Thanks, all. Please keep the piano recommendations coming. Meanwhile, I will revisit some of the offending recordings to see if the issue is dissapating at all.
I resent my email to John Strohbeen. Still waiting for a reply. I assume he is still in catch-up mode after being closed for the holidays.
I have invited several members of the local audiophile club in to hear and critique the 2000s (only one or two at a time - my listening room has space for two seats only). Hopefully, these more experienced ears will help me figure things out.
Frazeur1: This last issue, the roughness in the mids on piano, is severe enough that it forces me into the critique mode; if I were listening for pleasure, I would turn it off or at least switch to a different CD. Very frustrating since I really like these speakers in every other respect. |
Joefish - A lot depends on your room. If your room is very large, you will be pushing them harder for the same apparent output level. If pushed too hard, the Yammi could clip, and that could damage the super-tweeter in the MWT (or any speaker). You might not even realize it is clipping until it's too late. However, if you're room is not too large for the MWTs, and you don't over do it on the volume level, you should be fine. |
Big news!
My invitation to members of my local audio club has paid off big time. Last night, one of the more knowledgeable members of the club came by.
Perhaps it was sloth, perhaps a reluctance to buy into the importance of the room and setup, but there were a few things I should have done, but never did, that this fellow helped me with last night. We removed my old speakers from the sidewalls, installed some basic acoustic treatments, and carefully dialed-in and leveled the Ohms. The cumulative effect of all this was significant.
He identified a forwardness in the mids as a possible source of my issues with piano notes in the midrange. More toe-in and careful leveling reduced this issue to a large degree. Although I have yet to revisit the offending recordings, the CDs and LPs my new best friend brought with him last night sounded fantastic. His well-trained ears were able to detect a decent amount of depth, and good detail at the rear of the soundstage. These are things I have never been able to hear myself. (Is it possible that, as with some people's vision, I have poor depth perception in audio terms?)
There was occasionally a little sharpness on higher piano notes, in the lower treble range, but the distorted midrange notes were no longer in evidence.
In any case, my guest felt that by the time he was ready to leave, that the Ohms were sounding very good, and has encouraged other club members to stop by and hear them. Considering how much experience he has as a listener, I can't imagine a better compliment.
More club members have asked to come over, so I will keep you all posted. |
Thanks for the suggestions, Michael. My piano problems are more or less solved. It seems there was a push in the mids that repositioning the speakers and the acoustic treatments have reduced dramatically.
Last night I listened to Mozart's Requiem by José van Dam, Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, and Rudolf Scholz, a 1990 CD of a 1975 recording.
The female soloist was a little rough, with some glare that was limited to a narrow frequency range. I replayed the first part after listening all the way through and noticed a lot less glare than I remember from the first go around. Perhaps all the gear had warmed up a bit? Also, out of laziness, I neglected to throw a quilt over my 55" RPTV that sits between and behind the Ohms.
I am getting the feeling that I don't think I will be able to improve on the Ohm Walsh 2000s without dropping significantly more coin. Since spending more for the forseeable future is impossible, I am getting close to a decision to keep these. They are not perfect, but I think with better cables, the spiked bases I mentioned before, and a few more improvements to the room, they could be as close to perfect as possible for under about $10K. |
Good to hear it, Mapman.
Finsup, nothing I sent you is private info, so feel free to share.
I did indeed install some absorbing foam panels at a first reflection point. This has greatly evened out the sound from the L/R channels, which had been very different in my asymetrical room. I also placed foam pipe insulation along some sharp edges that drop down from my ceiling. Along with some careful dialing in of the speakers, I am hearing a significant improvement in the sound overall. The forwardness that had bothered me on piano passages is greatly reduced. More treatments will come, but I am too busy and too broke right now. Overall, I am pretty pleased.
A succession of audiophile buddies have passed through my listening room. Although there was some limited criticism (these are very critical listeners!), they all have been fairly impressed, and amazed at the value the 2000s represent.
Last night, I listened to disc 2 of Danny Elfman's Music For a Darkened Theater, #2. Fantastic dynamics, long sustained tails of musical notes, startling percussion that made me jump, and a huge soundstage. And that timbre, always that true-to-life timbre. Perhaps it could be a little better, but I was hard-pressed to put my finger on exactly how.
One more audiphile friend is stopping by tonight (and his system cost him easily $40K). Unless he thinks I can do better with a specific speaker for $3K or less, I expect to be keeping the 2000s (just 9 days remain in my trial period). |
Finsup -
Most of the criticism was that the high frequencies might be a tad rolled off. This might be changed by changing the toe-in, but, frankly, I like the frequency balance as is. Note that although the highs are a little rolled off, there is no lack of extension or transient information; it's all there, at a slightly reduced level, which makes these speakers easy on the ears during long listening sessions.
Some felt that the 2000s were not the last word in soundstage depth, although they did exhibit a reasonable amount. Note that there is a large, tube-based RPTV in between and behind the speakers, which has to have a negative affect on depth.
Most of the other criticisms involved my room acoustics and speaker cables (they are too long and not properly positioned).
90% or more of the comments were positive. Some checked items off a list - soundstage, imaging, timbre, frequency balance, extension, PRAT, etc., and found them all more than acceptable for the price, and in some cases acceptable at ANY price - a real strong endorsement IMO.
The last fellow stopped by earlier this week, and generally agreed with the others. That, and a few more hours of listening myself have convinced me that keeping the 2000s is the right move.
Since they are staying, I jumped on a pair of used MWTs offered locally here on Audiogon, to be used as surrounds. I wasn't going to address the surround channels before the center channel and spiked bases, but opportunity knocked, so I jumped. Now my wallet needs to catch its breath for a bit! |
Well, good luck Rebbi, and thank you for your posts, which contributed to my (re)discovery of Ohm Acoustics. Me, I had my previous speakers for about 10 years before I decided an upgrade was necessary.
While I agree that hearing new gear and speakers is a fun part of our hobby, I just don't have the time or financial resources to do this very often. I satisfy this curiousity with audio shows (although not since Primedia went bust) and participation in my local audio club. Through this club, I've been fortunate to hear many speakers and different brands of gear. One of the things that led to my decision to keep the Ohms was hearing speakers that were much more expensive, well reviewed and well regarded, that did not impress me as much or more than the 2000s.
Finsup - I swapped in the MWTs for the 2000s last night to make sure they function properly. I am truly amazed at their performance. I did not push them very hard, but these used MWTs (not the current MicroWalsh SE), when run with my Vandersteen subs, sounded very similar to my the 2000s, almost identical! I do not regret spending for the 2000s, since they are properly sized for my room, but I can't recommend the MicroWalsh SE for smaller rooms or for people who use subwoofers strongly enough. Hopefully, I will get them in place as surrounds this weekend. I'll keep you posted.
Mapman - Congrats on the new muscle amps! Please let us know how the Ohms like the extra juice. If you have a chance to run them into your smaller Ohms, I'd love to hear if that is a worthwhile improvement as well. Although my Odyssey Stratos HT3 is no wimp (150 solid state watts/channel), I have wondered what the 2000s would do with a massive amp like your Bel Cantos. |
Thanks, Mapman - I look forward to more comments on the new amps. FWIW, I have a very similar issue with my Conrad-Johnson PV-11 preamp. Most frustrating is that the problem has persisted through two full retubes and a third replacement of the specific problem tube. The good news is that it is very intermittent, occuring maybe 10% of the time. Since getting the PV-11 out of my rack is a PITA, I am living with it for now, listening through it. When things calm down (when? if!), I will readdress this issue. But I will say that, IMO, having some glass in the system is worth the associated hassles.
Finsup - got the MWTs set up as surrounds yesterday, and did a quick and dirty channel balance. Unfortunately, the first film I watched turned out to be a 1980 picture with mono sound. I will let you know how it sounds when I get to a 5.1 soundtrack.
I did invite some club members in to hear the 2000s, but never thought to invite them to bring their amps (D'OH!). I might someday bring my 2000s to a meeting, where several amps might be available to swap in.
I have noticed something interesting lately, as I have played more rock/pop CDs: Although the Ohms are kinder to poorly recorded CDs than my Vandersteens were (especially in the upper-mids/lower-treble range), they do reveal bad recordings for what they are. They are just less exciting and involving, even while they are listenable. |
Finsup - Listened to two of my favorite 5.1 DVDs last night: "Best of Sessions At 54th Street Vol. 1" and Peter Gabriel's "Play". All I can say is wow! I still have to dial in the channel balance much more carefully than I have so far, but here's what I heard: Although my center channel is still a Vandersteen VCC-1, back-to-front uniformity of timbre was spot on. The sound pans around following the cameras on the Sessions DVD, and the effect was spooky. Plenty of spine-chills. Also, this setup easily floated sound between the front and surround speakers, above my head(!), and immediately behind my head. Detail resolution by the truckload, even exposing some kinks in the mixes on the Peter Gabriel DVD. Surround soundtracks on films should be a hoot with my rig once I get it balanced right. Note that the MWT surrounds are elevated on two cinderblocks for hieght. Now I really have a Jones for the Ohm center channel - darned economy! Finsup, IMHO, the Ohm Walsh series makes an incredible surround-sound setup.
Mapman - I agree with your take on the Ohms and poor rock recordings. I just got the best of the Replacements CD ("Did You Know Who I Thought I Was?"). The sound was underwhelming. Interesingly, as the tracks progressed to later recordings, the sound improved slightly. The last track, which is listed as "re-recorded", sounded noticeably better than the rest. |
Joefish - I think that's the CD, but it is a copied CD-R that someone gave me years ago; no live second disc. I have Welcome Home on vinyl, but since I am only on the letter "C" in my alphabetical quest to listen and digitize (in real time) my vinyl, it will be some time before I get to it. But I recall that LP as being a good sounding one even on the mid-fi gear I owned back in the 80s when I first got it. |
Guys - I really don't know what version I have. I am the third owner. I looked, and there is no "aim toward center of room" sticker on either speaker. My system is a 7.1 setup, with the MWTs on the sidewalls, just behind my chair, and a pair of Paradigm Atoms on tall stands near the back wall, some 8 feet behind the listening seat.
IMO, the one thing that makes Ohm Walsh speakers ideal for surround applications, other than the omni-dispersion pattern, is the uniformity of the sonics throughout the line. If you keep up with the columns of Kal Rubinson ("Music In the Round" in Stereophile), and other writers on the subject of surround music (not film soundtracks), having a mismatched surround system, especially in the center, is worse than having no surround at all. Problems arise for people like me who have a combined 2-channel/home theater system, since putting a third tower in the center would match the mains, but block the TV. If my experience with the MWTs and the 2000s is any guide, the Ohm Walsh Center should be a very, very close sonic match for the 2000s, making multichannel music a future possibility for me (although for now, I have no multichannel format player, and use non-matching amps and preamps for the mains and center/surround channels). But I could see how Ohm's approach could solve a lot of problems for those with TVs who want to move to surround sound for music and have uniform sound in each channel. Of course, this use of different size Ohm Walsh speakers requires a subwoofer to handle the deep bass that the smaller Ohms and Ohm center channel speaker obviously cannot reproduce in medium size and larger rooms.
Even though they were close, my Vandersteen VCC-1 center did not match exactly the Vandersteen 1C mains and surrounds I replaced with the Ohms. IMO, few manufacturers even aim for identical sound throughout their product line. Even when they do, the center is usually a compromised design, and a poor sonic match for the tower models in the same line. Ohm is one of the few speaker makers that truly has one "sound" that is just scaled for different room volumes. |
Tim - I hate to keep flogging this horse, but if you get the opportunity to hear them, the Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers should solve your issues quite nicely. Unlike most mass-market subs, they are designed to go into a corner, on the floor. In my case, after years of tinkering with a Def Tech PF15 subwoofer (including moving it around, adding a Behringer 1124P parametric EQ and a Paradigm X30 sub controller), I finally got the Def Tech to be somewhat unoffensive for music and useful for films. The Vandys, which I bought two of, used, worked perfectly in the first and only location I've had them in - the front corners of my room. These are not "bass freak" subs; they are accurate, musical subs that will produce tuneful, extended, clean bass, and plenty of it, but only when the music calls for it. Best of all, now that I have the Ohms, I can attest that the 2Wq blends seemlessly and easily with at least the Ohms and Vandersteen mains. I suspect they will blend well with most loudspeakers that are solid down to 40Hz. I urge you to check them out at the Vandersteen web site, since the design concept and connection scheme is a bit different than the usual subwoofer. I would guess that, if you only need a sub for the center and surrounds, the home theater version of this subwoofer would suffice, but I haven't heard it in a long time, so YMMV. |
Another suggestion is any album by Aimee Man (Mann?). I have listened to several, including "Lost In Space" last night. Note that this was the standard Redbook CD, not the remastered CD that is out there. Really exiting and emotionally involving. One thing I've noticed lately, is that I have to retract what I've said about the soundstage being laid back, at the plane of the speakers or behind them. On some CDs, like the Aimee Man recordings, the sound is absolutely projected fore and aft of the speakers, as well as side-to-side and top-to-bottom. The soundstage is absolutely huge, and extends above and outside the walls of my room. A real treat! Maybe they are continuing to break in even now. All of this is very dependent on the source material. The Ohm Walsh speakers are really a window on the source.
As for surround experiences, I do want to stress that my Vandersteen center is an okay match for the Ohms, but clearly is less than perfect. It has a bit of the roughness in the upper-mids/lower-treble that was characterisitc of the 1Cs. It's not terrible, but I will definitley be ordering an Ohm center when I have the wood. I watched The DaVinci Code for the first time over the weekend. Unlike with music, the film itself distracts one from evaluating the sound, but it seemed excellent to me. The sound of a car that entered from the left, behind the camera, and drove towards the center-left front of the screen tracked beautifully and seemlessly. I am very confident in recommending Ohm Walsh speakers for surround use. An ideal combo of diffuse ambience and pinpoint localized sounds.
And, John S., you are most welcome. Best of luck to you and your fantastic company! |
Ron - My wife asked me the same question! I actually have TWO pair of vandersteen 1Cs sitting in my basement (I replaced one pair with the 2000s, and the surround pair with the used MWTs I bought from an Agoner). When I told her the 2000s came with a 120-day in-home trial, so I needed to keep my Vandys until I decided whether to keep them or not, she understood. Good luck! |
Marty - I have heard the VSMs a few times at shows, and was always impressed. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to hear the latest version with customized crossovers, fed by modded BAT tube amplification, a modded Atmosphere preamp, modded VPI 'table, and a very highly modded, battery powered Sony CD player (one of the high end big Sony SACD players, but the mods killed the SACD abaility of the player). Speaker cables were home made large flat silver ribbons. A modded Velodyne subwoofer was rolled in below 30Hz. I felt the sound was quite good, but not at all forgiving of overly bright source material. Plenty of dynamics, details and sustained trails of notes, excellent PRAT and leading edge definition.
The current VSMs are a speaker I would absolutely consider if I were shopping in the $10K/pr price range. I would love to A/B the Merlins with the Silverline Audio Bolero, which also uses a Dynaudio tweeter. I would say the biggest improvement I heard with these VSMs over my Walsh 2000s was the highly refined treble. On high quality source material, the highs had a smooth, liquid quality that the Ohms don't have. Not that the highs on the Ohms are abrasive or edgey in any way, just a bit less refined and delicate. The Ohms give up nothing to the Merlins regarding imaging and soundstaging. The timbre of the Ohms is also as good as the Merlins, except perhaps the VSMs beat the Ohms in timbre of the very highest frequencies. That Dynaudio Esotar tweeter, combined with that custom crossover, is very special indeed.
That said, I feel I got pretty darn close for less than one third the price with my 2000s. Additionally, I feel the Ohms are kinder to poor source material, which means about 90% of the music I own and listen to! |
Just a listening note: I listened to Pink Floyd DSOTM last night. This was a used library copy of the standard CD. No remastering, no SACD, nadda. Yes, some of the guitar solos were a bit rough with the volume up high (I listen fairly loud), but OMG, this was a great listening experience. I could hear more of the lyrics and spoken words than ever before. The soundstage was massive, and the out-of-phase portions of the recording were flying all around my room, even behind me (just 2-channels powered up)! The clock chimes were scarily realistic. Everything, except some of those screaming guitars (and maybe that's what the producers intended them to sound like), was just right. |
Okay, to bump this thread a bit, and also since it is a little overdue, I posted my full review of my Ohm Walsh 2000s in the review section:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?rspkr&1270213477&&&/Ohm-Acoustics-Ohm-Walsh-2000-Speaker
Feel free to comment here or there! |
My Odyssey Stratos HT3 is rated at >500 continuous damping factor. While run full range the 2000s sounded great, my beloved Vandy 2Wq subs (a pair of them) naturally put more extended, more powerful bass into the room than the Ohms alone. I think the combo of the 2Wqs and the Walsh 2000s is fantastic (although any good speaker that extends to 40Hz will work well with the Vandy subs).
As for the bass on vinyl, IMO, it can be quite deep and full. True, vinyl has physical limitations, but that is what RIAA EQ (and other EQ) circuits are for. Well-recorded vinyl through the MM phono section on my Connie-J PV-11 preamp does not lack bass. Much rock on vinyl is no better mixed and mastered than rock is on CD. Garbage-in, garbage-out, as they say.
For those of you following my Walsh 2000 saga, I am hoping to order the spike cradle bases from Sound Anchors soon. |
Mapman - I did receive, gratis, from Ohm, a box full of shims and pads to level the 2000s. They do provide better leveling, but it's hard to describe just how uneven my floor is. With the speakers individually levelled, I would guess that there is about an inch in hieght difference between them.
When I order the custom-made Sound Anchors bases, I will specify a large range of adjustment via the screw in spikes. The goal is to level each speakers and get them level with each other. Also, since multiple shims and pads are now in use, moving the speakers to try and improve placement is a dicey task - it took quite a while to level each speaker. The new bases will provide a quicker way to reposition the speakers and then re-level them. Plus, even with the shims and pads, there is a little bit of play in the speakers, so that they rock a bit back-and-forth and side-to-side. I hope to eliminate this as well, even though John Strohbeen feels that this is not a problem for the Walsh designs, since the driver excursion is up-and-down and not back-and-forth. Nevertheless, my audio neurosis won't be satisfied until I get the 2000s sitting rock solid. |
Kristian85: Have you ever heard an Ohm loudspeaker? If so, please post your impressions. FWIW, I heard some fantastic kit over the weekend. I heard the $54K smaller Scena (sp?) four piece towers, driven by s.s. BAT amp and preamp, and $10K AMR CD player. Huge, open soundstage, incredible definition, decay, powerful extended bass - it was all there. Did this major-buck rig outperform my Ohm 2000s? Of course. So did a more modest (!) system consisting of KEF Reference 207 (the current version) driven by Manley 100 watt tube monos and the same AMR CD player. Big, open and airy sound with great detail and again, excellent decay. Also better then my own rig. But the KEFs cost $20K/pr. I went home and listened to my modest hodge-podge rig with my Ohm 2000s. I know it does not live up to those expensive systems I heard, but it still produced pleasing, enjoyable music, and put a smile on face. For the money, that is no small feat, and why I and others "gush" over Ohm speakers. |
Horses for courses. A few months ago, I listened to $20K/pair powered ATC towers that Kristian85 is "beholden" to (a larger version of the monitor that Holt loved so much). Along with a few other experienced audiophiles, I was less than impressed. Sure, they were very dynamic and played really loudly, but they lacked good soundstage rendering and image placement. Like many speakers that come from the pro-studio world, I found them a bit too analytical and not too musical. Here was a speaker at $20K that I liked less than my $4300 amp/speaker combo. IOW, this time, "different" was not "better". Of course, I am not bothered by Kristian85's preference for powered studio monitor speakers, and I hope he enjoys listening to music on them, but they are not for me, and many others I know.
I understand his observations of "different" vs. "better". I decided to try the Ohms specifically because they offered a radically different design from many of the speakers in my price range that didn't do it for me. For someone like me, who cannot afford to spend five figures on admittedly better speakers (not just different), the Ohms offer, IMHO, a fantastic value.
I had my last loudspeakers for nearly ten years, so I don't think I can be accused of having audio nervosa syndrome. I kept them as my mid-fi system slowly evolved to an entry-level high-end system. When I felt that improvements were no longer audible via my old speakers, I decided to upgrade. My intention is to continue to improve my source and amplification components (not because of audio nervosa, but because I have financial limitations) and hear how the upgrades manifest themselves in the Walsh 2000s.
For many of us, that's a large part of this hobby.
And Kristian85, if you are ever in central/Northern New Jersey, you are most welcome to stop by and listen to my Ohms, for more than 15 minutes, if you like. |
Rpfef: FWIW, I listen to some classical, but not a majority of the time. My impressions wih both small and larger scale classical is that the Ohms do this well. The strings are not the sweetest or most liquid I have heard, but neither are they etched, brittle or overly dry. The best part is that the character of strings (and everything else) that the Ohms have does not deteriorate as the SPLs increase. There is no sense of compression or pinched sound on loud passages (provided the recording is decent). Now, I do not run my Ohms full range. I do have subs, and the Ohms see a first order roll off below 80Hz. But in the critical upper midrange for strings, the Ohms simply blow my Vandy 1Cs out of the water.
Kristian85: I don't mean to rag on ATC. Far be it from me to denigrate a loudspeaker that J. Gordon Holt loved so much. That said, regardless of the technical measurements the ATCs I heard might produce, I simply did not care for the sound.
Also, note that some of the finest mastering studios in the world use passive loudspeakers like the B&W 802D and the KEF 207.2. These expensive speakers do detail and dynamics like the ATC, but also have other audiophile capabilities that I did not hear when I listened to the ATCs.
Zkzpb8 said it best - studio monitors have different design goals than most home hifi speakers. Home audio tries to reproduce the original performance in a home environment (which is usually far from perfect). A studio monitor is designed to let the professional hear, in his controlled environment, every minute detail so that any problems in a mix will be heard and then corrected. Soundstage, bloom, image placement and other audiophile focuses are simply not that important in the studio context. This, in fact, was exactly what I said when I heard the ATCs. They were ruthlessly revealling. If you like that kind of presentation, fine, but I don't. Now, with my Ohms, as I mentioned in my review, there is a pretty well-balanced combination of detail retreival with an absence of harshness and etch. I much prefer the Ohm's balance to the ATCs I heard.
As for the merits of powered speakers, sure, there are definite advantages. However, most audiophile powered loudspeakers are beyond my reach financially (especially those suited to my large-ish listening space). Note that the Ohm Walsh drivers run full range up to about 8kHz, and then, I believe, naturally roll off. The tweeter that comes in above 8kHz is, I think, only passively attenuated at lower frequencies. Is there any distortion in this design? I dunno, but I don't hear any. But then, I am not a trained listener.
Another thing to consider is the reason that most loudspeaker manufacturers do not offer powered loudspeakers. In the world of subjective audiophiles, amplifiers sound different. Besides the logistical issues of solid state vs. tubes vs. Class D amps, most audiophiles prefer to use their own preferred amplifiers. Does that involve a compromise in performance? Perhaps. But it also means that consumers can go for the sound they like, and put a system together that they find pleasing. But think of it this way: If I run a speaker manufacturer, do I want to eliminate from my potential customer base any audiophile who prefers, say, tube amps, by building only solid state-powered loudspeakers?
I am getting the impression that Kristian85 is an objectivist. That isn't a criticism, but it does place into context his concern for flat response, low distortion, etc. I will paraphrase Einstein here: Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that can be measured matters.
Bottom line, I know what I like. Other audiophiles that I hang out with in my local audiophile society had similar impressions with the ATC. As for my Ohms, I had a few audiophile buddies over to listen. Most agreed that the Ohm Walsh 2000s sounded pretty good overall. Some were bothered by a gentle roll-off in the highs, but this was due, I believe, to my set up of the speakers, and I like the balance where it is, for the most part. |
Update - As I posted previously, I ordered a pair of custom made, spiked cradle bases from Sound Anchors for my Walsh 2000s. Although John Strohbeen told me that this was not necessary for the Walsh speakers, my uneven floor prevented me from getting the speakers level and level with each other, and they rocked a bit too much (not rocked as in Rock & Roll, but as in back and forth). The stands were $300 plus shipping. Pictures can be seen on the Sound Anchors web site. They are solid, well made and heavy, with 3-point, adjustable spikes that screw into the base.
After I levelled the speakers on the bases, I noticed that the sound was cleaned up a bit, with a little more fine detail. The soundstage also seems a little larger than before, especially in the lateral plane.
As a side note, I think I need a different listening chair. The high-back leather reclining chairs and ottomans I bought when I set up my basement HT in 1994 are less than ideal for music listening. I discovered this when I leaned forward in the chair. The sound was significantly better in terms of details, soundstage and even smoothness in the highs. So, along with seeking improvements in acoustic treatments, cables, ICs and powercords, I will now be on the hunt for an *affordable* comfortable low-backed listing chair or two. |
D110 - Most of your assumptions are correct. I don't need the "wide sweet spot" feature of the Ohms (details on the Ohm web site), but it's still nice to have. The Shahinian is a fascinating speaker design with many loyal fans. I briefly looked into them. Unlike Ohm, there is no home-trial available. Shahinian's suggestion was for me to drive to Long Island from my New Jersey home to audition them. Having lived for years with a speaker that never sounded as good in my home as it did in the showroom, this was just a no-go for me. I insisted on a home trial for any potential speaker purchase. There is just no substitute for hearing a speaker in your room, with your gear, with your music. Of course, you can start buying and selling used speakers to try them out, with little financial risk, but the time and back-strain that goes with this meathod make it unappealing to me.
Ohm's 120-day home trial (you risk only the round-trip shipping) was ideal. And, as I have mentioned in this thread before, I really like Ohm's approach of making one "sound" for the whole Walsh line, and then scaling it for different room volumes, which are posted on the web site. I bought the 2000s, which are appropriate for my room, and I am very pleased. My complete review is posted in the speaker review section. |
Mapman has some interesting observations about the nature of bass from Ohms vs. conventional dynamic speakers. It bears repeating that, if you can achieve linear response and a seemless blend, a good subwoofer or two with the Ohm Walsh speakers makes for an appealing presentation, as far as I am concerned.
I have been aware of the excellent reputation of Shahinian speakers for years. The description Rpfef provided has great appeal to me. However, making what is for me a large financial commitment, sight unseen (and unheard), with no recourse other than selling them used if I don't like them, in my room, with my gear, was out of the question.
I fail to understand why Shahinian, which is more similar as a business to Ohm than dissimilar, can't offer an in-home trial period. Assuming Shahinian offered a model comparable in price to the Walsh 2000s, I would have loved to have both in my home for comparison, may the best speaker win. Well, in any event, I continue to enjoy my Ohms! |
Rpfef - Send me a plane ticket and I'll bring some music!
;-) |
Just an FYI sent to me by Ohm (heads-up on the subwoofer deal, Parasound) -
"Ohm will be closed from June 26 to July 12 for our Summer Holiday. These all have Ohm's 120-Day Home Trial and a 3-Year Limited Warranty. Shipping is only $50 per pair in the lower 48 states.
Walsh 5 Limited Edition NEWLY VENEERED cabinets with new Walsh 5000 drivers....Regularly $7000 Now $5400.
Walsh 300 black cabinets with new Walsh 4000 drivers......................Regularly $5600 Now $3900
Walsh 200 S-3 rosewood cabinets with new Walsh 3000 drivers...................Regularly $4000 Now $2800
Walsh 100 walnut cabinets with new Walsh 2000 drivers.....................Regularly $2800 Now $1900
Walsh 100-S3 cherry cabinets....Regularly $2000 Now $1300
MicroWalsh Tall Signature Edition in rosewood ...............Regularly $1400 Now $1000
SB-12D rosewood subwoofer, dual 12" driver in end-table cabinet.................Regularly $1200 Now $ 850
MicroWalsh Short Omnis in walnut cabinets................Regularly $ 950 Now $ 665
Must ORDER by June 25, 2010.
Call me to discuss your needs and options.
Good Listening!
John Strohbeen, President, 800-783-1553"
NOTE: I am not affiliated with Ohm Acoustics in any way outside of being a satisfied customer. |
Mapman - One of my most treasured finds is a Mercury Living Presence of Frederick Fennel conducting the Cole Porter song book. It's a Wilma Cozart production, stereo, in remarkably good condition. It can make almost any vinyl playbeck system sound wonderful.
Diebenkorn - interesting observations. I have noticed that if I scoot my chair up from it's usual position to form a roughly equilateral triangle, about 4.5" per side, my Walsh 2000s do sound better than from further away.
A teaser - I am trying a new preamp out on my system. Way too early to post any more info, but I will eventually. |
Okay - I am ready to break my silence. (Pause, while I put on my flame-proof protective suit). I recently decided to stop trying to get my Conrad Johnson PV-11 preamp to behave and replace it. I wanted to stay with tubes, I wanted all the features of the PV-11 plus several more - remote control, a balance control with more range (I have acoustic issues) and - gulp - tone controls (quick duck and cover). Those of you who know the preamp market know that that left me really only one choice: McIntosh. Mac gear is mostly out of my price range, but I decided to splurge on a used C220 hybrid tube preamp. This is a current model, in production since 2006. I went with Audio Classics as a dealer. Although I paid a bit more than I might have here or on that big auction site, I got a guaranty, a home-trial period, and a trade-up option. Since I had never heard this piece before, the home trial was a must.
A full detailed review will eventually go up on this site, but for now, I have decided to keep the C220. Yes, it is warm sounding, as you would expect from Mac. But, it is not your father's McIntosh tube preamp. It is pretty extended up top, and especially so in the bottom (I discovered I had been missing a good part of the lowest octave). It is pretty quiet, especially for a tube pre. It is extremely well built, and pleasurable to use. Compared to the Connie-J, I do feel I am giving up a little soundstage width and perhaps some tube bloom. That said, this pre is cleaner-sounding, with better image placement (anyone who doesn't believe Ohm Walsh speakers can project a solid image needs to hear my current system). I am also getting a hint of soundstage depth, of which I had none with the PV-11 (I do have a 55" RPTV behind and between the speakers). Most of all, though, I am tapping my toes more, and playing more air guitar since the change. And it turns out that about 90% of the channel imbalance issue I had with the C-J was in fact the C-J. Just 2 or 3 clicks of the balance control (out of 107 possible) are sufficient to provide a dead-centered image.
The internal MM phono section seems about as good as the PV-11's.
Another area where there is a big difference is in sibilants. They are very different on the C220 than on the PV-11. Overall, I think they are more realistic, although they can be a little too pronounced on some recordings (which means it is likely the recordings, not the C220, at fault). The improved sibilants are matched by improved transients as well. This, I think, is what is responsible for the improved imaging I am hearing. The transient info is more attached in space to the musical notes that follow. At no time is the sound edgy, brittle or wince-inducing, even when played pretty loud.
Those tone controls have not been used extensively. Mostly, I am in the Tone Bypass mode. However, when a particularly ugly CD is played, they have come in handy, and do not seem to harm the signal at all. It has enabled me to simplify my system by removing the Behringer parametric EQ which, as the C220 exposed, was not very transparent.
There is only one area that caused me some concern with this upgrade. There is occasionally, on some recordings, a small patch of roughness or exaggeration at around 8kHz. Guess what the Walsh 2000 does at 8kHz? Yup - the hand-off from Walsh driver to tweeter. I am not sure what to make of this, but it is rare. Perhaps it's a little bump in the C220's response curve, or perhaps it is transparent enough to expose the limits of whatever crossover components are used in the 2000.
Some of the best sound I've listened to thus far was from Norah Jones ("The Very Thought of You") and Pink Floyd ("Wish You Were Here"). Note that the Pink Floyd CD is a standard CD reissue, not an audiophile item, and it had always been a fatugue-inducing recording. Through the C220 and Ohms, it was simply real sounding and musical.
This is my first "modern" stereo preamp. I must say that I do feel I am now in the grown-up section of the pool. And I cannot stress enough how amazing the Ohm Walsh 2000s are. That a sub-$3000/pr loudspeaker allows me to hear so clearly the differences between preamps, digital players and a cheap EQ is truly remarkable. I doubt many speakers in this price range can do that.
More formal review and observations to come. |
Thanks, all. Marty - I just meant that I felt like I was playing with the Big Boys now, as opposed to struggling at the margins of the high end. Yes, there is plenty of pee in the world of high end audio! So far, I think have avoided it. :-) |
Simon, Finsup - I agree totally. I have MWTs as surrounds. They are up on a pair of cinder blocks to get them above ear level. Although the right surround is pretty close to my seat, I do not get any speaker localization issues with this set up (see my system link for the whole rig).
I find it interesting that you have back surrounds from Ohm, too. Currently I have a pair of Paradigm Atoms on tall stands as back surrounds. Since I upgraded to Ohms for 5 of the channels, I have been pondering whether to stick with 7.1 or go to 5.1. But a pair of Walsh Walls mounted on the back wall is tempting. No funding available right now, though. That Mac preamp pretty much broke the bank. Oh well. |
Maybe I was spoiled? Funny, but the soundstage aspects of the Walsh 2000s that I bought last year were not what made them keepers for me. Sure, the soundstage is huge and holographic, but properly set up (which mine were), the Vandersteen 1Cs I had before also could do some amazing things with soundstage reproduction. As a result, the first thing I noticed when I fired up the Ohms was not a bigger soundstage, but an amazing truth in timbre that the 1Cs lacked. Now, I have heard many loudspeakers that tend to bunch the sound around each speaker. If you are used to that kind of soundstage, then, heck yeah, the Ohms will knock you out of your chair with their soundstage abilities.
As time has passed, I have noticed some differences in the soundstage: Overall, the soundstage is not as far into the room as was the Vandys, different, not better or worse. That said, I think the Ohms do a better job of reflecting what is in the recording, soundstage-wise. The Vandys, I think, kind of created a lot of soundstage fireworks, whether they were on the record or not. Interestingly, the new McIntosh preamp has changed the soundstage presentation of the 2000s. Mostly for the better, with a little more forwardness in the presentation, and a bit more depth. |
Foster - I couldn't agree more! I was gradually upgrading my electronics and cables, and eventually realized that I had taken my old speakers as far as they could go. In the year that I've had the Walsh 2000s, I have made some upgrades - a new DAC, moddified my turntable, a new cartridge, and a new preamp. In each case, the 2000s revealed the differences. Although I am really enjoying my system right now, I agree with you that I can only benefit from further system improvements.
Don't worry about that dealer; I bet he'd say that about any speaker he didn't carry. People who discredit Ohm products either haven't heard them or haven't heard them in a good system that is well set up. Even people who have had Ohms in the past and moved on generally speak highly of Ohm's speakers.
Interestingly, John Strohbeen told me that he does not do trade shows for that very reason - too little time to do it right and show his products properly.
John S. really has a talent for voicing loudspeakers. All we consumers have to do is add the right electronics, cables and a proper set up to benefit more fully from this talent! |
Good news, Bruecksteve! Please keep us posted. |
Frazeurl - as you know, I have been using a used pair of MWTs for surrounds for a while now. Absolutely terrific, crossed over @ 80Hz to a Def Tech subwoofer. I get a real 360 degree sound field with excellent uniformity of tone front to back. Enjoy! |
Just an update on my first anniversary of deciding to keep the Walsh 2000s. Over the year, I have made numerous improvements to my system. I have added a new DAC (K-Works SupperBerry, a highly modded Beresford DAC), new digital cable, new preamp (McIntosh C220), custom cradle bases for the Ohms, and had my vintage Thorens 'table modified and fitted with a new cartridge (Denon DL-160). In each case, the 2000s allowed me to clearly hear the differences before and after. Even the difference in the upgraded digital cable, which I thought I would never be able to hear, was clearly and dramatically resolved by the Ohms. I went from a $20 digital cable to a $300 digital cable (K-Works Goldenheart Digital), and I can honestly say it was worth it.
In fact, there is almost no comparison between the sound I was getting a year ago and the sound I am getting today. It is miles better! The 2000s continue to delite and amaze me, and I am sure that future upgrades in associated gear will yield even more improvements.
I have been a member of the local audio club for about two years now, and have heard many different systems and speakers, some costing many multiples of the 2000s. While I have heard some great sound at these meetings, I never feel bad when I return home and fire up my Ohms. Of course, all these systems sound different, but as my electronics and cables have improved, I have narrowed the gap with those mega-buck systems considerably.
Kudos to John and his employees at Ohm - they have made it possible for me to enjoy champagne on a beer budget! |
Sndsrtaud: FWIW, I upgraded to a used McIntosh C220 tube-hybrid preamp last summer. At full list price new, this preamp alone lists for more than my Ohm Walsh 2000s ($4000 vs. $2800). Am I becomming a Linnie, focusing on source and front end gear? Perhaps, but the Ohms really do punch above their weight, and I can't imagine upgrading to other speakers unless I win the lottery. The biggest shock was the Ohm's ability to highlight the differences in digital cables I mentioned above. I now have come to understand that those who say cable is cable are either hard of hearing or lack the speakers and gear of sufficient resolution to allow hearing cable differences.
If you ever want to get back to Ohms, Sndsrtaud, look on this site for used offerings, and talk to John Strohbeen at Ohm about updated drivers in older, refurbished cabinets. The prices on these one-offs can make Ohm Walsh designs even more affordable. |
FYI - I have had a lot of "Holy Crap!" moments with my Walsh 2000s. Had another one last weekend.
I was getting ready to box up an old Onkyo Dolby ProLogic AVR, retiring from the den. I wanted to see if was functioning properly first, so I fed it with my MacIntosh C220 preamp and hooked the 2000s to it directly (no subwoofer, full range). WOW! I have never really listened to the 2000s full range much before, but the bass output was amazing. Deep, tight, clean and powerful, subjectively almost as powerful as my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers! The rest of the audio spectrum sounded great as well. I ended up listening to some of my Reference Recordings CDs. Although I think my big rig amp sounds better, and the subwoofers to give a nice assist to the amp and Ohm speakers, the difference was not as wide as I would have expected.
Ohm rocks! |
Hyperion85 - Yes, Mapman, as usual, provided solid advice. I have heard various Mirage models. The better ones, like the OMD line, do indeed sound really good. But they are very different designs from the Walsh line. After 2 years with my Ohm Walsh 2000s, though, I have no regrets at all. In fact, as I have made improvements to the rest of my system, the 2000s have responded with more and more magnificent sound. I just listened to all 3 discs of the Riki Lee Jones compilation "The Dutchess of Coolsville." Besides wondering why I never paid more attention to Jones as an incredible performer, I was almost moved to tears by the beauty of this well produced Red Book CD.
To me, and this is where the Ohms may diverge from the Mirages, the Ohms present just the right amount of transient information, enough so that you can tell it's all there, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming at higher volumes, or so much that it masks other details in the music. This past Sunday, I heard a $40,000 speaker system on a rig that cost easily $100K, in a treated room. Was it a great stereo? Yes. Did it do everything better than my modest system? Nope. When it was cranked, this pricey system made me wince with a blaring quality in the upper mids. My Ohms almost never do that, at any volume, unless the source material is really peaky in this range. Listening to that Riki Lee Jones CD, I realized that if someone offered me those $40K speakers as a cash-free trade for my Ohms, I would turn down the offer. Seriously.
Give some time for your 1000s to break in (it's absolutely a big factor with the Ohm Walsh speakers). Experiment with toe-in, remembering that with this series, toe-in reduces upper-treble output from the super-tweeter at the listening seat, and toe-out increases it. Get the speakers level and level with each other. And try different locations if you can. When properly set up, the soundstage on these speakers is not only huge, but accurate to the source recording, with excellent image placement and solidity.
As I have often said about these speakers, I may upgrade many other parts of my system and try to improve my room, but the Ohms are staying for the long haul. |
FWIW, I picked up a used pair of MWTs for surround speakers and also bought an Ohm Walsh center (smaller model). The center and MWTs are both very similar in voicing to my Walsh 2000s (current model). The MWTs were a little less dynamic than the 2000s, but with my subwoofers kicking in below 80 Hz, there was little apparent difference between the MWTs and the 2000s. One of the Ohm Walsh strengths, IMHO, is the uniformity of voicing throughout the line, even between older and newer models.
John Strohbeen goes for a certain kind of sound. If you like it, I bet you will like any speaker he has ever designed. The newer designs might just be more of a good thing if you like the Ohm sound.
Oh, and yet another mega-buck speaker that I would not trade my 2000s for: Just heard the Martin Logan CLX flagship, run on Pass amps and Esoteric source gear. They were very nice, but I still prefer my humble Ohms, at a little over 1/10 the price! |
Yeah, welcome aboard Phaelon. Addictive is the word I most often use for my Ohms. And they keep getting better every time I upgrade things upstream. |
Phaelon56: I originally ran my Ohm 2000s with a C-J PV-11 preamp and SS amp. The sound was great, but due to several issues, including an impedance missmatch between the C-J and the SS amp, I upgraded to a McIntosh C220 tube-hybrid preamp. The results are fantastic. Like Mapman, I have found that the tube-pre/SS-amp combo is the magic ticket. Also, consider saving for a new DAC if your current CDP can be used as a transport. While you will have to invest in a decent digital cable, it will give you added flexibility in the future. I recently added a music sever and Squeezebox Touch to my system, and having a stand-alone DAC made the addition seemless. |
Yet another moment when I realized how fortunate I am to have the Walsh 2000s: I stopped by a local dealer the other evening to pick up something I'd had serviced there. This dealer (the excellent John Rutan at Audio Connection) offered to play the Vandersteen 7s for me. How could I refuse? He had them in a nice-sized and treated room, with Aesthetix amps and an ARC preamp, all SOTA stuff. The sound was indeed amazing. I'd heard these before, but not from the sweet spot. Incredible sound stage width and depth, just-right transients, deep, tuneful, tight bass, and timbre that was simply spot-on. These might be my "I just won the Powerball lottery" speakers. Nevertheless, all the things that I liked about these $45,000 speakers are simply more of exactly what I like about my Ohm Walsh 2000s. I noted the basic similarity of the way both speakers produce a palpable image of performers and instruments, of the accurate reproduction of instrument timbre, the ability of the speakers to dissappear into the soundstage, and the transients that were there, but never in-my-face. Were the 7s, driven by this SOTA front end, in a treated room, better than my Ohms? Yes, they were. But not by the margin that the price difference would suggest.
The item I had serviced should take my system to the next level. Stay tuned. |
I had stability issues with my uneven floor as well. I had Sound Anchors make me some three-point spike cradle bases for the 2000s, with similar results to what Phaelon got. Note that even concrete has resonance. My preferred audio guru likes absorption for source components and amps, but prefers coupling for loudspeakers - hence the spiked bases.
I added a K-Works Ersamat to my vintage Thorens table with excellent results. Not as exotic or labor-intensive as making a deerskin mat, but easy and effective, IME.
As for LP cleaning, I spent a little more than Phaelon on the KAB EV-1, which likewise does an awesome job on used LPs. Listened last night to a Denny Christianson Big Band LP ("More Pepper"). Not the best big band LP I've ever heard, but the sonics were spectacular, and the bass was equal to anything I've heard from digital!
I am going to hear KEF's The Blade tonight. I'll post my thoughts at some point. |
Once again - I have heard a respected company's Statement Speaker, in this case the KEF Blade, and come away impressed, but not depressed. The Blade is a wonderful speaker, with excellent detail retrieval, image solidity and extension at both extremes. Of course, they sounded like a point source, a design goal that was met. Yet, the soundstage was confined to the area between the speakers. In that regard, I still prefer the Ref 205 & 207 to the Blade.
Bottom line: While the Blade is actually fairly priced at $30K, my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy. |
Mapman - I agree completely. While I really enjoy listening to my system as it is currently configured, the Ohms respond very well to upgrades. I am currently evaluating a pair of Vandersteen MHP-5 crossovers (I have a pair of Vandy subs) that replaced Vandersteen's basic crossovers. So far, the Ohms let me hear the improvements in the crossovers: Smoother mids and treble, better low-level detail, more stable imaging, and more bass (to the point that I will probably dial back the subs).
I am also planning several IC and power cord upgrades. As always, I will post my impressions here. |
Carja - I posted some comments on your system page. When you say you moved them in a bit and were surrounded by sound, does that mean you are getting more depth of soundstage? |
Parasound - Funny you should say you don't even audition speakers anymore. Since I joined my local audio club a few years ago, I have been able to audition dozens of speakers, plus electronics of all sorts. As my earlier posts explain, I love doing this. While before I had the Ohms, these auditions would always send me home completely unexcited by my own rig, now I actually look forward to coming home and firing up the Ohms. I have heard speakers that cost 10 times as much, and more, than my 2000s that I would not trade for. It's really amazing. In fact, the few times I have felt that someone's system was superior was not with mega-buck speakers, but with good mid-priced speakers, like an older Martin Logan model. And yet, I think that front-end, cable and acoustic improvements will get me there, all without a speaker upgrade. I haven't ventured into that "speakers to hold onto for life" thread, but more and more, I am realizing that these might well be my last loudspeakers (barring a lottery hit).
Mapman - I have been dipping my toe into the power cord waters. An entry level PS Audio cord seems to do no harm to my amp, and is perhaps just slightly quieter. A more expensive pc from K-Works, for my preamp, did indeed lower the noise floor and increase apparent soundstage width. Since I will soon need a longer pc for the amp, I expect I will try something else, perhaps Audio Art. Once I get that done, I will finally upgrade my speaker cables, which are older Kimber entry level. I'll keep you posted. |
Mapman - I own a few. All bought for a buck or three each. I have a Mercury Living Stereo of Fredrick Fennel conducting songs by Cole Porter, engineered by Wilma Fine (pre-Mrs. Cozart days). It is pristine, both the LP and the jacket, and is one of the best sounding LPs I have ever heard. Enjoy your new finds! |
Thanks Mapman and Carja. I'd love to get my 2000s farther away from the back and side walls, but I have very little space to work with. The speakers are in an alcove of my 22' X 18' basement (with only 6' ceilings). The alcove is only about 9 or 10 ft. wide, and my seating position is about 12 ft from the front wall. So, with the 2000s about 3' away from the front wall, and about 2 to 2.5' away from the side walls, the speakers are barely 5' apart. Any closer together, and they would obscure the Plasma TV. I do have some acoustic foam at driver height behind and to the sides of the speakers, and I am thinking of removing at least the foam that is along the front wall.
So, if I am understanding this correctly, Mapman thinks my Plasma TV centered on the front wall between the Ohms might be a good thing as is, while Carja would suggest covering up the TV with curtains for critical listening. Hmmm. What to do?
I love the sound I have now, but there is not much depth, so I will continue to experiment.
By the way, a local speaker builder has a wonderful web site with many interesting essays on hi-fi, including some on omnidirectional speakers. Check it out:
http://www.parallelhomeaudio.net/PAMain.html |
