Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

Here's a very unique Ohm Walsh thing that I've probably mentioned before but am hearing clearly again right now and I think is very interesting.  

Listening to to mono recordings in this case The Beatles cover of Money on "Meet the Beatles". 

The music is focused dead center on my front wall with enough ambience wall to wall to make one question its a mono recording being heard.   Very live sounding!  

Thing is is in my L shaped room. With F5s along the long wall at the base of the L facing into the length of the room,. The left speaker is in the center of the wall where the soundstage is focused and further from my listening position closer to the right wall about halfway down the length of the L than the right speaker which is about 3-4 feet from right wall essentially in front of my listening position .   The soundstage tends to stay focused at dead center of the ~22 foot wall forming the base of the L no matter where the speakers are along the wall pretty much. 

Very unique.   Makes even average mono recordings sound audiophile worthy and a very unique trick. An omni thing in general I suspect.  

With my F5s in large L shaped room, I have three 2X2 foot absorbing panels on my sidewalls at prime reflection points based on my two main listening positions. These help narrow and focus the soundstage a tad to my preference. That’s all.

Omni speakers naturally diffuse the sound especially in comparison to others, no?

My front wall of L shaped room is 22’ wide and sound stage extends wall to wall and beyond with most recordings. The panels reel that in just a tad. They might soften things up just a tad as well. I’ve debated added two or 4 on the ceiling at prime reflection points there but no rush to try.

I’ve found isolating from floor interactions as I have mentioned to be much larger in magnitude in terms of sound improvement when needed. Total night and day differences there when floors are suspended and lively, not at foundation level.

Of course every room if different as are personal preferences, so one has to carefully choose their weapons depending. No reason to rule out diffusion either if called for.

Thanks for the update accurus. Would love to see some pics when all done.  

Schubert glad you're back.   Hope things are well.

Obviously some orchestral music could also be considered "audiophile" music in certain contexts such as when talking about recordings that are off particularly high quality in regards to both technical and artistic merit.

Yes they are not the same and not all "orchestral" music is necessarily even considered classical in its truest sense.  It just means music played by an orchestra.   Could be Beethoven or Frank Zappa.

I doubt any slight to orchestral or classical music was intended by referencing it as "audiophile" though I know that term often gets mixed reviews.

BTW, after thinking about orchestral music and  Zappa, I had to give this one a listen.  Its a very 'audiophile" recording I would say if one has ever heard a good version on a good hifi.  Always makes me smile and get my feet tapping  :^)

Zappa was very much and uniquely into percussion in his orchestral arrangements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHx5C4O0Cvg

Accursed are you saying you get cabinet noise from vibration?    

If so I'd talk to JS and maybe take a look inside for anything loose that should not be.   

I recall internal braces in my old original Walsh 2s coming loose after a number of years and reattaching them myself fairly easily.  

Otherwise that's a new one for me.   

Darn Apple spell checker changing my words again. 

Accurus us of course. Not accursed.   

Sudont I also have larger F5 series 3 Ohms.  Listening to them as I write.   I believe these are same cabs as yours, refurbed OhmF cabs on casters.  12" cans.  

These are are on foundation level in my home so no need to isolate those from floors like my smaller models with Walsh 2 cabs upstairs.  

It it looks to me like casters might just fit on subdude platforms.  I'd measure and determine for sure if considered.   Also of course you'd want to get the location right first then put speakers on platform. And lock castors.  

There res are other effective isolation products out there as well I'm sure but have not researched.   

My opinion on Walsh speakers and low levels is that they are very good there when driven optimally by amp in particular but some different things to consider. 

The difference is the sound dispersal pattern compared to more directional speakers.   A more directional speaker will fire more of the sound directly at you which may make it seem like things sound better at lower levels.  They well may depending on what you expect to hear.   No doubt the Ohms achieve their most realistic presentation at higher volumes as do most good quality speakers up to the task.  

Low volume listening is always a compromise when frequency response is flat because our ears are not flat in response. We do not hear extreme frequencies as well at lower volumes.  That is the issue that loudness controls on amps used to tackle more often than not.  

One of the most unique things about the Walsh line is that each driver from smallest to largest in a particular generation of product inherently sound the same.     The resulting sound will depend mainly on fitting the right size speaker to the room.    So a micro Walsh in a smaller room sounds like a larger driver in a larger room all other things essentially held constant.   So your room size alone dictates what speaker is needed for great sound.  

My my two Wash models. Are both series 3 one with 12 inch driver and larger cabs and one with 8 inch driver and smaller cabs.   I've put both in a suitable size room for both to fit well and sound is in fact essentially the same.  

Id only add my larger F5s have the larger 12 inch drivers and the four 3 way level switches that allows one to fit the larger speakers well into even smaller rooms if desired.  

Personally I have no issues with the casters and actually like them in that they make moving the large F5s around super easy as needed.    I've tweaked location and other things enough that the castors are a non issue for me though I see no problem with them sound wise on paper.   Lots of ways to tweak sound as needed and the castors and controls on the F5s are both a boon for that.  

Accurus the driver is above the cabinet and fires downward into the bottom port so while Inthink floor interactions may be greater than most actual cabinet vibrations may be less.   Cabinets are part of what makes the sound though.   Easy to add damping material inside though if needed.  

I’ve found that ability to sound good in rooms that are more challenging for whatever reason to be particular strength of the OHM Walshes. They can work surprisingly well close to walls and corners I find, as advertised, especially when compared to true omni speakers.

The room I put my newer Walsh speakers in is a larger L shaped room. They replaced planar and conventional more directional box speakers in there neither of which worked particularly well. But the Walsh speakers tend to just place the music naturally into whatever room they happen to be in. A very unique attribute that many might consider.

I find a main main key to good sound with OHM Walshes in particular in any particular room is to address floor interactions when needed, especially with the bottom firing ports on many Walsh models. Isolation platforms like Auralex Subdudes I use with my OHMS when on suspended plywood floors solve the problem.

That is some news. Would love to go but would be a challenge. We’ll see.

Have never met John in person either that I know of, but would really like to.

He was owner of Tech Hifi chain back when I worked there in college. That was where I had my first exposure to OHM speakers (alongside many other popular lines of the time). I sold many (all box models, no Walsh) back then.

Even the conventional box models of his that made up most of the OHM line in the day were the best sounding there to me.  Also the best value as I recall in many cases.

I'd expect original Walsh 4's to have more output capability and ability to deliver in a larger room.

2.2000s not as much but be better in detail clarity imaging (result of newer 2000 driver) and maybe tonality top to bottom in a suitable smaller room.

These are two different size and generation models, apples and oranges as OHMs go, so anything is possible.

I had original Walsh 2s from 1981-1998.   I kept them initially to compare side by side  to the Walsh 2 series 3 models I acquired back then (and am still using).   I was looking for new large speakers at the time for my largest listening room  and after a lot of listening and investigation of options I decided to give OHM a chance

This was an apples/apples comparison in regards to speaker size and output capability.   The newer series 3 drivers were superior in every way.

I traded in the original Walsh 2s towards my larger F5 series 3 models that I also still use in my main setup.    The Walsh2 series 3 were so good for what I payed I ended up keeping them around as well.

Bass hump. Ouch! That’s the first I’ve heard that issue mentioned there but not uncommon. I might have brought a pair of Auralex subdudes along to set them on like I do at home on my second level (mine have no built in plinth underneath even).

The Stereophile guy seemed mainly unable to handle teh "ambience" as he described it talking about reproducing original acoustics captured in a recording in a different room. Yes that’s exactly what the OHMs do that many do not and yes t can be hard for one to wrpa their ears around initially as well if not used to it.   Many just want to hear the speakers not the room or at least that is what tehy are used to doing everything possible to take the rom out of teh equation.   Unfortunately rooms are a reality and one has to find some way to deal with it, either use it or fight it or usually some effective combination of both practically.

He did not say much else about the sound other than acknowledging the large sweet spot. Maybe the bass hump got him as well.

John had an article on his site prior talking about the challenges of exhibiting in a hotel room so maybe he scouted in advance and had a premonition regarding the challenge.

Room EQ would certainly be a great asset in a case like this but not something most will apply at home so not fair really in that sense.

Trump went I heard and said it was all rigged. Just kidding....

Seriously I'd love to hear The Clinton's and Trumps systems.   Who does that better?  Inquiring minds want to know.  :)

Maybe a public presence at shows will lead to that.

Those magazines, though.   Some seriously believe those are kinda rigged.   Money talks that's for sure.

The sound of either pair of mine is totally detached from the speaker. Cannot tell where they are exactly with eyes closed. They never show any signs of strain and no noise that should not be there no matter how loud played off 500w/ch amp. So based on the overall quantity and quality of sound delivered, I’d have to say they are very well built and hard to match in their price range based on that alone.

Both of my pair use older refurbed pyramid shaped cabinets. Perhaps that helps.

Visual aesthetics and the appeal of that aside, there are a couple of kinds of effects cabinets can have on the sound that I can think of:

1) ported cabinet resonances usually at bass frequencies these are usually designed (as is the case with most but not all OHM Walsh) to extend flat response lower but if not done right can result in low frequency bumps in response that would normally be considered undesirable. From what I read, J. Strohbeen goes to great lengths to get this and the porting aspect of the cabinets right and I’ve never seen any data to the contrary. There is a relationship between cabinet design, port and resulting frequency response but in this case sound would not emanate from the cabinet itself. The biggest OHM 5015 models, that JS touts as the best OHMs ever in all regards, with powered subs built in are actually sealed because powered subs eliminate need for the port. I do not doubt his claims on those.

2) If cabinet construction is not up to snuff or defective, then I would think resonances would cause clear noise to be emanating from the cabs due to resonances. Vibrations might normally be felt when touching the cabinets even when things are working exactly as designed/planned. Some speakers are designed to have totally inert cabinets, others not. Not sure what OHMs design take on this is exactly, but I know the "sound" of the cabinet is taken into account to deliver the desired sound.

Regarding quality of port materials and other aspects of components that go into the final product, I know JS leans towards delivering a particular high quality sound for more affordable cost. He will clearly choose to use less expensive materials whenever possible if they can do the job well as intended.   he may even know of some advantage to using material like cardboard.  Cardboard is a relatively inert material sonically for example.  When it comes to sound inert is good usually.   So it may look cheap but do its job in fact quite well.

Other speaker makers, particularly those targeting the high end mainly (not OHM) may choose to only use certain materials that will be regarded consistent and appealing to the target market.

OHMs approach is clearly very "blue collar" . That’s one of the things I like about the company in particular. They target the best sound possible for the least cost.

it will always be different strokes for different folks as evidenced by the variety of solutions people choose to fulfill their music and related needs.

With my OHMs, I find room acoustics particularly potential bad interaction between OHM Walsh bottom port and floor to be the most problematic thing to address effectively somehow for true high end sound. In general I think the OHMs sound best when effectively isolated from floor interactions, as is the case with all speakers I own but bottom ported OHMs perhaps an even greater issue to address than with others.

I can find no clear faults in regards to the overall sound once the potential floor interactions are under control in my system. I hate to use the word but to my ears its dern near perfect with absolutely nothing offensive ever coming out except perhaps in the case of some of the very loudest and dynamically clipped newer digital mp3 recordings out there and those usually exhibit themselves in the higher frequencies that have really little or no cabinet dependencies with the OHM Walsh design, certainly less than most conventional box designs. That alone may be why perhaps JS is able to not have cabinets built like a tank like some other high performing box designs like Dynaudio and Sonus Faber typically must rely on.

I have never encountered it at all as an OHM Walsh owner since 1982 (quite an achievement only a good quality product could accomplish) but if I hear noises or sound coming from the can that are clearly not part of the music, I would suspect some issue inside the can that needs attention and perhaps send them in for a look. That would be the exception due to some issue though, not the norm, at least in my experience.

ps I’ve heard Sonus faber and often considered owning a pair for much the same reason. I find the tonality of SF and OHM when done well to be somewhat similar.

I have a pair of Dynaudio Contour monitors I run as well. Has the Danish rather than Italian aesthetic but I consider them to be a gold standard of good hifi sound for their size and also with excellent build quality like good Sonus Faber. I acquired them prior to my current OHMs to see if I could settle on a smaller monitor. If the bass extension was just a tad better, and the overall presentation just a bit more lifelike to me, it might have happened.

Who doesn’t like beautifully crafted things? Still always different strokes.... Cheers and Good Listening!

Among whatever other differences there might be a ribbon tweeter would be significantly more directional than a soft dome.  That alone could make a difference in regards to intelligible vocals especially depending on room acoustics.  

I would wonder if it if it affects the size of sweet spot for music as well?.    

It’s true aesthetics don’t matter and are out of sight and mind inside those cans. A nice design advantage for sure. Even hot glue can be used to good effect apparently since you don’t have to look at it. I suspect it might even have some useful damping qualities sonically but just a guess. French speaker maker Triangle uses paper for bass drivers in their speakers which are some of the fastest and most detailed around for the money but those are in plain sight and made to a higher aesthetic standard as well accordingly.

If the sound is not up to par for the money then that’s totally different.

I still run Ohm Ls with paper tweeter over other newer much fancier and expensive models from other brands. Ribbon tweeter would be nice there I’m sure. Paper ain’t fancy but can sound surprisingly good. Of course a lot of cheap bad sounding speakers have used paper and other tweeters over the years as well.


Did the the center channel speaker use paper tweeter also?

I’m a two channel only guy so can’t really vouch for anything when it comes to surround sound.

Did the surrounds all sound similar bad or were issues with just some?

You should ask JS why he uses paper tweeters in the surrounds other than for the fact they likely help keep manufacturing costs low.   I find it hard to believe he would use bad sounding parts in his speakers.  

im pretty sure he does not use ribbon tweets because ribbons tend to be highly directional which is not the Ohm Walsh thing.

Peter whatever the outcome yours is a very unique and interesting DIY endeavor. You are starting out in a very good place sound wise compared to many in my humble estimation. Your findings poking around inside the OHMs is also very interesting for me.

I have an older pair of OHM Ls that I bought for a couple hundred dollars new back in 1978 that I have endeavored to upgrade and maintain myself.   I use these currently in a smaller room where my main gear resides.  

I have these sounding  very competitive with much more expensive modern alternatives, better than ever these days.   I replaced 8" bass drivers with Morel units that cost as much as the speakers pretty much originally.   I also added sub-bass activation circuit JS uses in most of his newer units to help keep bass extended and managed.

These still use original paper tweeter and super tweeters and high end sounds very good once properly balanced.   I've considered upgrading the high end drivers as well but have not felt compelled to do it quite yet.   I need to investigate some more but would definitely like to consider trying a folded ribbon tweeter in those just for fun.

peter if you have a way of posting some pictures I would love to see those.   You could start a virtual system here just for this.

I have not looked at the innards of my Walsh F5 Series 3 speakers since they arrived.

Cab came in separate box from driver (which connected via a single connector and mounts using 4 wing nuts that I do tighten on occasion) and separate box for the cover. Been too busy listening (and tweaking elsewhere as needed). Must be fun though tearing these things apart to see what makes them tick. Mine have original refurbed OHm F cabinets probably from the 1970s which were pretty darn heavy I must say as I recall from having to lug them downstairs to their new home.

They sit on easy to move and lock casters so size and weight has not been an issue since when tweaking placement. Very practical!

Floor is concrete foundation with thin dense padding and carpet. No need for additional platform there.

With my smaller Walsh 2 size models upstairs, I set those on Auralex subdude platforms which cost about $100 pair and work great to clean up the bass (by isolating from lively floors there).

No doubt setting most any speaker on an acoustically inert platform however one achieves it is a good move, but even more so perhaps with the bottom ported OHMs.

I do value the castors and level adjustment switches on my F5s. They make it much easier to get the speaker tuned into the room properly which is always task #1 for best performance out of most any speaker. That alone makes my OHMs hard to ever replace in my challenging (and not dedicated) L shaped room. Not an issue with headphones of course. :^)

I too tend to favor simplicity in design but the F5s sound pretty spot on as I have them set up so for me at least the value of the onboard level adjustments outweigh any possible downside. The F5s and smaller Walsh 2 models with same driver design but smaller (8" versus 12") driver and no switches tend to sound pretty much alike when set up well in the same room (I’ve actually done this comparison) so the switches are a net + for me. Definitely one of those things where YMMV.

peter part of the value of the switches for me is I can place the speakers in a location that provides cleanest soundstage and imaging and then use teh controls to adjust the tonality without having to move them again. The same location rarely works out best for both without additional tweaks to room acoustics and or some other kind of room equalization.

Its just another convenient and effective means to an end. Many ways to skin any cat.

I've seen those on Ebay.   VEry cool.

frazeur good point. I’d expect cabinet interactions of Walsh style drivers (and tweeters mounted essentially in total isolation from cabinet) to be much lesser than in most cases where drivers are mounted and coupled directly to cabinets. Exclusively in teh bass as I understand it. Many would regard a design that reduces cabinet interaction in and of itself potentially a good thing and based on listening I would agree.

Of course there are many factors that go into good sound. What matters most will vary case by case, design by design.

The Ohm Walshs are essentially a "black box" in the sense that transducers are totally enclosed (in the can) and out of view. That makes for a lot of wiggle room that would not be tolerable aesthetically otherwise.

I hear the beautiful music but all the ugly parts are out of view.

Kinda like just driving a car versus looking under the hood. I will look in there for routine maintenance or if I suspect a problem but that’s about it.

Also I think we are talking about refurbed Walsh 4 cabinets here, not new cabs.   

My F5 series 3 OHMs use refurbed OHM F cabinets, which was a big attraction for me.   Many still regard OHM Fs as one of the best speakers ever (at least when they were not broken).    So the cabs cannot be too shabby.   The drivers are much different but the topology relative to the cabs is essentially the same  although most new Walsh speakers are ported not sealed.   5015 models with powered subs on board are the exception.

peter I’m no expert in crossovers by any stretch but based on your chart of the OHm Walsh bass driver alone, it would seem that the crossover JS uses provides a very gradual transition over an extended frequency range in order to deliver a typical reasonably flat response in the end.

I’m curious if you change the crossover how would you accomplish that and with what end goal in mind?

Of course with a different tweeter its a somewhat different ballgame as well.

I wish I could find the old measurements of older OHM Walsh speakers I had seen a while back but it appears the site’s publisher retired and the site is no longer available. It is referenced at the end of the Wikipedia article on Lincoln Walsh still.

What is the mic?

Also are these series 2 or 3 drivers and new when acquired?

I ask because older drivers could easily not perform as well for a variety of reasons.

Also room acoustics typically provide bass boost versus measuring in something more like an anechoic chamber to whatever extent that might be a factor here.

Also I’ve seen measurements of series 2 Walsh speakers from teh 80’s and curves were reasonably flat with typical deviations. Of course that was entire speaker and no way to know how one set of test gear and conditions compare to another.

I would not listen to the Walsh speakers without the tweeter. Listening from behind with no tweeter exposure confirms that.

I would expect the bass driver to roll off as frequency goes up to some significant extent.

if original response with tweeter was reasonable flat as it should be that would indicate the tweeter and crossover together with the bass driver provides that. No surprise there.

No commercially sold Walsh or Walsh style driver I know of can cover everything and operate reliably over time. Dale Harders newer models are the most recent attempt I know of. Original OHM Fs did it to 16khz or so when working but that was very tenuous.

I would only judge the sound and performance as measured of the complete package, not the parts. In a project like yours however its of course important to know what each part is doing.

Interesting stuff.

Bondman,

I’ve never heard OHM Fs. How did what you heard compare to what you get at home?

What equipment including amp are you using to produce the response graph?

Did you do one on the whole speaker prior for comparison?

Also remind me how old are the speakers and which gen driver?

Peter I think JS goal as I read it is to give great sound for reasonable cost.  Not build a race engine.   Every engineer has a different vision.   Also a business must make a profit and ohm has been around and us based in Brooklyn for many years.   So it's a model that seems to work and hopefully continues to.   I will say prices have gone up in recent years but still us made.   I paid less than half of list for my 5s with sale price and trade ins a great deal for the sound.   Granted there are many good speakers at ohm retail prices these days but nothing like them.   

Well, it’s a plus to get at that response even out of a seemingly fairly conventional 12" driver mounted like that I suppose. It covers fundamentals of most musical instruments including voice but harmonics to a more limited extent.

X000 series advertised evolution not revolution in the sound so I can’t imagine versions prior would be that much different in approach though the originals were not nearly as good sounding as those that followed.

7khz out of any driver like that seemed a stretch but who knows. That figure got in my mind somewhere along the line but do not recall the exact source.

Its possible smaller drivers in smaller models go a bit higher I suppose. If so, I’ve not noticed much difference in teh end result to date when comparing 100S3 (8" driver) to 5S3 (12").

I think it would be accurate to say conventional 2 way designs with smaller drivers are more common. I can’t think of any quality 2 ways that use a 12" driver other than these. Most are 3-way or more.

I’ve always been a fan of as few drivers as needed to get the whole job done. The sound is almost always more coherent sounding to me that way.

In the case of teh CLS drivers, I suspect the ability to mount the tweeter physically where it is relative to to driver is a big contributor to the time coherency which might account for that aspect of the Walsh CLS speaker sound compared to many others perhaps more so even than the driver crossover frequency.

Peter don’t know. I have dynaudio speakers with top notch build including highly regarded isotar  soft dome tweeter.

They are sitting unused at present. Guess which speakers in the same setup I find completely satisfying to listen to?

just goes to show there is more to making good sound than expensive highest quality parts.

Well for one example I’m pretty sure hot melt glue is acoustically inert and I know it is not expensive and does its job (holding things together) well. Plus its all normally out of sight. I use the gun I bought to fix loose braces in my old Walsh 2s for things around the house all the time.

Smart or cheap?

I could see the benefits of the hot melt glue to attach the braces to my old cabs.  Would help absorb vibrations I'd think.   In some apps more of s convenience perhaps but a very effective one.  Looks would be one downside but out of sight out of mind I guess.  

Maybe John will read this and adapt some of your ideas.   I'd love to hear the esotar tweeter in my ohms personally. 

peter I appreciate that but I am getting the sound I want and no time or interest in dabbling inside my Walshes at present.

My goal when I got back into this stuff several years back was to find the right speakers first and do whatever needed to get exactly the sound I wanted from there. My path was from OHM to Maggie to B&W and back to OHM in my bigger room over the course of about 25 years.   I’ve done many tweaks around the speakers to get exactly the sound I wanted since I got them almost 10 years ago now (wow). I will say the sound can vary widely based on all the typical suspects that affect how speakers sound and what I have now is in another league from when I started. Many ways to skin the cat.

Maybe if something heads south, but I gotta say that I’ve owned OHM Walshes since 1982 and the only issues I have ever had were the internal braces on my original Walsh 2s come loose inside and have to be reset. Those speakers did move around the country in the back of my car a lot in those days. I am more settled now and my current OHMs mostly stay put.

I did refabric the hoods of my old Walsh 2s as well using a beige colored loose wove wool fabric mainly to please my wife aesthetically. Those were part of teh trade in I did for my current F5 series 3.

peter I don’t do surround sound but from what I have seen most surround speakers do not perform as well as mains unless I am mistaken (size and lower cost per reflects that). I would expect same with microwalsh surrounds (more limited) versus mains (more full range but less bass than larger models). I would not take measurements on one as representative of the other. There is a size and cost difference isn’t there?

peter,

Are those folded ribbons the same or similar to those used in Goldenear Aeon speakers?

I have heard those.  Much different top end from any soft domes I have heard.   Very polite is the term I used to describe the sound.   I could easily live with a pair of the Goldenear Aeon speakers in the right room.

I find the OHm Walshes quite easy on the ear and not fatiguing though they can go somewhat that way in some cases.   But not nearly as much as my Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII or Triangle Titus monitors.

I recently acquired BelCanto C5i Digital Class D integrated amp in my second system.   None of my speakers have any sign of hotness or edge ever with this amp.   Its the first I've owned (and the newest with latest greatest technology) that I could say that about.   It would be interesting to hear a good speaker with folded ribbon tweeter on that.

Many factors that contribute to sound.

My very first "good" speakers (Criterion) had Heil air motion transformers.   I bought these when working at Lafayette Radio circa 1977.   I was a newbie then and liked those over other speaker brands sold with other tweeter types.

Problem was they would always blow out at modest volume even off 40 w/ch lafayette integrated amp I had at the time so I dumped them after about a year (for OHM Ls I heard at tech Hifi).

I'm sure the modern equivalents are much superior.   There are many speakers from those days I would bet could sound in another league these days with modern digital and amplifier technologies in play.

I'd be willing to bet the crossover frequency with Microwalsh (smallest driver) is higher than with 5000 (largest).   How much?  Don't know but probably enough information available for analysis to make an educated guess.

Bondman I worked part time at Lafayette Radio in Lancaster Pa. It was located in a strip center outside of town (Two Guys was anchor store) and moved to Park City Center for a brief period. When it closed the location became Radio Shack store and I then worked there for a few years during and a bit shortly after college.  I also worked PT at Tech Hifi during school in New Brunswick, NJ.

I don’t know. Just saying I would not assume two different models are equivalent sound wise unless known otherwise. The devil is always in the details. I’ve never heard anything but positive reviews of MicroWalsh talls. Don’t know what might be different with shorts or surrounds. Also John is known to customize for customers liberally as needed or desired. It often can be very hard to distinguish one OHM model from another. There are many variations out there.

I bet he would at least consider using a custom tweeter type if one requested. The main thing he seems to care about is that the customers are satisfied. I’m sure he’d offer up his opinion of ups and downs with any particular variation, maybe even if not actually doing the work.

I’ll take the first stock Flat cheap tweeter I think.

You also should do some off axis measures if that matters for you. I’d like to know how the folded ribbon compares in particular.

Also have you seen the audio frequency response chart online? That would be helpful for assessing frequency deviations at certain frequencies with ear sensitivity at same and also how those relate to various instrument frequencies heard in music.

Hi Rebbi.  Good to hear from you. Hope all is well.