequency range, down to 40 hz or so where the port kicks in, at which point it dropped to below 4 OHMs. That with all the rest there seems to indicate the OHMs are not as tube amp unfriendly as many conventional designs, except in the very low end bass, where tube amp unfriendly low impedences are often common as designs attempt to become more full range without achieving mammoth sized proportions. This is consistent with those here who have observed that tube amp + OHMs + subwoofer is a very good combo. If you can take the port out of play, then the OHMs become quite tube amp friendly it would seem. At least in the case of 200 MkIIs. I have not seen similar charts for newer models, but I would be very surprised if much changed for the worse in this particular department over time. |
"What do these OHM Walsh speakers look like with the black mesh can removed? Does anyone have a link?"
"OHM Walsh" related Google searches usually turns up some, mostly of older 1st gen models that people dissect either to try to fix or just to see what's in there. Haven't seen pics inside newer models. Can't imagine it is too different or much prettier. Plus, JS is known to customize to tailor to customers needs, so I'm sure there can be many variations.
Having the driver hidden inside the can for protection and aesthetics certainly has a lot of benefits in terms of what can be done to improve the sound cost effectively without having to worry about how it looks.
My understanding is a different tweeter was used in series 3 versus series 2. Latest X000 series uses a different Walsh driver made of different materials as well I have read, but do not recall details. SOund of newer models is advertised as "evolutionary, not revolutionary". |
"What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging. "
I had Walsh 2s before current series 3 models.
detail, resolution, and stability and precision of imaging are exactly the things that changed the most for the better.
The newer models are competitive with other modern quality speakers in these regards. The original 2s were clearly not. |
3200 cu ft is just past the high end on the OHM site chart for 2000's, but that does not mean they might not fit the bill. Probably best to talk to John Strohbeen. |
BTW, the new OHM website is back up and looking good. Lots of interesting new info there to soak in. Pics of some current products mentioned still missing though. |
"Besides size how do the Ohm Walsh 2000 and 3000 series differ?"
Size of the speaker/enclosure, size of the Walsh driver, and size of the room that the speaker is capable of producing full range sound in accordingly.
Larger rooms generally require larger speakers to achieve similar good results, especially in the lowest frequency range. All Walsh models in the line are designed to sound equally good in rooms of various sizes. No need to buy larger more expensive models if a smaller one fits the bill. That's a fairly unique aspect of the OHM Walsh line. |
OHM Walshes by default are NOT fully omnidirectional There is a separate tweeter that is directional above 7khz or so angled inwards normally. That works to produce widest soundstage by default. I have dabbled with angling out for more direct exposure as well. Nothing wrong with that. I find when I do, soundstage narrows but tonal brightness increases in "sweet spot" due to direct tweeter exposure.
JS changes this configuration to make it more omnidirectional in some special cases, including special requests. |
YEah, not much to go on, but price is right and there is a return policy of some sort if not satisfied.
In the case of D Sonic, where they are dependent on other amp module manufacturers for the main engine, I personally wish they would be a little more transparent about whats inside the box. Sound could change drastically from model to model if a different Class D amp engine is used. Different may or may not be better. Plus there is no "house sound". It could vary largely over time, for better or for worse. But again, the price will always probably be right, and that does matter. |
Jwc,
I also have a pair of small Triangle Titus XS monitors. These have been acknowledged by many over the years as champions at low volume and I would agree. They convinced me that dynamic speakers could be as fast and detailed at low volumes as planars like the Maggies I had had for years, which were also low volume champs. I had the original Walsh 2s also still at the same time, and in comparisons of the Walsh 2s against the Maggies and Triangles at low to moderate volumes, the Walsh 2s left something to be desired.
The newer OHM Walshes at lower volume are pretty much the darn equal of the Triangles at lower volumes I would say, although of course the overall way the music is presented is night and day, the usual OHM/omni versus more directional design thing. |
I have NEVER heard ANY OHM Walsh speaker flinch at any volume level. THat's a unique aspect of them all since day 1. I once set up my original Walsh 2s outside on a farmhouse porch for a party going on in a field extending 50 yards or more in front. That was the BEST I ever heard the Walsh 2s sound, literally like Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac, UB40 etc. were performing live on the porch. That off my old gorgeus and classic 80 watt/ch Tandberg TR2080 receiver. |
The reason the walsh's do so well at high volume are:
1) simple crossover design at relatively high frequency limits what the tweeter is asked to do
2) The Walsh drivers used tend to be larger than most drivers used in most speakers for comparable price. The driver in my current F5 series3 OHMs are the largest I believe and look to be about 10 inches in diameter. Back in the 70's selling stereos at Tech Hifi, 10" seemed to be the right size for most speakers capable of going loud and clear in larger rooms. 8" was good for smaller rooms. Drivers nowadays are improved and smaller to achieve similar performance to most back then I think.
3) The OHM CLS Walsh driver operation seems to lend itself very well to achieving high output levels with minimal stress or breakup compared to typical pistonic dynamic speaker operation, though why this is the case is not totally clear to me. |
JWC,
I was not referring to clipping, though that is certainly always something to be concerned about. I was referring more to dynamic headroom, the drivers ability to pressurize the air in the room highly at higher volumes, especially at lower frequencies. The assumption is the amp is NOT clipping and not the bottleneck. Bottom line is I have never found the OHMs to be the bottleneck in achieving this, even with my current 500 w/ch Class D amps, which throw the most power and current the OHMs way of any amp I have ever used with them.
You hig the nail on the head I think regarding the way the driver operating in Walsh transmission line mode rather than pistonic helps utilize surface area better and reduce excursion magnitude. That is exactly how I think it works. Just not sure I could point to anything concrete or documented to support that theory.
2's and 2XOs are gen 1 Walshes. More recent revisions are much more refined, including at low volumes. I can vouch for that in that I actually compared my original Wash 2s to my newer 100S3 based Walsh 2 models in side by side a/b comparisons when I still had both. Night and day!!! Soon after I traded in my old Walsh 2s towards my current F5s. |
Dancability factor is a very useful speaker metric that is often overlooked.....:^) |
"It's ironic that Map's wish for more transparency appears on the endless Ohm Walsh thread, since Ohm has never been known for being open about what's in their cans. "
Yes, it is and has been noted, but the OHM and D Sonic cases are not comparable otherwise IMHO. OHM has a long history, a dedicated customer base to go with it, and control over what goes into the can to make it "sound like an OHM".
Not the case at this point yet anyhow with D-Sonic.
Like Billy Joel sang, "It's a mater of trust...." |
"This is where Ohm is distinctive and special. I've heard that the components used vary even within the same model and vintage. BUT, Ohm has a decades-long track record of almost obsessive, monomaniacal preservation and refinement of the house sound. Wanna know what's in the can? Tough. But you know in advance the character of the sound will come out of it, regardless of model.
Is there any other audio manufacturer that is comparable in this respect?"
The one that comes to mind is Audio Research. In the speaker world, maybe Klipsch or Magnepan are in the same category historically, though perhaps not quite to the same extent in regards to reliance mainly on a particular house sound in that their designs have tended to vary more over time and the drivers that make it happen are generally in plain view.. |
|
Good point by Tobe. Not usually a good idea to plug high power amplifiers into anything other than the wall outlet. External power conditioners usually become a bottleneck for optimal amp performance in that they cannot deliver the power and current needed. Those that can will be quite large and heavy and expensive to boot and better results may or may not result still. |
Adding watage alone with any speakers only means they should play somewhat louder with lower distortion. That is usually a good thing in regards to bass, especially at higher volume, but does not mean anything necessarily in terms of better frequency response at lower frequencies. Two similar wattage amps will likely perform differently at the lowest frequencies. A lot has to do with the impedance load of the speakers and the amps ability to perform accordingly, especially at lower frequencies. In general, smaller speakers that can extend lower will require a more robust power amp to deliver the current needed into lower impedance loads that typically occur at lower frequencies in order to have good low end frequency response. Of course this is just a general pattern, YMMV depending on amp, speakers, room acoustics, etc. |
