Bondmanp,
I agree with the application of a sub in your case with your OHMS, room size and sub.
Using the sub allows to to bump up the SPLs in the range they are covering, right, compared to your OHMs, which cannot, right? WIth a good sub blended in correctly that will give you more control of bass levels and low end dynamics accordingly than with speakers alone, be they OHMs or others.
I use an early 90's vintage M&K sub with my Triangle monitors in my second system. Depending on how I adjust the sub, that system can have more or less low end impact and dynamics than any of my other speakers without a sub. Its nice having that flexibility. Until I got the 100s and 5s, that system was my reference sound overall in my house. Since getting the OHMs, the 5's are, and I tend to adjust the speaker configurations in my other rooms to what I hear with the 5s. The M&K runs up to about 60-70 Hz with my Triangle monitors in that system and the M&K breaks no sweat doing its part. I bought it in a audio shop for audio use and it really does sound quite fine, though it only goes down to 30 hz or so. My OHM 5s go down to 20hz or so smoothly I would say.
I was thinking of trying the M&K V1-B with the 5s just for fun, but when I revisited the subs specs, it did not make any sense to use it there. My 5s do have two bass level adjustments and though my room is a decent size within ghte range OHM specs for 5s, the highest bass levels possible are not needed. The midrange and overall detail and smoothness suffers a tad if I do. |
BTW, regarding OHMs and room size, for larger rooms, I think a very cost effective strategy could be to actually undersize the OHMs in lieu of matching size exactly ( do NOT get OHMs that are too big for a room, that could be a dead end) and then get a decent sub to fill in the low end that you will give up.
All the OHMs from smallest to largest sound mostly the same except for low end extension is better on larger models. I can hear that when comparing my 100s and 5s in the same room on the same system. An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many. |
"Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange?"
Hmm, not sure, particularly when it comes to Walsh drivers.
With the Walsh drivers, I believe there is more surface area with larger drivers which you would think would have an effect. I'd have to a/b both my Walshes in the smaller room again and listen more carefully perhaps. I did not hear a clear advantage with the 5s in the smaller room prior, but perhaps I was not listening for that.
I would say the mids are just a touch more dynamic perhaps with my 5s in the large room compared to 100s in the smaller, but that could easily just be an artifact of room acoustics more so than the drivers. |
Also, just for the record, OHMs do not have a true omni sound radiation pattern, like mbl for example. They are physically damped/attentuated with acoustic sound absorbing material inside the can in the wall facing directions. That addresses Mr. Jordan's concern to some extent and is done to enable them to work well closer to walls than true omnis like mbl which is a practical consideration for many. |
CDC,
If you listen to the OHMs or mbls, the soundstage will sound way different from typical directional box designs most likely.
You may have to give your ears a chance to adapt to the different presentation compared to the more directional designs. Ears that are trained to listen to more directional designs generally take some time to adapt to the omni presentation based on my experience.
It took me a couple of weeks to tune in to my OHM 100S3s (Super Walsh 2s) even after having owned original Walsh 2s for years. The two are mostly similar in appearance except the newer 100S3s use a newer flavor of the OHM CLS driver with a different tweeter that delivers better soundstage, imaging, focus and clarity, and tonal balance top to bottom.
I have owned various other speaker designs including large Maggie planars concurrently with OHMs over the years. Omnis are a different beast to digest all together from any of those.
Once your ears adjust, I find you will hear more similarities in the imaging/soundstage of the OHMs compared to other modern designs that also do imaging and soundstage very well, though omnis will always retain a fairly unique presentation from other designs I believe. |
CDC,
Who's to say what the best concept is? There are many different designs out there with various strengths and weaknesses . No one design works best always for everyone.
Personally, new designs that think out of the box and attempt to make top notch sound affordable to more people and designs with a focus on doing whatever it is they do best are the ones that generally catch my interest. |
"But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?"
I find directional speakers in general to be an unnatural way to reproduce sound naturally. Some designs do it very well, but to me sound in the real world is largely not directional in nature (save perhaps at a live amplified concert event of some sort).
Having said that, in lieu of having studied waveguide theory in detail, my gut feel regarding waveguides is that they may be a useful approach if done correctly, but as was pointed out the key would be in the execution, which I could only judge were I to hear it. Theory alone seldom describes real world phenomena completely, especially in nit picky areas like hi fidelity audio. |
Frazeur,
Fun stuff!
Unless something has changed with the latest line, I think the larger Walsh drivers will take perhaps a tad longer to break in, all other things aside. My Walsh 5's did.
My 100S3s came used and already broken in so I cannot compare.
Enjoy! |
I still have my Carver pre-amp with sonic holography around as a spare.
Agree about the ups and downs with sonic holography. I bought the Carverand used it primarily with Magneplanars back in the eighties. The Walsh 2s I also owned never seemed to benefit, nor the newer OHMs that I tried it with a while back just to see (hear).
The down that often ruined SH for me (other than the small sweet spot) was that I noticed it almost always tended to degrade the authority in the low end as a side effect of opening things up. |
Joe,
I think 100w/ch is a good match to the Micro Talls particularly at that price point.
My Musical Fidelity A3CR amp is only 120w/ch and drives my Walsh 100S3s and even my larger Walsh 5S3 extremely well.
The MF amp cost me about $600 used off of Ebay a couple years back. |
frazier1,
The ARC SS amps are on my list of larger amps for consideration, as are larger MFs and various others.
I like the small size and power consumption aspects of the Class Ds to fit into my system without much other impact.
I'm very happy with the A3CR so that makes it hard for me to take a plunge with something else, though I am very curious. |
The last song on cd1 of the box set "Cowabuunga: The Surf Box" is "Shoot That Curl" by Chris Montez. The last few minutes of this is ocean wave sound effects. These are something to hear on the OHMs. Close your eyes and turn the volume up a bit and you will be convinced you are out in the surf shooting that curl wit the waves pounding all around you. Awesome! |
Probably break-in.
Newer 1000 series wit different drivers could break in differently than the prior incarnations.
Something I have found worth keeping in mind is ICs used make a huge difference in tonal balance, impact, attack and most other sonic attributes as well.
From my experience, I'm recommending the DNM Reson ICs for use with the OHMs. They are all business only and sound absolutely fantastic, dare I say near perfect in every way. |
Quiet on my front of late.
I've done some enhancements to capacity and availability of my music server.
I'm still eyeballing high power amps that I might try at some point. Most likely will be a newer Class D if/when I jump. My current Musical Fidelity amp might go into my second system if I do. |
Bondmanp,
Glad to hear it.
4 or more trained ears are always better than two! |
Tim,
The MF is a good compromise between size and musical authority and I am not one to rock the boat. I've come close to pulling the trigger on a ARC d400 mkII and a MF A308CR, but have resisted so far.
My second system is the one that is underpowered a bit perhaps at present, but it too is hard to fault at the volumes I typically use it at. The MF would probably go into that system were I to acquire a beefier amp still. |
My larger room is L shaped, approximately 20' base and 30' length.
The F5s in that room have a three way adjustment for room size (small, medium, large) to fit them to various room sizes that other non adjustable models are designed to go into (plus 3 other 3-way tone level adjustments). I find the medium room size setting works best in this room. Set to "large", the bass becomes just a tad overpowering and tends to mask details in the lower midrange a bit. |
Bondman,
No experience with the newer 1000 series drivers or their tonality. I would certainly not expect any audible distortion though. What does John Strohbeen say about it? |
Fin,
Look at my system pic titles "thebigohms". I usually listen from the blue swivel chair, anywhere from about where it is in the pic or further back, usually at least 8' or more in front of the speaks or for casual listening sometimes from the couch along the left hand wall. |
Bondman,
Piano dynamics can be among the most challenging to reproduce accurately, so I think that is one good test for most any system.
Something is not right somewhere in the system, if you are hearing audible distortion as opposed to some tonal balance related issue. Its certainly possible the issue is in the speaks in which case there is something not right there.
The 1000 series drivers are still quite new. Its possible that there could still be kinks there compared to older models. Only John S. could probably say for sure. |
"I myself have some recordings that are unbearable on my MWT's, foremost being 'In the Court of the Crimson King" 80's CD pressing by King Crimson. Unlistenable since I got the Ohm's (I have not gotten the remaster yet). The speakers are just too damn revealing sometimes, I guess."
I have the remaster. I think I read somewhere that the remaster was the first time in the digital age that this monument recording has been done well. It sounds very good for the first time ever to me on any of my speakers, but best on the OHMs. Even the ambient section of "Moonchild", which had never drawn my attention before, sucks me way in despite the fact that so little (yet still so much) is going on. |
Joefish said:
" I got the Beatles 2009 remasters recently, and for better or worse, they show you what's there, warts and all. "
YEs, I have the monos and a few stereo remasters. Overall, they are the best digital versions I have heard and the OHMs reveal everything from the best to worst. Everything is on my music server, which makes it easy to a/b different versions of songs or compare any two recordings back to back as desired, so I think I have some good experience here.
Joe,
Which model OHMs do you have specifically and which Yamaha receiver?
100 watts will do a good job on most all OHMs, but lareger ones can take and benefit from more. Also, receivers are generally not great at delivering lots of current which all OHM Walshes love. I suspect 100 watts out of a good high current power amp will do much better.
And yes, it is possible that distortion is in certain piano recordings. Piano can have a large range of dynamics and transients compared to most instruments and recording this well is no easier than playing it back. The OHMs should not break a sweat playing back piano recordings if the recordings are done well and everything is clicking as it should. |
"I'm at a loss to describe exactly what has improved in moving to the new amplification. The music seems more "alive," in general. Instrumental textures are more palpable, individual instruments have more "air" around them"
From this description, I suspect in your case, moving from tube hybrid integrated to separate tube pre and power amp, that it is mostly a result of moving to the juicier/more powerful amp. Of course the manley is a good piece also and I'm sure the two new pieces are getting on quite well together. |
Ron,
6 ohm is a nominal value, actual impedance will vary up and down from that depending on frequency. Low frequencies have lower impedance in general I believe. I'd probably try the 4 ohm setting first for best bass performance.
With the OHM in home trial policy, you can certainly try things out to see how well they work with your amp with no real risk. |
Tobe,
That's great! Thanks for sharing. SOunds like music even over my crappy PC speaker.
Any downsides with the current configuration that you are hearing? |
I've managed to get both pair of OHMs tuned into their respective rooms pretty well and to my satisfaction without having to add any special room treatments.
One thing I have to add is that the last thing I felt my system was coming up just a tad short on until recently was ability to deliver all the details of a larger scale orchestral or symphonic work totally coherently in comparison to some of the best systems I have heard in this regard from digital source. The final tweak that resolved this and has me swooning of late was switching to all DNM Reson ICs from source to pre-amp and pre-amp to amp. My conclusion is that the minimalist single solid conductor design of these ICs is darn near optimal for letting complex musical passages pass through coherently and totally in phase. I've been stunned by the results frankly. At all volumes now, even the most complex passages come through in a most coherent and involving manner.
Its made justifying switching to a bigger amp even more difficult for me to justify than before. Everything just sound so right now, regardless of content/complexity. I set my music server to jukebox mode and just never want to stop listening. Whatever the next cut that happens to come up is I can just tune in and listen contently wondering what I will hear next that likely I had never heard before. |
Bondman,
Tell us what your critical listener friends said? |
Amp news:
I'm giving serious consideration to trying a pair of Bel Canto ref1000 mkiis that are up for sale. The seller is confirming for me that these are in fact mkiis, which go for a hefty premium over original ref100s due to input stage and power supply enhancements.
On paper, the 100k unbalanced input impedance (200k balanced) of the ref1000 mkiis are an ideal match for tube pre-amps. FWIW the input impedance of my MF A3CR is 72K ohms, also very good. The ref1000s deliver 500w/ch into 8 ohm, doubling into 4.
I figure if I do this, I 'm going to try to go for broke.
We'll see... |
Bond,
Thanks for sharing your info.
For me, well, I finally got the urge to spring for the bigger amp. The Bel Canto Ref1000mkiis should arrive in a day or two. That will be fun!
It was between the Wyreds and the Bels, and I decided to go for broke with the Bels despite the significant cost difference and hopefully put my upgrade urges to rest for a while. Yeah, we'll see about that!
I'll post back as soon as I have something to report. |
I'm sure you've found that the only way to find out for sure if the grass can be greener to try something different. That's also part of the learning process.
There are lots of good sounding fish in the audio sea! Hearing the differences and experimenting is part of the fun. |
This is interesting. GP DDD speakers can't possibly go for much lower than this can they? GPs for sale |
PSB Synchrony 2's?
Excellent choice. As I think I've posted around here on A'gon somewhere, these are one of very few speakers that I could afford that I have heard that I could live happily with long term I think if I had to. They are a reasonable alternate to the OHMs I would say. Not many others I have heard in the same price range are.
FWIW Rebbe, I don't think there are any affordable monitors out there that can do things as well overall as the OHMs, at least when it comes to large scale orchestral or other works that require some low end muscle, at least not without a sub. |
the ref1000mkiis arrived yesterday just in time for me to be snowed in with them and get some listening in.
i'll leave a teaser and say that things have changed significantly. details to follow once i have more time to tune in.
reb, your room does remind me of a very lively room with wood floors that i had my original walsh 2s in almost 30 years ago. lets just say it was a very unique and challenging environment to get things tuned into! |
Its striking to me how much the sound of both my OHM Walsh pairs changes whenever I make a change to electronics. The difference now with the Bel Canto Ref 1000mkii's is perhaps the most striking of all. The sound is exceptionally lean and mean now. Everything is rock solid tight and dynamics and transient response has improved markedly. The difference is most apparent with well recorded drums but is in play most everywhere.
A good example is Ringo's bass drum on "Come Together" from the newly remastered release of Abbey Road. It sounds like a real bass drum now as a result of improved dynamics in combo with improved portrayal of harmonic overtones.
I also heard the foghorn blast that is typically buried in the mix of the tune "yellow Submarine" (from the remastered album of the same name from a few years back), it was quite distinct and clear.
You can often tell when things are going well when the music draws you in and you just want to turn up the volume and the toes start tapping or you reach for that air guitar! That's what I was doing yesterday afternoon. But things were also shining brightly at even the lowest volumes more so than ever before.
These amps are the bomb so far!
On the down side, I noticed a barely noticeable bit of what I believe to be some intermittent low level high frequency tube noise apparently on one channel of the pre-amp that I had never noticed before. Nothing horrible, but barely noticeable as a slight high pitched whine when sitting idle. At first I suspected a problem with one of the new amps, but switching inputs to the amps switched the problem to the other speaker, so the amps appear innocent. It may be time to open up the ARC pre-amp for the first time and dabble with the tubes. |
"They are just less exciting and involving, even while they are listenable."
That is the nature of the beast with lesser recordings to some extent.
In my case, lesser pop/rock recordings typically have manifested themselves with a dull and perhaps slightly muddy low end on most everything I have ever heard them on.
A good example is the original CD master of the Allman Brothers Brothers and Sisters album. This always has had somewhat of a murky low end to it, not just on CD but on original vinyl as well. That appeared to be missing in action for the most part this past weekend however with the new amps. As a result, the rest of what is there, though still way off from the best recordings, is able to come through quite nicely.
I noticed this while listening over the weekend not only with both pair of OHMS, but my Dynaudio monitors as well. These tended to have a touch of fat bass off the A3CR amp when sitting closer to the walls than ideal in my wife's 12X12 sunroom.
At first, things sounded rather lean with the Bel amps compared to the Musical Fidelity A3CR, but after things settled in I realized that the bass was tighter, more dynamic and more harmonically rich even on lesser recordings than prior.
The Bels have really opened up the dynamics to a significant extent on better recordings. |
Bond,
I lucked out somewhat. I open up the pre-amp. It uses 6 12AX7 dual triodes, 3 in the line section and 3 in the phono section. The problem was in the line section since I heard it on all inputs. So I switched tube pairs 1 by one between line and phono section. After the 3rd swap (of three total), the low level high pitched noise that sounded like a dentist drill was gone. And the phono section now with the tube that was causing the problem sounds fine! Go figure. Apparently the tube had an issue in the line stage but is quiet in the phono. I can live with that. I will be sure to pick up a few spare tubes and keep them around however for whenever the next issue comes up. Darn valves, pain in the butts but sure sound nice! |
Bond,
Your surround sound experience with the Walshes is very interesting. I have not read much about Walshes in surround sound systems and I do not do surround sound, so this is all news to me. My gut instinct is that the wide range omni Walsh design is a natural for surround sound despite the fact that the basic Walsh design was in existence way before home surround sound systems.
BTW I noticed that someone has a pair of wall mount Walshes for surround sound up for auction here currently. |
"I was talking with John Strohbeen about using them for surround duty, he says they will work fine, but the omni version of them works even better for surround duties."
I think the omni version does not employ the internal damping in the wall facing directions (at least not in the same configuration) and the super tweeter is mounted to face up rather than angled forward. There may be other tweaks as well to go along with these. |
"Ohm is one of the few speaker makers that truly has one "sound" that is just scaled for different room volumes. "
I suspect OHM might lay claim to being the best at this in particular. |
'I often wondered what they would sound like in that setup if the back of the driver can wasn't attenuated some"
I wonder about that too. They'd be an obstacle there for many and larger drivers might be needed to retain bass levels but would the soundstage depth and perspective match up to MBL closer then?
If I had my old Walsh 2s still around (I used them for trade-in) I'd be tempted to open up the cans and do some surgery myself there and try it. |
I have a 9 CD Time/Life 50s CD collection. This includes many popular tracks from that decade and sound like it must be remastered. Most of it is mono recordings. I've found remastered mono recordings from this era sound quite spectacular on my system! Solid imaging, big soundstage (more between speakers only though in comparison to stereo) and detail abounds, even with massed strings. Top notch audio candy!
Other mono 50's remasters sound top notch as well. One that comes to mind is a 2-cd Chuck Berry collection I have. I never realized this stuff could sound so good when I used to hear it on the radio as a kid. |
"Yeah, I've read that they have a wide (or "big", or something) soundstage, so I always thought that meant I could spend less time worrying about the sweetspot. "
The soundstage will generally be big regardless of placement as long as they are not too close to each other. Imaging focus and detail and bass levels at a variety of listening locations are the things that can reap greater rewards with proper placement. You will generally want to determine the best placement initially from the typical "sweet spot". Once that is done, the resulting soundstage, imaging and coherency should remain in play from most any location. |
"he most interesting thing I've done so far is to move them all the way in the middle of the room, while friends sat around them in a circle."
That's cool! Gotta try that sometime.
I ran my original Walsh 2s outside on a farmhouse porch fully cranked once years ago for an outdoor college party (off an 80w/ch Tandberg receiver). That was something to hear! It was like a music festival with the porch as the stage! One of my all time great home audio memories! |
'Map, what kind of differences do you get with your 5's and the switch settings when your speakers are placed in different positions, such as pulled out from the wall, or against a wall?"
When closer to the wall (<2 feet or so) the location setting (essentially affects the mid-upper bass) goes down a notch. Normally, they are out about twice that distance in that the long section of my L shaped room where I listen is a good 30 feet deep or so and the location setting is up a notch there normally.
My L shaped room where the speakers are located is not symmetrical The right speaker is always generally well less than 2 feet from the right wall. The left speaker is essentially free standing with the left wall another 10 feet or so to the left and in front of and just inside the left hand wall of the listening area (in teh length of the L shape, if that makes any sense, see my system picture to get the idea).
I typically have the placement control on the left Walsh 5 set to either free standing (highest) or wall (middle setting) and the right Walsh 5 set to either wall or corner (lowest setting) depending on distance from rear wall.
The separate "Room Size" setting is generally set to "medium" for a medium sized room. This is the low range bass control that you adjust based on room size. When I set this to "Large" room size, I find just a tad too much low end which tends to mask detail at higher frequencies somewhat.
The presence/midrange and treble settings are generally left at the middle level settings these days and both speakers have a slight toeout in order to consolidate the soundstage just a tad between the speakers and in front of my somewhat narrow (~ 10 feet or so) listening area. |
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1267197063&read&3&zzlMarkeetaux&&Vertically mounted/downward firing speakers (like OHM Walshes) can interact strongly with the floor, particularly acoustically lively floors like wood floors, etc. The thread above talks about this scenario which is more common with subwoofers but also applies to the OHM Walshes, so I though it would be of interest to those in this thread. |
"The Ohms image with both specificity (as do the VSM and the P/E) but with a sense of weight and body that the other speakers can't quite match"
That's a good way to describe what I often refer to as "meat on the bones", or a more lifelike weight to the presentation. To do it well requries moving a lot of air effectively. It's something that typically only large speakers can do well, particularly in larger rooms. Large speakers that also do the all the other things well also tend to be very expensive.
I attribute achieving this particularly well in a fairly compact package like the Walshes as due somewhat to the relatively large radiating surface area in effect with the Walsh driver compared to a conventional driver of similar size. IT moves a lot of air but the absolute level of pressurization of the air at any particular location with an omni is perhaps less than that achieved with a similar sized conventional driver driven similary, which accounts for the more relaxed dynamics and low fatigue factor as well perhaps.
The omni drivers used in mbls also have this going for them although their mode of operation is totally different, and the large mbl base drivers in particular seem well suited for absolute top notch dynamics. |
Rebbe,
How are those LSIs working out?
I was listening to my OHM Ls for the first time in a while the other day and it occurred to me that these might be just what the doctor ordered in your case. If available, I think John sells fully upgraded and refurbished Ls for $600 a pair. Also, I think OHMs usual home trial policy applies, but I am not certain.
Ls sold for $500 a pair back in 1978. They are OHMs all time most popular model in terms of units sold, I believe. I sold dozens of them back in the day, usually over classics like JBL, Advent, EPI, etc. I've held my Ls ever since + did some custom upgrading recently putting in OHMs sub bass activator circuit (also used in the Walshes I believe) and Morel woofers that I selected and acquired to replace old deteriorating woofers. I still run the original drivers and crossover otherwise. They share a lot of sonic attributes of the Walshes except in a small (but heavy) conventional front ported, 3 way bookshelf design, not unlike Harbeth. Mine have a nice enticing warmth in the midrange compared to the more neutral Walshes. I bet John's upgraded Ls probably would lay mine to waste, though mine are still a pair of speakers that I could live with if I had to. I used to use them in a small dorm room in college. Now, they are in my basement's unfinished area (see my system pics), which is actually the biggest room in the house, with bare concrete floors even.
Wish I would have thought about these sooner.
The Ls sat in the room where my 5s are now prior to acquiring them, and I was very satisfied with their performance in there as well at the time.
The Ls sound absolutely sublime with the Bel Canto amp as well I am finding. |
I think my Dyns use the Esotar tweeter. I interchange the Dyns and my 100S3s from time to time. My impression is the OHM top end is a bit more relaxed, the Dyn top end a bit hotter yet very nice. The little Dyns can be a little tizzy hot on the top end with the wrong amplification, but sublime with the right amplification. The OHMs less so. In general, I do not notice a huge difference when things are going right with either. People with younger ears that can still ehar very high frequencies might notice more of a difference I would think. Most people over 40 cannot hear the very top end of the audio spectrum above 14000 hertz or so though I believe. |
" He then proceeded to tell me that when Bob Carver presented his Sonic Holography to the audio world, he did it with Ohm speakers."
I have a Carver c-6 pre-amp (sitting idle as a backup currently) with sonic holography that I used with many speakers for years (Magnepan, B&W, Dynaudio, Triangle, Boston Acoustics). The effects were apparent on all but the OHMs. The holographic benefits were redundant and not apparent but the slight effect on tonal balance (mainly a slight low end roll off and slight brightening in timbre) were, so I never used it with the OHMs as I did on occasion with all the others. |
Bondman,
I have not fired up DSOTM in quite a while. I need to do that again just for reference in that so many know this milestone recording and I have undergone a lot of changes to my system since I last listened. |
