"those preamp brands will bust my budget"
Juicy should come in well under $1000 especially since you already have the phono pre-amp. Juicy is a stylistic challenge for some, but the best bargain in a tube pre-amp that I know of.
The others will likely come in on the flip side of $1000 somewhere I would guess.
In your price range, I'd be careful about SS pre-amps given that you are used to the Unico hybrid integrated. The Classe pre-amps or the Musical FIdelity A3CR pre-amp were my two leading contenders, but I decided to try the tube pre-amp plunge and have not regretted it. |
Rebbe, another "pre-amp" that popped into my mind that might be worth considering is the PeachTree Decco. These can be had for under $500. It is a well reviewed (low power) hybrid integrated with tube DAC actually, but I'm thinking (not sure though) it might be used as a pre-amp only if desired. You would use digital out from your CD player (assuming that exists also) into the Decco. Phono would connect same as any other pre-amp. IF my assumptions are true, themn this would be the least expensive "high end" pre-amp solution I can think of. |
Here's info on the Decco:
http://www.stereomojo.com/PeachTree%20Decco%20Review/PeachTreeDeccoReview.htm
I see the pre-amp out jacks on the rear photo, so I think this could work. |
I've heard a Rogue tube power amp with my ARC pre-amp on a dealer system running Maggie 20.1s that I wouldn't have minded owning.
Then on the way out I heard a Rogue integrated running smaller Maggie mmg's that I was not impressed with.
That's about the extent of my Rogue experience though unfortunately. |
Another high current/poweramp option I have considered for quite a while to open up dynamics further with my OHM 5s in particular is the Musical Fidelity 550K SuperCharger. The price of these has come down quite a bit over the last year or so, as expected, and these are now an option I could try.
I like what I have read about these, but have not heard many testimonials from owners that have used them as "superchargers".
I like that these have their own separate power supplies in addition to the source amp they supercharge that might result in being able to draw more current than any other option I have looked at, which is good. I might be able to place these on a separate circuit in my basement for use with the OHM 5s only, which are really the only speaks I have that I think worth beefing up with more power at this point. The flip side is that these apparently provide a lot of current (100+ amps) but do not double well into 4 ohms compared to most other amps I have looked at.
Problems, problems. I guess I'll just stand pat for now.
In terms of utility, I think the Wyred Class D and MF 550K supercharger options are the ones I am most comfortable with at this point. I really do not want to have to deal with any humongous 100 lb monster sized amplifiers, which is one of the reasons I still am hesitant to change in that the A3CR is not too big and does sound really good as is. I am craving to hear what the big boy amps might do for dynamics overall though! |
Rebbi,
On paper, that is true, but specs are only guidelines I think in any particular case you have to try it and see (or actually hear) how it compares to what you had.
Once you have good stuff to start with, upgrading becomes more of an experiment almost at first, and your Unico was a pretty nice piece from what I have read (I've considered buying one myself for my second system on occasion, same true of teh Bel Canto gear). |
Juicy Music BLueberry: output impedance 3.5K ohms, not as low as the Manley perhaps but will cost less (Juicy may be in process of closing up shop however)
FWIW my ARC sp16 output impedance is ~20K ohm and the input impedance of my A3CR amp is just over 30K ohm.
Input impedance of new BElCanto Ref 1000m Class D amps is over 300K I read.
Wyred 4 Sound Class Ds are 60K ohm I read.
Also, stock IcePower Class Ds are only 5K or so I think I read, not a great match for just any tube pre-amp.
Juicy Music Blueberry Line Stage specs:
* Gain:16dB
* Frequency Response:-3dB 2Hz - 40kHz
* Hum and Noise:85dB
* THD:0.2% 20Hz - 20kHz ref. 2V out
* Max Output:40Vrms into 47k ohms
* Input Impedance:100k ohms
* Output impedance:3.5k ohms |
Rebbe,
YEs, the Peach is the one without phono and apparently lower possible output impedance also, so that would be the Juicy Music one for you to consider. |
Tvad,
I know you've heard a lot of combos and have a good handle on the matching impedance issue between amp and pre.
Do you find that the ratio of amp input to pre-amp output impedance is a reliable indicator of performance? If so, what differences do you hear consistently as this varies? Are there thresholds regarding this ration that can be identified that reliably predict actual performance in certain areas?
Thanks for whatever insight you might offer up on this topic. |
Tvad,
Have you found the better clarity and control extends into the upper frequency ranges as well?
Any downsides that you can identify to go along with the benefits?
This is something I'd really like to test out in my system. |
"It sounds like the Manley/Canto combo is working for you. I think that rig will be hard to improve upon, without getting into crazy $$$!"
I'd tend to agree. Rebbe, I think you did quite well! |
Tvad,
One other question.
Certainly a low pre-amp output impedance seems to make it easier to match more amplifier input impedances, but I wonder is it the absolute value of the preamp output impedance, or the ratio or magnitude of amp input impedance to pre-amp output impedance in the end that matters? |
Here's an interesting thread on the impedance matching issue:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1227661419&openflup&12&4#12
The consensus here seems to be a 10:1 amp input/pre-amp out ratio is a good target. Also that actual output impedances of pre-amps is higher at lower frequencies with can negatively impact bass response. |
So for example, my case, with the ARC sp16 premap output impedance being 20K ohm, I would want an amp in the 200K input impedance range (my A3CR is only 31K).
Also, interconnects factor into the equation in regards to impedance loads presented to the pre-amp, so things get mor complicated again here.
Of the SS amps I've considered, the newer Bel Canto Ref1000m would be the best choice for me apparently, but pricey. I'll be looking to find some other options and will not rule out tube amps necessarily either. |
Foster,
The other thing that comes to mind is to make sure the driver is tightly secured to the cabinet. With my F-5s, there are 4 wing nuts that must be tight to secure the driver else the bass levels suffer. These worked slightly loose after some initial playing time and I found that a tight fit is key to good bass.
How are your drivers secured to the base? Is there anything that might need tightening? |
Mamboni,
You are using the 500w/ch Wyred4Sound amp these days I think I recall?
How do you like it?
Any chance this is too much power for the 5s resulting in the driver damage you report?
The 500w/ch Wyred is probably the most powerful amp option out there that I have considered and I'm wondering if it is overkill, and 250w/ch or so is plenty. |
Rebbe,
After some investigation, the ARC sp16 I use is also a candidate for you at least technically, though the cost may be a tad higher.
Here are the specs:
260 ohms Single Ended main;
20K ohms minimum (amplifier input) load and 1000 pF maximum capacitance
So ARC recommends a ratio actually of about 77:1 for this pre-amp, which is well beyond the 10:1 minimum that many indicate in general.
With your Bel Canto's input impedance of 10000 ohms (half the ARC recommended value) the ratios with ARC sp16 would still be over 38:1, still almost 4 times the consensus minimum, so I think the Bel CAnto will work fine with any of the tube pre-amps identified above (Manley, ARC, Juicy) with the similar low output impedance specs.
|
YEs, the consensus also seems to be that the higher ratio the better for optimal interfacing between amp and pre (sounds kinky), so who knows where a 10:1 minimum comes from? |
"output impedance is only 50K"
You meant 50 ohm, I assume, right Rebbi? |
Mamboni,
Thanks for the if. The 500W Wyreds could well be the way I go. The value is there and your recommendatio with the 5s makes for a strong case. Thanks!
THE, nice $100 pickup. Upgrading will make a big difference. It did when I went from original Walsh 2s to my current "Super" Walsh 2s (1003 drivers). Keep us posted! |
Reb,
That's a tough one!
I suspect either will sound very good and thr right choice is the one with the features that best float your boat! |
Yes, the exact placement can make a significant difference in the bass levels I have found also as Mamboni points out.
That solid brick rear wall I recall could also be working against you...not sure anything can be done about that.
Foster, you are heavily armed well beyond most at this point with that McCormack amp I would think. I doubt that is the problem.
Could something in the hookup be out of phase? |
Bond,
Toe-in/out relative to prime listening position is the best way to tune the top end of the Walshes.
Use a loosely rolled up sock or foam plug to partially obstruct the flow of air through the ports on the bottom to tame the low end if needed.
PErsonally, I'd give it cosiderable time and work on getting everything tuned in just right to personal taste before customizing driver outputs, but it is very nice the John offers this service when desired.
What ICs are you using? I've found low cost DNM Reson ICs provide very nice overall control top to bottom with the Walshes compared to other ICs I use.
Yes, I have been looking at a bigger amp mainly for my 5s in the larger room, but I have not been able to justify the expenditure needed so far....what I have sounds too good already, even with the bigger 5s in the larger room, and I am hesitant to change a good thing and break it. |
THE,
When you talk to John, see if you can get him to elaborate some on the new driver designs on the various new 1000 series speaks.
Use of metal foils or other new or more exotic materials in the Walsh drivers again similar to original OHM Fs or even the modern German Physiks DDD driver would be news of interest to many who perhaps are partial to other Walsh driver designs. |
"I'm wondering, though, if any of you have ever found that a change in your electronics caused you to reposition your speakers."
Yes, I had the same experience when changing amps and to a lesser extent digital source.
It may be a psychological thing more so than anything technical. The sound changes and a change in speaker location can help tweak it back more to what you had been used to. |
Fellow OHM'ers (or OHM boys or whatever we like to call ourselves):
I plan an experiment trying the big M&K sub I have running in my second system with my OHM 5s.
I'm thinking this may be the more practical (and cost effective) way to beef things up in that room.
I'd like to get the low end impact levels up to par with the 100.3s in the smaller room. Both run off my main system, the 5s in an adjacent room connected via in-wall speaker wiring I had installed when the house was built.
The issue I have with the OHM 5s is largely attributable to my L shaped room. Bass levels are up to snuff with the 100.3s in the smaller room towards the front of my main listening area but drops off further back. This is the L shaped room with thin carpeted concrete foundation floors where the OHMS sit in the short end of the L firing into the long length, where most listening is done (see my system photo with the Jack Russell Terrier adornment). In the short end of the L and just in front, bass levels are good...further back they drop off.
I will try the M&K V1-B sub located both up front near the speakers and back along the wall closer to the main listening area and see what happens.
The M&K has speaker level inputs/outputs and adjustable crossover. That will allow me to roll the 5s off at a higher frequency than normal and fill in the low end with the powered sub. If this works, then I might need to add another sub still because my second system really depends on one. I'd get one with the intent of it going to work with the OHM 5s indefinitely.
Fun fun fun. We'll see..... |
Aluminum?
The voice coil perhaps (I think original OHM Fs used an aluminum voice coil) or maybe the supertweeter but I can't imagine the Walsh driver material itself. That would be something new for sure.
Luxman made some good stuff. My old Walsh 2s and current Dynaudios could sing pretty well with my old Tandberg tr-2080 receiver also.
Mamboni, in looking at my subwoofer specs this evening, I decided there is little to gain and to leave well enough alone. Things sound to good the way they are. Maybe a bigger amp at some point, but I really do not want to muck with the sound I am getting. |
Actually, I think the original OHM Fs used titanium, aluminum, and paper in their famous Walsh driver. Maybe the new 1000s are steering back in the direction of using more exotic materials in the driver again? I can't find any mention of what is used in the new drivers anywhere. The OHM site only indicates that they are new and the resulting sound is "evolutionary".
The Walsh driver operates differently than conventional dynamic drivers. I don't know if metal construction lends any particular sound in the case of a Walsh driver. |
There is an Audio Research D400 mkII SS amp up for sale here now. THis is one I find very tempting to try, but it is only marginally more powerful than what I have (200 w/ch versus 120w/ch, but the first few dozen watts are Class A and it is a lot bigger and heavier I believe). |
Line, yes I could try the OHM 5s along the longer wall but the L shaped room is only 12' wide or so the the area where I listen.
I elected to place the OHM 5s where they are baically to keep them out of the way of the area where most activity takes place and leverage the acoustics of short section of the L shaped room to give them more room to breathe. Firing into the long section this way delivers concert like sound all the way back through the narrow portion, which is where listening and most other activity occurs in this basement level family room. It works out well in that I can chose closer or farther away listening perspective as I please. The bass levels are actually very good, just not enough to literally shake the rafters as used to be achievable with the right source music and my prior 360w/ch Carver m4.0t amp. That amp however was not a high current design and not efficient into 4 ohms, so the bass levels and overall balance suffered at more modest common listening levels. The MF A3CR is a much better fit to my listening habits overall and the sound in my system is very defined, holographic, and well balanced top to bottom
, just not the nth degree that might be possible with a monster high current amp that is also efficient into lower speaker impedances as is seemingly found with the OHM 5s at
lower frequencies. |
Line,
Also, yes the Sunfire Signature looks like a very good fit for the OHMs and can be had at a bargain price used as well. Nice move! |
Foster, also I do not recall if you are using any power conditioning device? If so, try running without it and see if that makes a difference in the bass impact level. |
"The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage"
Hmm, I've found that more direct exposure to the directional supertweeter brightens things up if needed but also collapses the soundstage width at least somewhat. Toe-in usually means less direct exposure and a bigger/wider soundstage in my case. Room acoustics have an impact on soundstage as well, so keep on tweaking until it sounds just right.... |
Yes, make sure the rivers are tight and secure, but do not overtighten. This ca make a difference in the bass primarily.
With proper amplification and setup, the OHMs should do quite well, as well as most designs at low volume. An adjustable level sub might be one way to deal with Fletcher Munson at low volumes. Being able to adjust bass levels properly only when needed is the key. At higher volumes, it may be redundant for most recordings I would think. I would think your parametric equalizer should be able to make the desired adjustments for low volumes as well? |
Foster another possibility if all else fails is to make sure the tubes in the pre-amp are good.
Do yo still have other speakers to compare to? That would help determine whether the issue was unique to the OHMs or originating elsewhere perhaps. |
Horns and brass may be the OHMs most unique strong points.
I have heard other systems/speakers that do other things the OHMs do very well also, but they may be in a class of their own when it comes to big band music and other big ensemble recordings with lots of energy in the midrange. |
"a lot of extension into the room"
Seem's true of OHMs and other omni's I have heard, like mbl, in general.
A less forward sound may also seem less dynamic in terms of being able to feel the music compared to forward firing dynamic speakers where most of the sonic energy is aimed at your listening position. Not the case with omnis.
The macro and micro dynamics of the OHMS definitely improve over time as they break in , I believe.
|
When I go to live classical concerts, I take note of the dynamics of the sound, especially the sound of say a well struck Timpani (kettle drum). In cozier halls, you can almost feel it when the timpani drums get struck. I attended a concert at Carnegie hall in NYC earlier this year where the striking of the timpanis was almost an out of body experience as the sound resonated in the hall.
I do the same with similar recordings then at home. A similar well struck, well recorded timpani should be able to knock you out of your seat at home as well. |
Yeah, I think I had my 5s for almost a year before I was convinced they had fully opened up in terms of dynamics.
The 100S3s were acquired second hand and largely broken in it seemed when I got them.
I'd pull the trigger right away on a bigger amp for the 5s in my bigger room if I were not fully satisfied with the dynamics, but whenever I listen, I am. My approach is always if it ain't broke, don't fix it, even though I am still curious what a big monster amp ( or more likely for me a juicier Class D) might do.
I also am very big on avoiding fatigue listening. For me, most any system that is not fatiguing can be enjoyable. But my 5s were my attempt to go for broke sound wise without fatigue, and I could not be happier. That Walsh driver with all that surface area in play to produce all that gorgeous midrange which is at the core of most all great recordings.....ahhh! |
Thanks Rebbe.
I had to grit my teeth a bit when swallowing the cost of these amps (not small change even used), but I have to say that at least they are delivering in spades so far as was hoped! |
Also I'd say that those cages are kinda boring to look at. I do like the look of a nice set of drivers! |
Bondman,
I'd lose the subs for awhile if you want to work the OHMs hardest to break them in fastest.
What amp are you using again? |
"the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases"
Any cheap tweak to make them stable if not otherwise is worth it.
That will help them transit low end energy through the floor more effectively and can only help with impact/dynamics.
Concrete foundations/floors or similar heavy rigid flooring will inhibit energy transmitted through the floor that an end user may sense and help perceive more impact/dynamics.
I've been relating to FOster_9 in emails that I have both OHMs on a solid concrete foundation/floor (lightly carpeted to help filter high frequency reflections) and that produces a most controlled bass still with plenty of impact and dynamics at realistic listening levels, and all off of a mere 120w/ch (but fairly high current) amp. |
Remember the old Maxell Logo?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/2106734511_029b3f1ffc.jpg
That guy might not take well to the presentation of OHMs or omnis in general. |
Parasound,
The cages nor speakers aren't bad looking, but I do like to be able to see my drivers doing their thing when I chose to.
But as I've pointed before, what's under that cage is not pretty and nobody would want to look at it. So the cages are a very practical design touch. |
I've only measured using my ears as opposed to a sound pressure meter, but when I play a test tone record through the OHMs in their respective rooms, I hear a very balanced level all the way down to 20hz (on the 5s, the 2s/100s may not go down into the 20hz range). And when I listen the overall timbre including bass levels is in line with what I hear at most good sounding live concerts, at live-like SPLs.
My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors. And in those cases, the sub had better be able to blend in smoothly down to 20 hz or so (for organ music, etc., most recordings have nothing that low) or else the overall timbre and clarity can suffer. I think this is the case with most any speaker if one goes bass crazy, the bass ends up masking the midrange, which is where most of the unique magic of the OHMs resides.
I do not set my 5s to maximum bass levels in my biggest room where they reside. I find when I do, the overall clarity of the midrange in particular gets buried and things to not sound as good or natural overall to me. Not sure if that would be any different were it a sub putting out that extra low end rather than the 5s. |
Correction, I said:
"My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors."
I meant to say:
My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the smaller OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors." |
One other scenario I can see for using a sub is if one likes a particular amp that may not be an ideal match current wise for the OHMs. In these cases, the full low end potential of the OHMS may not be realized and a sub could be an effective supplement |
Also, to be clear, the cases for subs I outlined above apply to 2 channel audio listening scenarios, which is what the Walshes are primarily designed for. I think OHM/John S. even recommends considering use of subs with their speakers for ultimate home theater applications. |
I read that Ted Jordan designs conventional directional dynamic drivers. I cannot speak for use of those in an omni speaker system, ala Dueval or Morrison. THe omnis I've heard and liked (OHM and mbl) design and build drivers that are omni as opposed to using conventional drivers in an omni speaker design. |
