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

I for one care deeply about technology. Learning and applying it has been my career for well over 30 years. Hifi’s are just a hobby for me. The technology interests me greatly though because understanding it means being better able to enjoy the music.

Peter I don’t understand what’s going on with the gradual roll off shown with tweeters in play. I’ve never seen that in any speaker. Charts of 2nd gen OHm walsh speakers from later 80s I have seen in the past were more typically flat, nothing that unusual. NEwer versions are supposedly not so radically different sounding. EQ should not be needed to that extent.

Do you have baseline plots of the speakers originally for comparison? Could there be something wrong in the crossover at this point?

Is it even known for certain speakers were in good working order to start? What prompted you to take them apart?

This is very interesting but the relationship between what is measured currently versus originally in properly working speakers is not clear at all  at this point.

From Jan 17, 2008 Stereophile review of Walsh 5 speaker:

" I was sure that a 1/3-octave frequency sweep would reveal an aberrant frequency response, but I was wrong. In fact, from about 500Hz to 20kHz (which was as far as I measured), the Walsh 5 was almost ruler flat when measured on the supertweeter axis. There were the usual dips and peaks in the in-room bass response, and the bass was down 4dB at 25Hz—in complete accord with Ohm’s specifications. The source for the coloration remains a mystery, therefore.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/ohm-walsh-5-loudspeaker-page-2#BMwfiIR8TJXhr0v8.99"

aftewrwards (from OHM site) :

Stereophile Magazine called the Ohm Walsh 5s: "one of the best American box speakers made"

Years ago Stereophile Magazine reviewed the Ohm Walsh 5 speaker. Their conclusion back then was that current model had some unique qualities and was on the "verge" of greatness. 
In response to that review Ohm made some adjustments and thus a new "5s" version of the Walsh 5 speaker was born. Stereophile reviewed this new model and in conclusion they had this to say: "a Great American Speaker—one of the best American box speakers made"

There is a huge discrepancy. That is flat response measured and judged one of the best speakers of its time by a leading publication in the industry and yours is way out of the ballpark for reasons unknown. Yours do not look like anything I’ve ever seen measured from any decent pair of speakers working properly. Something is wrong. I doubt it will matter that much but try 1/3 octave on your gear maybe and then apples and apples comparison can at least loosely be made. If not comparable then I do not know what to tell you other than your measures and those from Stereophile  are radically different for reasons unknown.

Peter regarding the earlier charts of walsh driver alone, which surely must be different than stereophile reported results on the entire original Walsh 5 speaker, there is no data elsewhere to compare with so it is what it is. There is no way to know know if it is normal for these speakers or not. That can never happen with a single sample in any case.

But if your complete speaker with tweeters in play roll off as indicated, I am willing to bet there is something wrong with this patient.  Stereophile indicated virtual flat response to 20khz measured with the original Walsh 5's from early 80's tested.      Data presented as I understand it would seem to point to the crossover in that my understanding is all measures were done with drivers connected to crossover. If it is the crossover then the walsh driver alone measures might be affected as well. No way to know that for certain though with the data available so far that I can see.

Unless I’m missing something I’d suggest talking to JS and see what he has to say.

Stereophile has been doing and publishing these measures for years so I would not discount them totally.

peter you should talk to JS then to figure out what is going on. Or maybe someone else here with expertise in this area could comment.

Obviously your results apply to your speakers only. But there is nothing to indicate they apply to any other pair so you should be cautious in public there.

I personally suspect you have a crossover issue at this point but I am no expert. JS could help you much better.

I am an engineer and have image processing background but not an audio engineer. 1/3 octave as I understand it is essentially a low pass filter that produces a more generalized output. That would be useful to enable a general comparison between data sets filtering details that matter for exact tonality but not for that initial purpose.

In any case you need apples and apples measures to compare at all. 1/3 octave apples apples comparison is only one possible with data and tools available at this point that is apples/apples. It would show general response with enough resolution to determine if two general response curves are similar or not. From what we know so far I would predict they continue to be radically different with yours still showing  large gradual dropoff all else staying the same.

The review mentioned a small tonality variation detected. It was not clear to me if that was detected by ear only or supported by other measures done but not mentioned. John Atkinson surely has/had good ears but I I would still hope the latter.

Also these were original OHM 5s reviewed. I had original Walsh 2s, same gen Walsh drivers and I a/b compared them to my newer series 3 models when I got them and I can attest that there were significant midrange tonal variations and the originals were nowhere close. Stereophile may have been generous with their assessment and not published unflattering info perhaps knowing JS would attempt to address which he did starting in series 2 models shortly after.

Interesting.

The advantage of XO models (compared to other originals like 1,2,4,5) is that they are advertised easier to drive and more efficient which is certainly a factor that might influence results positively in many cases.

I suspect they are likely more efficient than comparable newer 1000 models but have not verified that.

As a sidenote I also recall reading something from JS in his OHM site blog I think that indicated smaller models in a line are less efficient than larger ones, which would seem to make sense.

Also be certain not all OHMs of a particular model or line always sound alike. The sound heard can vary widely for many reasons. Being omnis/radials, room acoustics IS a particularly key factor as always. Amp used, quality of source and all the other usual culprits (including operating condition) can come into play as usual. Its a team sport. Speakers alone make no sound.

Also worth mentioning of course that Walsh 4s are quite a bit larger than 2.2000 and I am a steadfast believer that size always matters when it comes to speakers and their ability to put out large or sufficient amounts of good sound.

Another point is that as I recall with X000 series prices did go up in general for speakers of a certain size in the line so you get a smaller speaker (with advertised better drivers) for your money.  That's where refurbs, sales and trade-ins can really help though.

I think but am not certain that 4XOs are original gen 1 Walsh drivers like Walsh 2s but made a tad more efficient for easier mating to amps.

I have not heard latest X000 generation but my working assumption is that most OHms gen II or later sound more similar than different whereas gen 1 is much different.

Mine are both series 3, one gen older than latest.

OHm walsh series/generations are as I recall:

originals 1,2,4,5, and XO variations (5s were subject of the Stereophile review I referenced above).
series 2 circa late 80s
series 3 circa later 90s
X000 current and around for at least 5 years or so now I think.

Each series historically appears to get a revision/fresh up every ten years or so.

t8 you would know best. . I would expect the two to have differences in sound to go along with the different driver size,  cabs and age. That’s about it.    If gen two rather than gen one then that is a step in teh right direction IMHO.

I posted some new system pics today.  Same ohms except Ls got a room promotion. 

t8 one advantage of Class D is ability to leave them on without running up the power bill.

My circuit breaker generally goes if I power up both ref1000m amps at the same time.  I do one then the other and both are generally left on (as per manufacturer recommendation) from there unless I will be away for an extended period.

Once powered up I have never had the circuit breaker go when playing and I go pretty loud sometimes.

I have had other Class A, Class A/B  amps flip the breakers in the past when running.

t8kc, no doubt the more power and current the merrier with most OHM Walshes. At least if one wants the top notch sound possible with them.

I came to that realization early on when my current Ohm Walsh encounter started in 2008 or so and I think I have repeated it many times here over the years and will REPEAT IT AGAIN HERE. :^)

As I mentioned XO are more efficient (Xtra Output) so less amp needed for top notch results I would expect.

Also I find my larger OHMs in larger room benefits more from throwing the kitchen sink in terms of power and current at them but both do benefit.

OHM is not "high end" in its marketing and has sold many speakers over the years at prices that the average consumer might afford. Subsequently many OHMs have been used in underpowered or lesser systems over the years and full "high end" potential not realized. Many owners have no idea what they can do and most probably do not care that much until they actually hear the alternative.

500 w/ch Bel CAnto ref1000m amps I use (see system pics) are a great place to start used.

FOr something new I would look at 300 w/ch Peachtree or newer Bel Canto ref600. Maybe even d-sonic or Class D audio if budget is tighter.

I’ve run mine of good quality highly regarded 180 w/ch SS amp with no negative feedback and more limited current delivery. Meh in comparison.

BTW "cheap" or poorly made speakers would not hold up well at high volumes with 500w/ch thrown at them. My F5s never show any sign of strain or compression and I have probably not even hit the limit with them.

The worst thing to do ever is crank up an underpowered amp into clipping which can happen sooner than one might expect in many cases and before clear effects on sound is actually heard.   Clipping is public enemy # 1 for good sound and is not talked about here these days nearly as often as it should be.   An amp clipping also has greater chance of causing damage to any speakers.

Subs always make perfect sense. You just have to get the setup right in your room (with or without subs).   Bass is typically the hardest thing to get just right due to room acoustics.   If its not, it greatly impacts everything you hear, not just the bass.

enginedr1960,   that's a very interesting approach!   I can easily see where that tight physical configuration up front  could pay dividends.

Need to get floor interactions under control right up front as needed with bottom ported OHMs in particular. Isolating pads is an option to raising. Auralec SubDude platforms work well with my 2s (see sunroom system pic). Keep in mind if you raise the Walshes too high so your ears are below the cans when listening overall tonality will be negatively affected.

FWIW I’ve used subs with my smaller monitors in the past but never felt inclined to try with fuller range OHM Walshes. I don’t doubt getting the two integrated just right could be a challenge in many rooms. I know Bondman and Martykl have both gone that route with success though.

OHM or omnis are not immune to room acoustics. That affects how all speakers sound so room correction is always fair game if needed.

Peter, your project is looking good.  

Are those still the original 5000 main drivers?

Wire gauge only matters over longer distances and more so when high current is needed as well I believe.

High quality amps and other hifi gear are chock full of wiring and electronics like this and sound great as do my OHM 5s. My Ohm 100s do not have this circuitry. If there is a negative difference in sound its beyond anything I can hear. The 5/5000 level adjustment circuits make placement in a variety of rooms much easier and result in better net sound as a result.

Of course, if one does not need that kind of adjustments and flexibility for their application, I would not pay for it nor apply it. Either way works out fine. Its a small issue if one at all on the grand scale of audio sound quality issues.

Not worth debating because we all know measurable facts are not needed in high end audio to back up assertions. But it does cast the proven design decisions of others in a negative light.  Each may have their own unique design goals.  Your's suit you.   A business must have the collective goals of their customers in mind. 

That too.  Successful businesses do both.

The effort went into making it affordable, sound great and being reliable. I don’t think JS cares nearly as much about the looks. Certainly not as much as many competitors.

You can always go into business and see how it pans out. OHM has been doing their thing their way for over 40 years now and still kicking so they got a bit of a head start.

One thing I've come to realize of late even more so than ever is the right know how, usually obtained through years of experience, can easily trump relying mainly on fancy parts and bling.   That's the magic of OHM and other companies of the same ilk, both large and small. 

You should buy the $500 speakers then.

Its a safe bet anything can always be made better either objectively or subjectively. Definitively is a little tougher.

OHM does many things to help provide value in good sound for their customers. No need to recap all that here.

Having been around and pretty much seen and heard it all, value and utility are the parameters I value in this stuff alongside of good sound of course.

Having said that, my home-tweaked OHM Ls are getting more play time these days than any of my other similar "high end" monitors. I did refurbish them myself a few years back. THe 8" Morel woofers I picked up used alone cost almost as much as the speakers did when I acquired them in 1978.  Cheap paper tweeters and crossover are still original.

BTW I have a pair of very nice Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors (top notch build quality and  drivers including Isotar tweeters) with matching Dynaudio stands that are sitting idle currently. I have been thinking about selling them to finance a pair of subs to go with my other small monitors. ANyone interested let me know. I’d like to sell local and not have to deal with shipping the large heavy stands.

"Fudged"?

"Wrong"?

OK whatever you guys say.   You better get it right then and show 'em how its done.  

I am a "fanboy" of some things like having some class but not others.  

Sorry to hear that.  Coincidentally a very dear elderly aunt of mine just passed last night.  93years old and always on good health and still sharp as a knife prior. The last of our parents generation some of which were Eyropean born and immigrants as children escaping the horrors overseas that were soon to reach their climax. 

Schubert  thanks for that and much appreciated. 

Peter of course everything can be improved.   I said just that Right here just a bit ago.  

If it were me I would  focus solely on what I am doing and why.  No reason exists to discredit or question the work or decisions of others proven work along the way. Thats all.  Especially when building on the work of said others.   Has all to do with right and wrong ways to go about things with other people and nothing to do with technology. 

Just my opinion.  

I would like to hear them.  Im sure they will  sound as good as they look. 

The real Walsh trick is to develop a full range Walsh driver that is reliable and does not self destruct.

Dale Harder,  who posted on this thread earlier is the only one attempting to do this commercially these days it still seems.

http://www.hhr-exoticspeakers.com/

If I understand the principles of a Walsh driver correctly, any driver can function as one but only certain ones make good ones.   Knowing how to find  or fabricate those seems to be the trick.  It's been proven doable for limited range in the lower frequencies with OHM and higher frequencies with German Physiks and Harder seems to to best carry the torch regarding full range Walsh speakers.

For me its all about the sound. If it sounds best to me that’s all that matters and the OHMs still do for me both at lower price points and highest.

Granted there is a lot of very good sounding competition out there but still nothing I know of that sounds and works as good for me at competitive price points. Good meaning most hours of time spent listening to all kinds of music at any volume over almost 10 years going now with my current OHMs..

JS is definitely goes for delivering his sound as affordable as possible in a way that works best for most in their homes and does not seem to care about what people might think about bling and parts used. In other words I do not think he cares at all about "high end audio" only good sound.

When I read his blogs on his site it only convinces me more that this MIT educated guy knows exactly what he is doing perhaps as well as anyone.

Regarding cost and competition if one is smart about how they go about it there are many ways to get better OHMs for less. My F5 series 3 OHMs, essentially equivalent to current 5000s that list for over $6K (lots of really good $6K speakers out there but none I know of sound the same) ended up costing me $2400 with summer sale pricing (should be coming up again in June) and maximizing trade in for 40% discount trading in two old pair of refurbishable OHMs (my old Walsh 2s and a pair of old C2s I picked up on ebay for about $100 and had shipped straight to OHM for the trade-in).


The Ls I refurbed myself with a pair of $400 Morel woofers sound very good but I suspect a refurbed pair from JS for $500 total would sound even better even with less $$$s in raw parts because I have no doubt JS can design speakers better than I and for less.

Thanks Reb. 

My aunt raised her family in a very small formerly thriving coal mining town north of Harrisburg Pa.   She was my mothers younger sister and the two of them always looked out for each other.   Her youngest son and I grew up together and still see each other regularly.  Her husband passed away a few years ago after suffering from Altzheimers Disease.     He was an air gunner in Europe during WWII.    They don't make 'em like those two anymore.   🏆

My thoughts on limited range walsh drivers is it makes more sense for omnis to cover lower frequencies that are inherently  less directional.    

Also rear and side radiating omni drivers require more distance from walls to avoid early reflections which are always harmful.    

So I tend  to think  JSs approach is better for most people than say the GP or mbl approach.    

Having heard mbl set up properly though with proper distance to walls and proper treatments, they  are in a class of their own in regards to 3d holographic imaging when set up right. 

Listening to walton Crown Imperial March as I type with Sennheiser Momentum phones off Bel Canto c5i digital integrated, a simply marvolous technological wonder.  Digital source is Squeezebox Touch, another gem, wirelessly connected to my FLAC format music library on the computer downstairs.   Viva technology!

I usually have no problem finding good sounding stuff at Capital Audiofest when I go just most of it costs way too much for good sound and lots of it is very esoteric in design. Lots of pretty bling though and always fun to hear so many nice new things in one place.

I less well fit the mold of a traditional audiophile these days. Class D amps, digital streaming, and high quality low cost DACs, even headphones (if those are enough to float ones boat alone) available these days makes better sound available more ways than ever and for more people and for less. Its just not that hard to get really good sound anymore due to advancements in technology. Heck if I had to I might even be able to get by with the portable HK Onyx blue tooth speaker I use when convenient fed via Bluetooth from computer tablet or phone of choice. Not the nth degree in hifi by any stretch but darn good, convenient and better than most things most people had at their disposal up until recent years. Also easy to move around in rooms for best acoustics. :^) For those with more esoteric tastes in what constitutes good sound, the sky is still the limit.

The audio shows have been invaluable to me though as a tool to help me refine my own personal reference standard for good sound over the years as my ears do their thing there and learn.

No experience with those particular amps but your plan is a sound one.

I'd start with the 90 w/ch arcam and see how that sounds first then if still desired 250w/ch or more of good quality Class D meaning robust power supply and high current delivery good down to 4 ohm would be a step up in most cases.  Benefits may be lesser in a  smaller room and/or lower volumes only.

Arcam is good stuff but most receivers and many integrated amps cannot match separates of the same power rating in regards to power suppl;y and current delivery with low distortion into lower impedances which matters to get the most out of the OHMs.  

I agree the more clean power and current with the ohms the better.   Whether one needs it or not is a different story.  Personally id always go with  more clean power and current for the most fun. 

Js used a high power newer Peachtree amp to demo the ohms at ny audio show last year fwiw.  

Using with powered subs changes the story.      Almost any good quality modest power amp should do very well.     Impedance curves ive seen did not indicate a hard load at higher frequencies.  Power requirements always increase exponentially as the frequency gets lower.   Poor or muddy bass is a double whammy in that it also tends to muddy the midrange.   

I have felt no real need for subs with either of my OHMs running off 500 w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m amps in matched volume rooms:

100 series 3 driver (8") in smaller rooms
5 series 3 driver (12") in any size room

Subs are a good way to max out sound of smaller OHMs in larger rooms. Otherwise I would go no sub with high power high current amp. Class D makes that more practical for most and good ones sound top notch/hard to fault.

In larger rooms if 20 hz response for organ or electronic music is desired, then perhaps in order to take things to the absolute nth degree possible.   Or check out 5015 models with powered subs built in maybe.  

I like castors on my larger OHMs especially when floor type is conducive.  They help immensely to move those potentially large heavy things around easily as needed.

Another way to look at it:

With Ohm Walsh if you have 8" drivers or larger in your speakers already being driven by a high power high current amp that will never come close to breaking a sweat (Class D or otherwise) you already have the equipment needed to do deep bass well with music. Its essentially the same driver and amp combo you get in a similar sized powered sub. No adjustments or eq needed if speakers set up well in the right sized matching room. The key is to match the right size OHMs to your room. Thats the OHM/JS model that nobody else offers, ie the same essential sound from all speakers in the line large to small when integrated into the room properly. Its hard to find quality speaker makers with affordable products that use 8" or larger bass drivers these days. Used to be common. Size and power  matters most when it comes to doing bass well. Multiple drivers help but add their own issues and I am not a fan. The fewer drivers needed to do the job right the better.  Good quality modern small bass drivers do a decent job though of getting more bass out of a smaller package by providing drivers capable of greater excursion than most common larger drivers of the past.   MicroWalsh does an impressive job with the bass I am told.  Totem and others always surprise me pleasantly with bigger sound than expected out of a small package.

Good point that cabinet volume is a main factor in producing deep bass.   Smaller speakers  ("short" version of OHMs are much smaller cabs and more limited in bass extension) will always need help to deliver the lowest octaves.   Size matters when it comes to delivering extended bass.    Speakers must do EXPONENTIALLY more work as the frequency gets lower.   The laws of physics always apply.

I very much like the idea of smaller speakers/monitors (on isolation platforms) placed on top of powered subs. Reduces need for amp power and current greatly if mains are high pass filtered. You have to integrate the two yourself but if done right the results should be spectacular.

I have a pair of small Triangle monitors on stands currently in my family room 2 channel A/V system. Sound great but not much bass for that room area. I have been on the verge of pulling the trigger on adding a pair of powered subs (I used to have a single sub in there that went up a few years back).

I would place the monitors on a pair of very short Isoacoustics isolation stands and set the stands on top of the subs.

I haven’t done it yet because my main system with the big OHMs does it all and I do not mind not having all the bass in my other rig. The sound is different without the lowest octaves but what is there is very high quality and provides an alternate view into the music.

Were I placing OHM Walsh speakers on top of the subs I would use Auralex subdude platforms that I use with my smaller Walsh 100s when used on second floor of the house to isolate.

I do have in teh back of my head that powered subs + smaller speakers and smaller amp, like in my second system, could potentially surpass even my other bigger badder rig currently. If so I could downsize somewhat sell stuff and save a lot of money maybe.

I have an extra pair of monitors and some other extra stuff to sell first to help finance this if I were to do it.

And yes on second level of my home with suspended plywood floors at least, I would require isolation pads under the subs as well as isolation stands under the "satellites" placed on the subs.

I’ve done a lot of sub searching in recent months. My current choice after a lot of research would probably be 12" Rhythmik subs. I know Martykl uses and recommends those. Or, I would start out on the cheap and pick up the first pair of any decent quality 12" powered subs I might stumble across locally. I had a 12" 90’s vintage M&K sub that worked well in this application for many years until it died a couple years back. I had tried that with all my monitors at one point or another and also OHM 100s. The smaller monitors needed it. The 100s, it was more of a judgement call and I judged to keep it simple and not use it. I took the sub apart in an effort to possibly salvage it when it died but was underwhelmed with the innards and decided to just ditch it.

When you look at the insides of the "cans", it all makes sense. JS kinda looks like a mad scientist so its only proper that his designs kinda resemble the speaker equivalent of Frankenstein.    To top it all off he found a way to be able to use whatever he chooses that works and not have to worry about appearances.  Pure genius!  :^)

BTW if newer OHm Walsh speakers do not sound "good" its not because of the parts or build quality. More likely a combo of the stuff upstream feeding them and room acoustics. OR something defective or damaged perhaps. Fact is I throw the kitchen sink at these power and current wise and they just go louder and louder with no sense of strain ever. Cheap speakers don’t do that. Cheap speakers will break up, compress or distort way before things get up to the really fun levels.

Even after all that, hey no product is for everyone. They still might not sound "right" but never have I seen any OHM Walshes be the first one on the team to cry uncle when things get tough. Less so in fact than pretty much any other speaker I own or have ever owned for that matter.  I've never observed  them to be the weak link in the chain.  Throw the kitchen sink at them.  Best thing you can do!

Bondman,

I would not expect partial obstruction above the driver to be an issue in practice given that the driver does not produce the higher frequencies ie the more directional ones that can be more easily absorbed, reflected or diffused.

parasound 1500A:

Continuous Power Output - Stereo:
205 Watts RMS x 2, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 8 Ω, both channels driven
315 watts RMS x 2, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 4 Ω, both channels driven

Specs say 60 w peak current which sounds good but I suspect much less on average in real life.

Ideally you want the amp to double down from 8 to 4 ohms ie 410 w/ch at 4ohm.

From that spec alone the parasound is probably not the best match to get the best out of most OHMs which from impedance curves I’ve seen can have a drop down to 4 ohm or so in the very demanding mid bass region.

Higher efficiency with the other OHMs no doubt helps. that is what they are designed to do.

You need very robust power supplies capable of fairly continuous high current delivery in an amp to be able to double down to 4 ohms best.

I had an amp with similar power specs originally, a Carver m4.0t 330 or so watts into 8ohm but significant fall off at 4ohm. The sound with my big OHMs was as you describe, loud but not great. Somewhat muddled, less dynamic and less articulate bass. This amp was designed with a tube amp like transfer function. Most tube amps would have similar issues which is why sub with high pass filter on the mains is required for optimal results if using most OHMs with a tube amp. Same Carver amp worked nicely with Magnepans I had prior which needed power but not current.

Cute little buggers.  

Aren’t 4XO’s larger than 2.2000 as well?  That + higher efficiency would definitely make them different and probably more adept at bass in a larger room with more amps.

BE careful. The Ohm Walshes in particular tend to be pretty robust in my experience but amp clipping puts any speaker at risk of being damaged. I’d go easy until the new amps arrive.   I predict the new amps and OHMs may just blow you away (in a good way that is).

Tweeters are angled 45 degree in with normal Ohm Walsh floorstanders and do not provide direct exposure with most listening locations by design.  Orienting to have the tweets more directly face  the listening position is not necessary imho but does brighten things up but also  has effect of narrowing soundstage.      

I have Triangle Titus monitors I use in my second system in addition to various OHMs. These are most "detailed" in teh higher frequencies in particular. They have limited bass response below 55hz or so and do their thing best only with certain high quality gear upstream. They are also reasonably efficient and compete best at low to moderate volume only.

As a whole I love the sound but there is a lot missing in the lower octaves that adds extra focus to what is there.  Nobody will ever describe the sound of these as "warm". They image wonderfully and provide a nice clean detailed alternate window into the sound of the music.

Apples and oranges comparing such small monitors to much larger full range OHMs but relevant nonetheless I suppose.

I also have Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkII monitors a tad larger than teh Triangles sitting idle currently. Those too have their unique charms including detail with just a touch of warmth. They are more like the OHMs in regards to amps they sound best with and have better bass extension than the Triangle Titus. They also tend to sound better at higher volumes than  low. So which I use at any particular time all depends. The OHM Walshes hit all the marks overall best however no doubt for me.