COot, we'll be waiting on pins and needles for your report.
I'm predicting good things.....
I'm predicting good things.....
Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?
Hi,
I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
Showing 50 responses by mapman
Audiogoner Mamboni, who is one of the most knowledgeable OHM owners out there, moved to Wyred recently and reported good results. OHm + Wyred Class D is a natural match IMHO. I have not payed much attention to wires used with my OHMs in that I use commercial grade in wall speaker wires mostly in my house with all my speakers. I think most any decent wirew should perform well. I do also use Audioquest Cv6 wires. I could easily recommend those. |
The easy classical pick for me is The Nutcracker on MLP. Its included in teh first MLP box set from a couple years back as well. |
Yes, OHMs and shrillness are not a natural match, but I have heard a big difference top to bottom with different amps so amp is always a big factor. I guess the lesson learned is Class D is not always a slam dunk with OHMs, for whatever reason. I find ICs from source to pre and especially pre to amp can also make a very significant difference. I've switched between DNM Reson and MIT TErminator. DNMs have more etched detail through mids and highs, which I like with the OHMs. MITs are smoother/more rounded there and add more to the low end. Room acoustics and personal preference would probably be the largest factors in choosing. |
I once redid the fabric on the grilles on my original Walsh 2s myself for better WAF years ago. I bought some loose woven (sound transparent)beige colored wool fabric at a local fabric store to better match the room decor at the time. You could also just barely see through the fabric enough in good light to see the outline of the "can" inside, which made for a nice touch! OHMs are a unique breed. Not all will love them. No technology exposed really to look at and marvel over! :-) |
Coot, Keep in mind that the new amp is likely revealing or relating what is fed into it differently than before. If "digital edginess" is heard, I'd say it is quite possible that changes to input might address that. My Class D Bel Cantos are very revealing. I hear major differences in that regard even with changing ICs. Also definitely with DACs. Not so much on digital source, but my digital source is Wifi connected to remote music server with Toslink connection out to DAC. USB connections alone can vary quite a bit case by case as well as I understand it, though I have no experience with those. Personally, I would steer away from USB conenctions myself unless willing to experiment with different implementations. Just some thoughts to point out that any new issues heardwith new amps may or may not be amps fault. A/B comparisons/testing with different gear might be needed to sort through. That is my favorite version of St. Saens ORgan Symphony as well. Not perfect but a very fulfilling analog rendition no doubt. |
Also should point out that break in time may be needed with many Class D amps from what I read, so might be wise to get through that first before changing opr addressing anything else. My Class D amps were acquired used and I did not find they changed much over time by the time I had them. ALso, they sound good immediately from a cold start when I power them up, though I do tend to leave them on most of the time in that they do not draw much power idle. |
Mamboni is a classical musician and OHm Walsh affectionado that at last report was very happy with Wyred4Sound Class D. It was his experience that helped peak my Class D amp/OHM interest. I opted to splurge on the BCs rather than "cur corners" with Wyred. They both use similar Ice Power amp modules and custom input stages with higher input impedance for better match to tube pre-amps. BC adds a custom power supply board. Power supplies are traditionally the weak link in many stock Class D amp modules. Different vendors do their own thing there to achieve performance improvements. Bond, I always found your clipping issue as described somewhat puzzling, but use with power filters as the culprit for clipping for reasons mentioned above does not surprise me. Glad its resolved. |
Probably worth saying that if there is still an "achilles heel" to any extent with Class D amps, the top end is probably where it will be. Similar to what is often discussed with digital versus analog, but not exactly the same in a technical sense. I have been most happy with the top end of my BC amps, but I would speculate that it is the one area that might compare less favorably to other amp types in more cases at present. I think the technology is fairly mature at this point but still has room to improve and will. That drives my interest in newer designs when they come out. My ears were much more sensitive to higher audible frequencies when they were much younger as well. That is also undoubtedly a factor. Not all ears are equally sensitive in the same ways. Yet another reason why individual mileage will always vary. |
Blue, Have you compared with and without PS audio using same power cords to amps? I would expect differences at all volumes. Can't draw any conclusions in lieu of hearing but on paper, p1000 looks like a pretty hefty beast, but only 7 amp current delivery per spec sheet I can see. 600W bryston delivers significantly more current than that I would bet. My guess is results are a mixed bag of +s due to the device noticeable largely in midrange and higher and -s due to more limited current delivery, which I would guess might limit impact or meat on bones of bass perhaps. Either might sound better depending...... |
"If you sit in the sweet spot of a conventional speaker, would the Ohm's differ if you dropped them into the same spot? IOW, is it only when you start moving out of the sweet spot that omni speakers start to shine?" Sweet spot is usually much bigger with OHMs/omnis in general making listening easier. THat's probably the biggest difference. Second unique aspect of OHM sound is coherency top to bottom to go with the big sweet spot. Third is usually a wide wall to wall soundstage. Not unique to OHMs, but perhaps easier to accomplish with those compared to many. Fourth is a lot of dynamic headroom given the size of teh driver and speaker, which seems to be an attribute of the CLS Walsh design specifically. |
Tweaking is key to getting things right with any setup, including with OHMS. In general, less separation between speakers and/or distance from rear wall helps with center imaging. Imaging and soundstage with OHM omnis is significantly different than what most are used to with more conventional directional designs. The soundstage tends to be more detached from actual speaker location and more based on room acoustics and location relative to listening position than more conventional directional design speakers. You have to listen more to the room and not the speakers in order to get a handle on things. SOundstage and imaging is typically totally detached from actual speaker location and more determined by room geometry when things are going well. For example, my OHM 5s are both located right of center along the wider base wall of my L shaped room, but sound from mono recordings tend to come from dead center between the walls, almost to the left of the leftmost speaker. US a good quality mono recording to help get a handle on center focus and imaging. Generally, when a good mono recording sounds well focused and centered, stereo recordings will also naturally come into their own as well. Furniture or other large objects between speakers can definitely have an effect as with most any speaker. |
I have larger OHM 5s fairly close to each other (4 ft) in my larger L shaped room, and smaller OHM 100S3 far apart (10 feet or so, corner in-between) in my smaller 12X12 room. I think a lot regarding placement will depend on room acoustics and preferred listening location, so I am hesitant to make any general statements about best location. It can vary widely case by case I think, but probably no more so than with most conventional speakers for best results. I will say that the best location for a conventional box design will likely not be exactly the same as for OHMs, but in many cases there may not be too much difference. |
Bjen, Check my system listing. I own 3 pair actually, 2 newer and a pair of older OHM Ls that I have held onto for many years and refurbed myself. I also concurrently run Dynaudio and Triangle speakers. Yes, I walk the walk and talk the talk when it comes to OHM. I've wavered over the years, but ended up coming back. Home audio would hold a lot less appeal for me without the OHMs. They are most unique. Not for everyone, but OHM owners tend to be a dedicated bunch. I just happen to be one of the more passionate and vocal ones out there I suppose. |
Just a ping for anyone interested that there is a very nice looking pair of Walsh 5 S3s similar to mine but with newer and very nice special wood/finish cabinets up for auction here currently that might be had for a steal. Disclaimer: do not know the seller or this particular pair so do your usual recommended homework before buying/bidding. CAbinets are big and heavy so make sure shipping can occur without issue if needed. |
No doubt toe in/out will effect air in any speaker, but more so with OHMs in standard setup where tweeter is normally facing/toed-in 45 degrees. Sounds like your buddy has good ears! My Dynaudio monitors also tend to have more "air" than the OHMs in most setups. Yes, I liked the GE Aon folded ribbon during short audition, but not sure if it might be a bit too polite for me over the longer term or not. A mixed bag there but I liked the large Aon very much especially at its price point overall. |
"Seems John and company don't exactly advocate the need for expensive cables .. at least that is how it reads to me. Thoughts?" Yes, and I tend to agree. I've had one pair of OHMs on high quality Audioquest CV6 wires, and my F5s connect in an advacent room using decent quality commercial grade wiring I had put through the walls when the house was built. I would say these do not sound the same but I could not make a judgement that one sounds better than the other necessarily. I have things set up in both rooms for quite excellent results. Different, yes. Better? Debatable. I have experimented more with various analog ICs and hear big differences there, but still hard to say one inherently better than the other. Two different flavors perhaps, with of which might work best in any one's case. |
Marty, I agree that adding a sub and offloading work from main speakers and amps significantly reduces what is demanded from both amp and speakers in most every case, not just OHM, and if done right can only be of benefit, if one chooses to go that way. As I know you know, it's the "done right" part that is the challenge, but you more than most anyone here seem to have done your homework and found a good way to do it right. |
I've recently added $200-$300 Pangea ac14SE power cords to my mhdt DACS in both systems, first one and later the other recently. These are designed for use with line level components to help with noise/distortion. IT's been a nice addition in both cases, and seems to work as designed based on what I hear. These were on sale recently, so I paid <$100 for each. Definitely worth that! Nice product that seems to work as designed and very high quality build to boot. No downside to power tweaks if done right for the right reasons, I think. Its more a matter of how much difference case by case, but I think noise with digital gear in particular is a problem worth tackling. I do not pay much attention to speaker wire. The only sure thing like John says is to not use to high a gauge (thinner wires). The rest is all synergy. Lots of more certain and cost effective ways to accomplish that! I do pay more attention to ICs, but again its mostly about synergy there as well and it does not have to cost much to accomplish. John/OHM is and thinks like an engineer and is all about good sound, value and service only it seems. COuld care less about a lot of the noise one encounters in high end audio. Smart guy! HE makes his products accessible to the masses, rather than try to glorify them and cater to the high end audio market, which may always have a foothold but overall is probably going nowhere long term. John's approach is but one reason I stay loyal to the OHM brand. |
Almost any change or tweak I try can be heard I find. I think John just likes to keep to simple formulas that can work for most, but some are more finicky or have very refined goals. It can work either way, but I think John like any business person in the end says and does what is best for business, which is try to keep things as simple and affordable as ppossible. |
COot, DEscribe your room size and any special considerations acoustically. I have run my 5s off 120, 180 and 350 and 500 w/ch 2 channel amps in my 20X30 L shaped room with standard height drywall ceiling and carpet over concrete floor. ALl these were "suitable" for low to moderate volume no doubt, the more power and current, the merrier, for the "biggest", fullest sound. All amps were limited in terms of biggest sound possible compared to my current 500w/ch BEl CAnto ref1000m Icepower monoblocks. I would recommend 500 w/ch Class D or something similar for best results with the largest OHMs. Current delivery capability is as important to overall tonal balance as # watts is for distortion free higher SPLs often needed to reproduce large scale works at a realistic level in a larger room. My smaller 100s make due nicely with "only" 180 w/ch in most any room in my modest size house I use them in, but current delivery is also critical. Your B&K might be the bottleneck to best large scale "big" performance possible. More watts and perhaps even more current as well to go along with that will surely take things to a higher level, assuming everything is in good working order. |
Adding powered sub that goes down to 20 hz or so no problem and can be integrated cleanly with mains probably has the most up side if done right to throw more at the problem to increase clean output levels possible. More power and current to the amp as I mentioned above is another. That should deliver better macrodynamics and fuller extended bass down into the 20-3ohz range for so with larger OHMs in matched size room (see teh chart on OHM site that matches models to room size), maybe talk to JS. He could probably help confirm if teh speakers are capable of meeting goals alone in target room with the right amp or not, in which case the sub route is needed. OR, he now makes model 5015 for a few grand more with powered sub built into each cabinet along with 5000 drivers. More power and larger drivers is always the key with OHM Walshes. ONly question is how much needed in a particular case and is there a model that scales up enough alone for a particular room to meet goals. |
Coot, my 5s are limited in a manner similar to what you describe if I use my 180w/ch TAD Hibachi monoblocks in place of my Bel CAnto Ref1000ms. The TADs do pretty well with my 100s in our large open family room/kitchen area that opens up to the whole first floor of our 3000+ sq. foot home. At higher volumes though not even close to the 5s off the ref1000m amps downstairs in the 20X30 L shaped room, which does have doors and is more acoustically sealed. Big, natural, clean sound at realistic volumes does not come cheap, unfortunately, especially in a larger volume area/room. Its the one thing that truly justifies a lot of the money spent towards the goal of the "ultimate sound" IMHO. Class D amps will be your friend towards this end with the OHMs when the time comes. Either more power to the 5000s and/or adding powered subs, which by the way mostly all also use Class D amp power these days. Its basic physics. Big sound needs bigger drivers and speakers and more power and all that ups the cost. |
Modern OHM Walsh design speakers are without match I find in terms of their ability to go loud and clear (with the necessary amp behind them) for teh particular size and at the particular price point of each. I think a lot of that has to do with the Walsh driver principle as JS has implemented enabling more output from any particular driver than might be possible using typical pistonic motion only driver design. If one reads up on Walsh driver operation principles, I suspect that is a result of the fact that sound leaves the cone at different frequencies from different locations along the cone. Also because the Walsh driver does not cover the higher frequencies, above 8Khz. Lincoln Walsh's original design attempted to be full range. It succeeded fairly well at that but all implementations at the time were quite delicate and fragile and easily destroyed at high volumes if things went wrong. Modern similar designs, like Dale HArder's, might have solved some of those problems, or I am confident at least are able to address them better to some extent, using modern technology advances at his disposal today that did not exist in LW's day. Remember though that the largest modern OHM Walsh driver, like the ones in my F5s3s, appear to be only about 10" or so. I have not encountered it yet practically in my case, but that will become a limitation at some time, even if the design manages to squeeze the most possible out of a driver that size. 10" and even 12" bass drivers (not even wider range like modern OHM Walsh CLS) used to be common years ago, but few modern speakers use driver's larger than 10". Many modern speakers, including OHM to some degree, tend to use smaller drivers and be less efficient in order to fit better into most people's homes. Smaller lower efficiency speakers put more burden on the amp, especially to deliver high SPL full range sound in larger rooms. Huge, heavy, and expensive monster power amps, available to few, used to be needed. No longer the case however with modern Class D amp technology, which I consider to be one the greatest recent innovations in home audio technology. A perfect match made in heaven for JSs modern innovations with the Walsh driver principle. The sky is the limit now for home audio enthusiasts with Class D amps. Especially when you toss a few into a sub cabinet along with a good quality 12" or 15" bass driver. |
Coot, If it is the lowest notes of organ music that you are looking for, make sure your electronics, particularly pre-amp, is up to the task. I have found that to make the biggest difference with my OHMs over times. My current ARC sp16 tube pre-amp is a wonderful sounding pre-amp, but not the most extended for low pipe organ notes. My old "mid-fi" Carver pre-amp was much better in that regard, but not in much else. You might want to assess what you have currently in that regard and compare on paper to other options. I would make sure that is covered first before doing anything else. There may also be big differences in terms of low frequency response and distortion with source gear, particularly turntables and carts, more so than modern good quality digital. At least that has been my experience with pre-amps and the OHMs with pipe organ music. Pipe organs aside, it does not matter nearly as much. If I listened to pipe organ music more often, I would be considering a different pre-amp I think, probably a very good SS one. It is good enough as is, but I have heard it can be much better, with my OHM 5s and in my room. Pipe organs push the edge for low end extension versus pretty much anything else, so not just anything will do there anywhere in teh signal chain. Its not a huge consideration for many these days, so do not assume that just any gear is up to the task. |
In summary, I have heard where my OHM 5s in my room with the right gear in front of them can do an excellent job alone on the lowest notes of pipe organs, shaking hte rafters in the process. Top notch low end extension in source gear and enough power to go along with it are the keys. Power demand increase exponentially at lower frequencies, so I would think 250W/ch or more for larger OHMs in a larger space to start to be where one would want for pipe organ notes that shake the rafters (as they should). Damping factor of the amp is also significant for this. Higher damping might make bass tighter and more articulate, and lower damping will loosen things up more and help to get teh room vibrating. My current setup is more towards the former than the latter these days. But when I started out with my 5s off Carver m4.0t power amp (tube like sound, low damping) and matching Carver pre-amp, the rafters shook to the point where I would be concerned about things starting to fall off the walls and other similar problems. Now its leaner and meaner, and not as loosely damped in the bass, but when I get things up to proper level for pipe organ and such, the lock key sitting on a narrow ledge nearby usually ends up on the floor still. And the sound is rock solid and clear, with no sign of breakup or distress EVER. That is all with no subs in the picture. Toss a couple of those in then get them set up right and you will likely take a nice shortcut to the place you seek. So far, I have not felt the need, but do I do get the urge to try to push the limits from time to time.... |
I also just thought to mention that cabinet volume is a big factor with teh OHM Walshes along with driver size in terms of being able to deliver the goods down to 20hz. I have never seen John advertise any Walsh models to extend below 20hz (few if any vendors ever do), but I am not sure it is not possible with the larger Walsh cabinets and drivers. I like the older pyramidal shaped OHM cabinets in this regard in particular in that they tend to be wider and have greater volume per height accordingly, compared to the newer sleeker looking cabinets. Not to mention no || sides. All Walshes sound best when listened to from driver level or above, so narrower cabinets must be taller to have same volume. Taller will not work as well if listening from typical chair level closer to the speakers rather than at more of a distance, as is more possible in a larger room. I prefer the older pyramid shaped cabinets on paper for all these reasons myself. Not to mention, they can be had for less than new ones in that when available they are essentially recycled and refurbed. JS hit the bullseye with his Walsh design. Same sound scales as needed, old cabs can be re-used to offer a discount, plus all the rest. Very smart. No other speaker line can make those claims, I think. |
The Jean Guillou rendition of Pictures at an Exhibition on Dorian CD is the recording I have that seems to plunge the depths the most and is the one I use for testing low end extension specifically. Not sure how low it goes exactly in that I have never measured, but it goes the lowest it seems of any recording I know of on certain pipe organ notes that may or may not be audible depending on the rig setup. I also have some older E. Power Biggs recordings on vinyl that are decent tests as well, but only if ones phono rig is up to it. 20hz is the lowest frequency spec one tends to ever see referenced in audio gear over the years. I have never really considered anything below that to be of significance musically, at least on a recording. Usually anything below that on a recording tends to be noise and not music, especially with vinyl, and might be best filtered out so as not to drain power that would be available for the music otherwise. |
Frankly, I would not want to reproduce anything below 20hz with a 180 w/ch amp in that it will run out of steam fast reproducing anything at that frequency. Larger, fairly high efficiency speakers would likely be needed to do anything below 20hz if present justice at high volumes with "only" 180 w/ch. One lives dangerously in general below 20hz which is why it is usually off limits for most all recordings and playback systems. |
Coot, Pipe organ music lovers are almost always prime candidates for bigger drivers and more power than most. Powered subs may not be the only way, but probably the most expedient way in most all cases, including OHM. Just remember that recordings are recordings, not live events. I would not expect much if any music in most recordings below 20hz. The Jean Guillou recording I mentioned above is the one I know that might have the best chance. Maybe Martykl has that or another recording with music he can measure with his gear down that low. I might have a test CD or test record around still with a 20hz test tone. Or there are tone generator apps on internet and computers that could work with the right connection to assess system performance at the lowest frequencies. It can be done. Where there is a will (and budget) there is a way.... Good luck. |
I use Bel Canto ref1000m amps with my OHM F5 S3 and Walsh 100S3 speakers. These are the bomb for those I would say. Have not heard others with OHM, but I have heard of very good results with OHM and Wyred from others, particularly audiogoner Mamboni, who is perhaps the most knowledgeable and well rounded listeners out there. 500w/ch ref1000ms work well with any OHM it would seem, but is probably overkill for 100s. THey are perfect for my 5s. For 100s, you can easily get away with "only" 250w/ch in most all cases I would say. That will help lower the cost. In my experience, larger OHM Walshes in particular benefit from power, current and damping. Modern good quality Class D amps tend to deliver all these in spades in a small and affordable package. D-sonic is another Class D line worth considering on a budget. Due to high damping in particular, Class D amps can come across as somewhat lean in some cases when this is not called for. FOr example, this is the case running my little Triangle Titus monitors of the BCs. The resulting sound can be a touch towards the lean and bright side, however over tweaks like adjusting speaker location relative to floor can help even out even this case, so anything is possible with Class D if done right I would say. |
I use 180w/ch TAD Hibachi monoblocks currently in my second system with teh OHM 100S3s and have used these amps as substitutes for BCs in my main system as well. These are SS amps made to sound more tube like, lower input impedance, lower damping etc. Sound with these is much different, bass not as tight, etc. That can work for or against you depending on room acoustics. Room acoustics in the room these are in are less than optimal, but not bad. I much prefer the BC Class D amps with my 100s when I use them in my office, which is more optimal acoustically as well. Concrete foundation with thin pad and carpet there, versus typical plywood flooring and carpet in family room where my second system is. Bottom firing bass ports on Walsh speakers can interact strongly with floors like that. SO I think BC Class Ds are much better overall for OHMs than the TAD Hibachis, though neither are a slouch by any means. When losser, fatter, whatever you call it bass is called for, amps with damping factor well under 50 might have an edge. |
"My question is, why go with a 5000 if it still requires a sub?" No doubt, all smaller speakers including Walshes can play better when amp and speaker work is offloaded to a powered sub. 5000 does not necessarily require a sub though. I feel no need for subs with my 5s, nor with my 100s even in the right sized rooms. Adding powered subs always ups the ante in terms of output capacity in most any case. But there are ups and downs with any solution, including subs, along the lines commonly discussed. Adding separate subs means that you are now the speaker designer responsible for the integration top to bottom. How well that all plays out will depend. |
Coot, The USB cable difference is interesting. What kind of USB cable did the new cable replace? I have heard clains from knowledgeable sources that USB cables can make a big difference, but its not something that I really understand the how or why nor have I ever experimented with. I recently added a somewhat vanilla USB connection from my laptop to mhdt Constantine DAC alongside existing Squeezebox feed to same dac via Toslink, but have not had a chance to listen and access in any detail yet. |
Also I had modest STAX phones for many years up until recent. These sounded different somewhat with different amps but never veiled. Also I have heard very expensive Audeze off very good amplification which were very etched and detailed. Have never heard Hifiman, though I have almost jumped on those a few times based on what I read. |
Joke I've run ohm. 100s3 f5s3 dynaudio contour and triangle Titus off various amps over the last few years. First off the exact sound with the ohms is largely a function of the gear used and the room. I can hear clear differences with most any change including power cord and interconnects. So the exact complete setup will largely determine the results which can vary widely. Second I would say the 100s3 ohms always are the least fatiguing. The dynaudios and triangles tend towards a hotter presentation that must be tamed to some extent and can become unpleasant with some setups. That's never the case with the ohms. Their top end tends to be more recessed in comparison. That does not make them the best necessarily for low volume listening in that our ears are less sensitive at frequency extremes and more so at lower volumes. The common on solution to this that a lot of gear used to provide is a loudness control that boosts high and low frequencies to be heard better at low volume. So I'd say the ohm sound in general is consistent with your observations. You can orient the ohms 45 degrees outward to provide more direct tweeter exposure I that they normally are oriented 45 degrees inward. That might be a useful easy tweak to adjust for lower volume. Also I would say the dynaudio esotar soft dome tweeter is quit good and a different beast than the soft domes used in the ohms and most others. They seem to have more bite that helps put an extra edge to the music. Which again can be a good or bad thing depending. |