ps: FWIW, my 2000s continued to break in for about 6 months, although I cannot tell you exectly how many hours that was. "Strident" is the last thing that I would call my 2000s. I don't doubt what your wife was hearing, but it seems odd to me. I do think that if there is any range in which the 2000s miss a step, it is in the 7-8kHz range where the tweeter kicks in. I would say that this range is at least as good as many competing speakers in that range, although perhaps no better.
martykl: Long Live the Man Cave! Stacks of black boxes with lights, ugly racks, wires everywhere and my 2000s. All in the basement where nobody cares what it looks like, only what it sounds like!
frazuer1: Totally agree with you about this thread.
Mapman: Exactly. Your post took the words out of my mouth (or the keystrokes out of my hands). |
peterr53 - Wow! You answered one of my nagging questions: How would Ohms sound with a ribbon tweeter? So, we have to ask, which tweeter did you use? Is it a folded-type? I have really liked most of the Heil-type folded ribbon tweets I have heard. While the Ohm tweeter in my 2000s is good, I have long felt that it is not the strongest part of the design. I am helpless and hopeless when it comes to DIY, but I know some people who are quite good. Not sure I want to put my Ohms under the knife, but, you never know!
BTW, I like my Ohm center, in stock form, just fine. I sit pretty close, (~9 feet), and have a stand that aims the driver and tweeter right at my ears. But I do not doubt your own experience. |
Darn it, Peterr53! You have really stoked my curiousity. Not having any of the DIY skills you do (and even if I did, I have no time, anyway), I am searching through my Swiss-cheese of a memory for people I know and trust that can do this mod correctly and affodably. Just one question: I really like my Ohm Walsh 2000s way with the upper mids and lower treble - not too hot, but with plenty of fine detail. In your opinion, does your mod make this range a lot hotter? I would hate to do this mod and lose the smoothness I enjoy in this part of the band. Thanks! |
peterr53 - Remember that there is really only one setting of the switches that works for each listener in a given room. If you want, you could make your settings permanent and fixed, and eliminate the switches. This would reduce the speakers' utility in other rooms or for other listeners, however. |
That's some good Audio porn right there, Peterr53! Keep the pics coming. This is fascinating! |
Wow! I finally got to hear a DOUBLE PAIR of Ohm Fs. I was at an audio club event in New Jersey at Harry Weisfeld’s home in Holmdel, NJ. Harry owns two pair of restored Ohm F speakers, with a wooden bracket that allows the second pair to be placed, upside-down, over the first pair. They are connected in series. I had seen these before, on static display (and even saw a similar pair for sale on ebay for $10,000). I don’t have the money or the room for such a set up, nor do I have the amplifier power.
This pair of pairs of Ohm Fs sounded very good. Smooth, fairly extended, and with all of the soundstage attributes you’d expect. Sadly, the room was on the the small side for these speakers, and the amplification was a restored Marantz receiver from the 1970s. I suspect (and have heard from others who have listened to these pairs) that a larger room and more powerful amplification would have made them really sing. Still, I am glad I got to hear them. |
Don't be put off by that response graph. My 2000s' response graph had a similar overall shape. IMHO, systems that tilt downward to the right are much more listenable, realistic, and involving over the long run. If you want, EQ the system to be flat and see how you like it. I know I would not like it at all. |
Mapman - I don't want to sound like I am bragging, but both in this case and at Ohm's room at the Chester Group Show in NYC in November, I preferred my system by a significant margin.
In the case of he doubled Ohm Fs, I could see how they might be a bit smoother and more relaxed than my 2000s (a lot more cone surface area). But as good as they were, they could not match the bass output of my Vandy subs. Also, the turntable feeding the Mark Levinson preamp and Marantz receiver was not operating perfectly (a long story that I am not at liberty to discuss). I think there also may have been issues with one of the four speakers (a blown fuse may have been replaced during the day). Add to that the unfamiliar source material, vintage SS low powered amplification, and rather small room, and it wasn't a legitimate comparison.
At the THE show, I thought the 1000s were just okay. Hotel room acoustics weren't helping, and although the Peachtree integrated had enough juice (150 watts X 2), the Sony DVD player used as a source (into the Peachtree's DAC) was not exactly a high end front end. They sounded good, and impressed a lot of show goers. But to me, they fell a bit short of my own rig.
As Paul McGowan of PS Audio would say, maybe I am just acclimated to my own rig. But I think I have the whole system dialed in pretty well. The funny part is, I haven't put a lot of effort into it. The 2000s are positioned where the room dictates - there aren't many options for placement if I want to keep them away from front and side walls. I put up some foam panels, but I had even more up and took some down. I think I could use some diffusion, but that's pricey, and, for now, on hold. The Vandy subs I just plunked in the front corners as per Vandersteen's recommendation. The only tweeks are mass loading on the subs, my 3-point Sound Anchor cradle bases for the 2000s, and some foam speaker cable supports. I also credit the Odyssey Audio amp. At the same meeting I heard the Ohms Fs, I also heard KEF Blades. I've heard the Blades numerous times, including at the Wiesfeld's home, and never was too thrilled. This time, they were really good. Not, "take my Wilsons and give me these" good, but better than I'd ever heard them before. Guess what amps were powering them? Odyssey Audio Stratos Monos. "Only" 180 watts per side, arguably a bit low-powered for The Blade, but the sound was really good.
Bottom line: I'd rather be lucky than smart. I have sort of stumbled into what I consider really good sound in my home. Sure, I did some research and listening, but I made a lot of educated guesses and ended up with I think is excellent system synergy. |
frazeur1: IIRC, the tweeter rolling in above 7 kHz was stated on the old Ohm web site. I did a quick search for this on the current Ohm web site and found no mention of the tweeter at all. But if you really want to know, call (don't email) John Strohbeen. I am sure you will get a clear answer. |
Mapman - The 7 kHz roll-in for the tweeter, IIRC, was mentioned somewhere on the old Ohm web site. Next month, I will be hearing the German Physiks speakers, which use a Dick's Dipole Walsh-type driver for all but the low bass frequencies. No tweeter, just like the F's. In fact, a dealer told me the inspiration for the German Physiks was the Ohm Walsh speakers. The designer wondered what could be done with fewer cost constraints than Ohm was under. They do roll off above 18 kHz, but I see no reason why the Ohm Walsh drivers can't go higher than 2 or 3 kHz. The beaming you would get from a full range, forward radiating 8" driver should be ameliorated by the Walsh omni radiating pattern, I would think. I would bet that listening to Walshes without the tweeter would not be as treble-less sounding as the graph suggests. That said, just looking at the Fs is instructional. It has no tweeter, but the tall cone shape of the driver suggests it can reproduce higher frequencies from the narrower portions of the cone, near the top. Current Walsh drivers appear to be conventional, shallow cones that lack the tall profile of the Ohm F drivers. Hence the super-tweeter. That John was able to adapt the Walsh principles to a design using conventional drivers speaks volumes about his ability to design speakers, and to keep costs down, which is probably the reason for the change in driver design. And, I fully agree, the proof is in the listening. John simply knows how to voice speakers. A production version of what Peterr53 is going to end up with would probably be priced in the $20,000 range, or more.
Peterr53 - While I have no doubt the Ohms can be improved by using a higher quality tweeter, I do question the wisdom of moving the crossover from 7 kHz to ~2.5 kHz. One of the things that makes the Ohm Walsh speakers special, IMHO, is that there is no crossover in that critical 2-5 kHz range. Very few conventional speakers that I have heard with crossovers in that range sound good to me in the upper mid/lower treble range. But with your digital crossover, you will have total flexibility to dial in the crossover as you feel it sounds best. |
Mapman: Lafayette Radio!!! I worked there one year in college, 1982-1983. They were already owned by Circuit City, but still doing biz as Lafayette Radio. I was in the store on 45th St. in Manhattan. That street also had a number of other hifi stores.
Peterr53: You are correct about the "super-tweeter" definition. But consider that different models of the x000 might go a bit higher before handing off to the tweeter. And, again, I remember that the old Ohm web site did mention something about a 7kHz crossover (actually, just a resistor on the tweeter, as the main driver rolled off naturally above 7 kHz). A very rough phone app RTA showed that my in-room response did indeed tilt downward as the frequency rose. I actually expected this, and I am quite pleased with it. I do not feel as if I am missing anything in the higher frequencies at all. They are just a little subdued, which makes the system listenable for hours and hours with no fatigue. Could they be better? Sure. That's why I am following your posts so carefully. While I could never do what you're doing, I might pay someone who can to do these things. A bit of a risk, but if the results are as significant as you suggest they might be, maybe it's worth it. |
@t8kc... If you read through this thread, you will see that from the start, I have run my 2000s with a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs. Overkill? Perhaps, but I love extended, clean bass, and this combo works extremely well. Dynamics can be startling. The 2000s are surely not bass-shy speakers, but with these subs, my rig punches well above its weight. |
t8kc - You sparked my curiousity with your post. I have never heard 4XO's, but I have owned a pair of 2000s for over seven years and I love them. What about the 2.2000 upgrade did you find dissappointing? |
t8kc - Very interesting post about your 2.2000s. I feed my 2000s with 150 watts per side (Odyssey Audio HT3 w/cap upgrade). But, IIRC, Mapman feeds his big Walsh's with 500 or 1000 watts per side (Bel Canto).
I think mine sound good with the mere(!) 150 watt amp because I cross them over (1st order) at 40 Hz to my powered Vandy subs. I did once have a pair of 500 watt mono blocks from Arion Audio for a demo in my system. They sounded great, but I was hard pressed to hear any big advantage over the Odyssey Audio amp in my system (again, which includes powered subs).
But if you want a good-sounding amp with plenty of juice, I would recommend a trial of the Arion Audio - http://arionaudio.com/. It appears they offer some sort of in-home audition program, and owner/designer Mike Kallelis is a terrific guy. |
Sounds like a plan, t8kc. Keep us posted. |
peterr53: I have my 2000s on Sound Anchor cradle bases, mostly for stability, but they did help overall with imaging and cleaned up the sound a bit.
t8kc: The subwoofer option works for me. I am a big proponent of dual subs for stereo, however. Ohm makes a subwoofer, and I cannot say enough good things about my pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs with MHP5 battery biased crossovers. I actually owned the subs before the Ohms, and a seamless blend with the Ohms was crucial. In fact, had the 2000s not worked well with the Vandy subs, I would not have kept the Ohms (that's how much I like the subs). When you add the 300 watts per channel of the subs to my 150 watts from the Odyssey amp, you get pretty close to the 500 watts per channel mapman uses (I know the 300 watts are not driving the Ohms, but, still, it's interesting). I reviewed the Vandy subs here on Audiogon if you want to read more. They have a unique crossover architecture, and are designed for corner placement (why other subs are not, I will never understand). I guess it depends if you are a bass-freak, like me, or not. The 2000s put out a decent amount of bass down into the mid-30s, I would guess, but there is no substitute for a pair of ballsy powered subs.
But if I had the cash, I might go for the gold with both the subs and a bigger power amp. Nevertheless, I am content with my system as it is, even though I know it could always be better. |
enginedr1960: Thanks for the post. Sounds like a very cool rig. I love the DSPeaker, and was tempted a few times to buy one at audio shows. But I actually have a seemless blend with my subs and it is impossible to point them out as a sound source. Like the Ohms, the music just hangs there in mid-air, as if no speakers were in the room. Lovin' it!
I dio have a Pioneer AVR for watching video (my system is a combo 2-channel & surround setup), whch has the MCACC room EQ feature. Although the AVR is nnot in the signal chain for 2-channel sources, I can easily hear the improvement infrequency balance that MCACC calibration makes when I listen to music through te AVR. But the cost in transparency and other aspects of the sond are too great. Fortunately, my room is pretty good in terms of acoustics, though far from perfect. In fact, I have tone controls on my preamp and rarely use them. |
tuthman - I haven't heard the sat 4's, but the long range plan is to replace the back surrounds with small Ohms at some point. Remember, they also come with a 120-day return option. OTOH, in my system, the Pioneer MCACC room EQ I use for surround sound does a good job of smoothing out any gross differences between the Paradigm Atoms and the Ohms. Honestly, if I was starting from scratch, I might skip the surround back channels in favor of Atmos channels. But financial realities mean that I am largely done for the forseeable future. |
tuthman - If you want to skip the many posts I've made about my Ohms, let me just say this: As an active member of my local audio club, I hear a lot of speakers. Major brands, DIY, you name it, in almost all price ranges. It is extremely rare that I walk away from a system, whether in a member's home, a retail store, or an audio show, wishing I could switch my Ohms for what I just heard. In almost every case, the few speakers that made me want to abandon my Ohms were far more expensive than my Ohms.
I have not heard the Pendragons, so I don't have an opinion on them.
My system is a combo stereo/home theater setup. I have 2000s up front, an Ohm center, Ohm MWTs (bought used) for the surround channels and a pair of Paradigm Atoms for the rear surrounds. I am very pleased with the sound for both 2-channel and surround use. Note that I have three subs: A pair of Vandersteen 2Wqs, one each for the 2000s, and an old Def Tech powered sub for surround use and LFE (I run the front L/R as full range and the rest as "small").
I always admit that my system could be better, but not without dropping a lot more coin than I can afford. I would give your Ohms a chance. I too had to wait for delivery, and seven years later, I am glad I waited. The Ohms blew away the Vandersteen 1Cs I had before the Ohms. Please remember to let them break in for a while. They will undergo significant changes as they break in. As for the Ohms being an older design, they have been refined over the years, and, IMO, good speaker design has not changed much in recent years. Aside from CAD, the laws of physics remain the same, and a good speaker is a good speaker. This is not like digital technology that is constantly evolving. And Ohm owner-designer John Strohbeen is a master at voicing loudspeakers, which is as much art as it is science. That I was able to get the level of audio performance I got for the money I spent still brings a goofy grin to my face, especially when the system is fired up and I am in the zone. Music is my drug of choice, and my Ohms deliver it right into my veins.
Lastly, remember, you have four months to return them. Take your time. I doubt you will be dissappointed. |
Wow - just saw on ebay a pair of NOS(!) Ohm Walsh 3X0's. $750, plus shipping from TX. Boy, if I had the money laying around.... |
Thanks, Peter. Rest assured, we are reading and trying to absorb your thoughts. For those of us with no engineering background, your work is amazing. I could never attempt such a thing. I haven't the time, the space, the spare speakers, or the knowledge to do so. I am like Homer Simpson when it comes to DIY. Everything I try ends up looking like the Simpson's spice rack. But, still, I am reading your posts and thinking about what could be done in the future with a pair of used Ohms from ebay at the hands of some capable people I know in my area.
We look forward to your future posts. |
Hey, peterr53, I was having just keeping up with your pace of work on the Ohms! Take your time, of course, but do keep us posted, please. |
ps: Welcome back! That's some pretty impressive company, the S-Fs and the MMGs. I am curious - what electronics are you running the MWTs off of? I have found that upstream gear can make huge difference for Ohm speakers. |
Peter - Thanks again for the update. Being able to tune the bass "Q" is a wonderful feature. My subwoofers have that (Vandersteen 2Wq).
Seperately, I had a good listen to Magico S5 MkII speakers at an audio club meeting last Sunday. No, my Ohms are not as good as the Magicos. But the presentation was very different - top-down is how I would describe it, while my system is definitely bottom-up. Here is my point: While I find the Ohms pretty good at detail resolution, they are not so transparent (or ruthless) that poorly recorded music becomes unlistenable. The Magicos are that type of speaker: So pure, so clean, and so revealing, that inferior source material becomes unlistenable. Every bit of excess brightness in a recording, a poor soundstage, and any number of problems with the recording becomes so annoying that listening to that music is not a pleasent experience. Would I like the purity and the freedom from distortion the Magicos (along with a pretty expensive chain of electronics) are capable of? Sure. But not if that meant I could no longer listen to the music I love because it was poorly recorded or mastered. Anyway, at $38K the pair, for me, it’s just an academic question! |
Congrats, Rodm2001 ! Please remember to allow plenty of break-in time before reaching any conclusions. Also, leveling the speakers with the floor and each other does, IME, make a difference, even if John Strohbeen might disagree with me :-) |
rodm_2001 - While I do not apply room correction to my 2000s when listening to music in stereo, I do use a Pioneer AVR for film and TV viewing. This AVR has Pioneer’s MCACC room EQ program. It works quite well, and the results are pleasing with my Ohm center, Ohm MWT surrounds, Def Tech sub and Paradigm Atom rear surrounds. But I don’t have any desire to apply this room EQ to my stereo music signal chain. |
If you look at my review, although I do run my 2000s each with their own sub (first order cross-over @80Hz), I did run them briefly full range. The bass extension and output was surprisingly deep, even and strong. I think you’ll be fine, especially since you are getting the larger 3000 driver. |
I guess I should put in my 2 cents, too! ;-)
IMHO, I agree that current Ohm Walsh speakers are not true Walsh designs. That said, I am aware that true Walsh driver based speakers are available (German Physiks, Dale Harder, and a few others). But with one exception, the prices are generally much higher than the Ohm products. That exception is the guy that makes tube amps and a few different speakers and has an omni with a ribbon tweeter for ~$2500. I can’t recall the name right now (senior moment). So, when evaluating Ohm products, I look at the value proposition. I think John Strohbeen is a master of speaker voicing, and has produced an inexpensive line of high-performance quasi-omni speakers that kick much of the competition (price-wise) in the pants. So, for those of us with neither the money for an HHR product or the time and know-how for DIY, Ohm offers quite an attractive alternative. Plus, most of the competing omnis do not offer a 120 in-home trial, which was a big factor in my purchase decision.
Rebbi - nice to see you here again. Thanks to this thread that you started, I ended up with my 2000s, and they may well be my last speakers (if I don’t win the lottery and buy a pair of German Physiks or MBLs!). Sorry for your loss.
Just an update: My 2000s have been in the same position for over seven years. When I got my Sound Anchor craddle bases for them, I toed them in slightly for what I assumed would be a somewhat warmer sound, with a little less treble energy (since the tweeters would now intersect in front of me, rather than being aimed at me ears). I have been happy this way, although I have long wished for a more widespread soundstage (it is wide, but weighted in the center), and better image stability with changing frequencies (the images can sometimes shift about the soundstage, unnaturally). Well, a few things I read on line made me curious enough to reposition them, aiming them straight ahead so that the tweeters point roughly at my ears. Whoa! I can’t believe the difference from such a small shift in position. The first night, I did notice some unpleasant sharpness on brass and electric guitar recordings, but since I didn’t listen to these prior to repositioning, it could have been the recordings. But Sunday night, I had a long, exquisite listening session in which nearly every track was wonderful. The soundstage is bigger, wider, and more evenly distributed. The highs seemed cleaner, more stable and more filigreed (a quality I associate with expensive speakers). I got chills up my spine. Then I realized that the last time I had them aimed straight ahead was during my trial period, when they were on my uneven basement floor before the bases arrived. I also realized that I have changed some things in my rig since then, most notably the preamp (from C-J PV11 to McIntosh C220), as well as some cable upgrades, and repositioned my amp to be closer to the speakers and shortened the speaker cables.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but I was quite happy Sunday night as I sat there grinning at how good everything sounded. And I have a new IC on the way to connect my DAC to my preamp. So, even though I was thinking that it just can’t get any better than this, maybe it can! |
rodm_2001: I don't have any experience with these amps, other than hearing them briefly at shows or stores, and not with Ohms. The only Class D amp I have used with my 2000s was the Arion Audio RS-500. I liked them a lot, but it was a loaner pair and I was not amp shopping. I use an Odyssey Audio HT3 (with cap upgrade) for my 2000s, and I love the combo. But, this is with a pair of powered subwoofers, so the power demands of the 2000s is not as high as if they were run full range.
Mapman uses bel canto Class D amps, and he seems to really like the combo with his Ohm 5s.
But, I would hold off on the amp purchase. Try the Ohms with your receiver first, for at aleast a couple of weeks. Then, if you think they are somewhat broken in and you still want more, try to get a more powerful amp that you can return, or borrow one from someone. FWIW, I briefly hooked up my 2000s, without the subs, to an 80 watt per channel Onkyo receiver and was surprised by how little was lost when I went to the lower power and left out the subs. |
As regular poster and lurkers here know, I run my 2000s each their own Vandersteen 2Wq sub, with the Vandy crossovers (MHP-5) that cross over, first order, starting at 80Hz, with the same slope inverted going to the power amp. Would I say that my 2000s sound refined? Heck yes! I just installed a new IC between my DAC and preamp last night, and the differences were immediately apparent. Ohm Walshes can be extremely revealing, yet always enjoyable to listen to. That's a hat trick very few speaker designers can pull off - John Strohbeen does so, and at a bargain price point. Bravo! |
Thanks for the kind words, engiedr1960. Funny - I feel the same way about my subs - I could never go back to not having them in my system. One of the requirements for a replacement speaker when I was shopping to upgrade from my Vandersteen 1Cs is that they must be compatible with the 2Wq subs (they have to exted well down to 40Hz). The 2000s fit the bill. |
Peter - I am a bit curious - wouldn't putting a large tweeter above the driver in the Ohms ruinn the upward radiation of sound? AFAIK, I think that is a big part of the Ohm sound. I have thought about adding a supertweeter to my Ohms, especially one of the omni designs out there, but short of mounting it on a high stand just behind the speaker, I am hesitant to place anything above the cans. I love the hieght projection I get from my Ohms, and I would hate to lose or diminish it.
Separately, I am trying new wires for my DAC-to-preamp run, and it is very interesting. First, I was thrilled to hear that the 2000s easily and dramatically revealed the differences in the original cable and the new one. The balance has shifted, and now, the occassional rough patch in the lower treble-upper mids that I attributed to the speaker has moved down in frequency, to the midrange. It is the lesser of two evils, and the cable needs more time to break in, so I am hoepful. Most of all, the issue I was having with voices, in which the sibilants seemed separated in space from the rest of the voice is gone. Just like that - sibilants are anchored to the voices in space. And my soundstage is bigger than ever. On most recordings, the 2000s simply vanish, replaced by music that just hangs in space across the front of my room. Wonderful! |
t8kc - Maybe it’s your room? My 2000s do fine with 150 watts per - Odyssey Audio HT3 with cap upgrade. I had borrowed Arion Audio 500 watt monoblocks for a few weeks about 5 years ago. The sound might have been just a little more open, but not enough to make me want to give up the exceptionally good sounding Odyssey Audio amp. I did, however, hear real problems when I plugged the Odyssey into a PS Audio Quintet power filter. Going straight into my 20 amp dedicated outlet fixed that. |
t8kc - I agree with you... I was kinda grasping at straws for an explanation. Maybe it's because my room, while large, is oddly shaped, with a ~10 ft. niche where the speakers are. Maybe that helps their efficiancy? So, I guess it would be my room, not yours, that could account for the different results with similarly rated amps. I don't know, just guessing. And I see from the photos that there is no reason not to place anything above the cans. And, yes, mapman is correct about the tweeter facing forward, and non-directional frequencies, so again, I stand corrected. Although, placing any significant weight directly on top of the grill caps is probably not a good idea, and it is not really flat, anyway. |
which super tweeters do you use, enginedr1960? |
IIRCF, I think all Ohm Walsh speakers have a sticker somewhere indicating the front of the speaker, the cylinders should, too, I think. |
rodm_2001 - Congrats on the new arrivals! Unless your drivers are used, expect the speakers to change substantially as they break in. I don’t think mine were fully broken in until at least 6 months after I set them up.
As for positioning, the uneven triangle works for me, with the distance to the listening position being a little greater than the distance between the speakers. I have them ~2 feet from the side walls and ~3 feet from the wall behind them. I have a lot room, ~ 11 feet, behind my listening chair.
And while the Ohm Walsh x000 may not be the most hyper-detailed speaker I’ve heard, they are one of the most detailed sounding speakers I’ve heard that did not induce listener fatigue, at any price. So, the question is, do you want all the tiny details shoved in your face in a way that makes listening unpleasant for anything but a brief listen, or do you want to hear the bulk of all the details in a way that encourages long, enjoyable listening sessions?
And don’t ignore the cables! I just upgraded the ICs connecting my DAC to my pre, and it’s like I upgraded my speakers! Huge improvement, and I am digging my 2000s now more than I have in all the eight years I’ve had them. |
rodm-2001 - Glad to hear your experience mirrors those of myself and other Ohm owners. Not really a surprise, though. Just remember, every change you make upstream will make itself known when you listen through the Sound Cylinders. And remember, your Ohms are still probably not fully broken in, although they are probably 2/3 to 3/4 of the way there. It will get even better, I bet. |
Well, knock me over with a feather. I have been running my 2000s with a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs and M5-HP crossovers for a few years now, and loving it all. But Monday night, my amp messed the bed. So, I had to disconnect the speakers and subs, and run the 2000s directly off the amps in my cheap Pioneer AVR (VSX-1120K), with no subs. Figuring I should skip any serious stereo music listening and stick to background music and films, I put on the EDM channel on FiOS while I checked my email. Wouldn’t you know it! While the bass was not as powerful as with the subs, some of the EDM has really deep synth bass, but the visceral low bass was all there with the 2000s being run full range. It was really clean and well defined, too. Really amazing for a speaker of this size and price, especially with mediocre source gear and compressed audio. It was good enough to make me look up from my email checking a few times and turn up the volume. I may have to repair or replace my amp, but the Ohms definitely stay! |
rodm - innteresting. Your post made me realize that when I hooked my 2000s up to that Pioneer AVR, I was using the Pioneer’s MCACC, Pioneer’s fairly effective room correction software. I normally do not have the Pioneer in the 2-channel chain, so stereo music listening is done without room correction. Hmm. You know, until this month, my system has been pretty much the same since 2011. Looks like some changes may be coming, provided I can find the funds. |
rodm_2001 - Thanks. I actually prefer a gradual roll-off of the high frequencies. The 2000s do in fact fit that bill. In fact, a recent cable upgrade has made the 2000s brighter, alsmost too bright. A borderline situation. I do have a decent amount of room behind the speakers, and a little less on the sides. Also, my ceiling is only 6' tall. And my low frequencies are surprisingly smooth and extended without any EQ, thanks to a pair of subs in the front corners that were designed(!) to go in the corners. When I get my amplifier back, I will revisit all of this. |
Map - Did you buy them? I saw a nice pair on ebay recently with starting bid at $900. I bought a somewhat beat-up pair of MW Talls a few years back for $375 - Audiogon seller in Brooklyn, so i picked them up myself. They are my surround speakers. But $500 for a minty pair is a deal.
Agreed - Joseph Audio makes some great speakers, which you can appreciate if he is not blasting them at 120 dB, as he often does. |
How do you like the Mojo? I have been pondering buying an ifi Black Label DSD DAC, for home use, not portable. This is a a direct competitor to the Chord.
I really like the German Physiks. That dealer/distributor is Larry Borden's Distinctive Stereo, a home-based dealer in River Vale, NJ. I have been there with my audio club and heard the GP speakers. Very impressive, and Larry, a former reviewer, knows how to set up speakers. He is also a really nice guy. The New Jersey Audio Society is meeting there again in January. Let me know if you would like particulars. You can see his very large demo room, and meet some of the crankiest, funniest audiophiles in the country! Merrill of Merrill Audio is also a member of our group, and attends many of our meetings.
+1 on the Vanatoos. I heard them a couple of years ago, and decided if I ever need a pair of compact, powered speakers, they're it.
I think I am going to try to go to the CAF next year. I have a brother in MD who would probably join me. |
Thanks for your thoughts, Mapman. BTW, interesting story behind the German Physiks: The designer of the Dicks Dipole Driver specifically set out to design a Walsh driver without the cost constraints that Ohm works under. IOW, a no-holds-barred Walsh bending wave design. The results speak for themselves. The entry level German Physiks lists for ~$14,000, so if you can find a demo or used pair, they might be affordable. On the GP web site, there is a DDD driver unit for sale without a bass driver or cabinet, that you pair with a woofer/subwoofer. Someone better at this stuff than I might be able to save a few bucks with that.
All that said, I remain thrilled with my Ohm Walsh 2000s. At least I will be when my amp gets back from the repair shop. |
John Strohbeen and associates made a great showing at the New York Audio Show over this past weekend. They had a pair of 2000s (the ones I have owned since 2009), powered by an Outlaw Audio 2160 receiver, fed by an older Oppo universal player and a Blue Sound Node 2. The speakers were heavily toed-in due to the bright nature of the room. The sound was excellent, rivalling many more expensive rooms at the show. There were a lot of show-goers who sat quietly(!) for extended listening, and one guy who went through a whole bunch of CDs he'd brought along. People were clearly impressed by the wall of sound, extention at both ends of the frequency range, and excellent detail retreival coming from the diminutive 2000s. Just to compare, one system which I admit I did prefer to the Ohm system was the Electrocompaniet system (a brand I have always admired), which was easily north of $50,000, probably north of $75,000. But the 2000s gave about 80% of what the Electrocompaniet system did, at a total cost (excluding wires) of about $4500. Fantastic! I hope Ohm gets some good press out of this. I saw at least one audio journalist there, Steve Guttenberg, so, let's hope. |
Thanks, peterr53. I was beginning to worry about you!
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanuka, and Happy New Year to all. |
Sorry I just noticed your posts, @blueranger . I have my 2000s shoe-horned into a pretty tight space, so I cannot verify your 9-12 foot apart issue. I have some CD cabinets that are only about 6 to 10 inches from the Ohm caps. I do have them pulled fairly far into the room and away from the side-walls, and they are only about 6 feet apart. Could they sound better in a bigger room. Perhaps, but I doubt I will ever find out. They did sound pretty good at the Chester Group Audio Show last November, where they were in a larger, less cluttered room than mine, and further apart, around 9 feet, IIRC. |
@enginedr1960 - As I have posted elsewhere, I find the reflections off my 60" plasma that is mounted to the wall behind and between my 2000s to be beneficial. I tried covering it with a quilt, but it sounded worse. I think part of it might be that my listening area is too small for the 2000s to breathe. The plasma TV gives the sound more bounce, so to speak. YMMV, of course. |
Just a heads up and preview... The Ohm Walsh 2000s continue to amaze me. I am making progress in sorting out some system issues that have been plaguing me since last fall. Although I am not completely out of the woods, I have made some progress. Part of all of this was a serious upgrade of my amplifier. Once again, the 2000s have responded wonderfully to upstream upgrades. Even though I am using a temporary crossover to my subs that lacks transparency, I have been enjoying a huge, and I mean huge, increase in dynamic range, fine detail, expanded soundstage dimensions, clarity (especially in the treble range), extended decays of notes, better "continuousness" and a better disappearing act than ever before in the 9 years I have owned them. My system is now on an entire new level, and competitive with much, much more expensive rigs. I couldn't be happier, and I expect things will be even better once all of my issues are resolved, hopefully in a few weeks. I will post here when this happens.
I know John Strohbeen and the folks at Ohm want to demo their speakers with lower-priced gear at shows, since that is how most potential customers will use them, but, man, do these things really shine with better electronics. My preamp alone listed for ~30% more than the 2000s. The amp, if bought new, probably similarly priced. Not a penny of this is wasted on the Ohms. Really incredible. |
@schubert - I agree with you for the most part, but my previous speakers sort of hit a plateau at some point, where I felt that upgrades to my system, room, cabling, etc., were not really being reflected by the speakers. That's why I got rid of them and bought the Ohms. I felt that I had taken them as far as they could go. Surely there are limits to the mismatch (money-wise) between speakers and gear. You wouldn't put a pair of $40 speakers from Dayton Audio in front of a $50,000 system, for example. Sure, they would sound as good as they possibly could, but that isn't very good. Beyond a certain point, upgrading electronics begins to have deminishing returns with a given set of speakers. That experience is why I am so pleased with the Ohms, which do allow improvements in the system to produce better sound far beyond what I had thought was possible with them. That's a prejudgement I erroneously made based mostly on their price. |
