Foster,
Glad to hear it. Your patience and determination is admirable!
Nice to hear of a new winning combo (Cary/W4S/OHM). I've always heard good things about Cary products but have never had the chance to listen. |
Ron,
Are you getting a big soundstage and reasonably detailed imaging at least at this point? If not, your ears may not be tuned in to the omni presenation yet. That can take time depending. It took me a while even when I acquired the series 3 driver based models and I had owned OHMs for years prior.
If your not used to omni's, you might want to give your ears a chance to adjust to the different presentation. ALso the OHMs may take some time to open up a bit. Keeping them closer to the rear wall will help the bass.
How far apart are the OHMs and how far back are you listening from? Also, is your listening position not up against any walls?
Be sure to check basics like proper speaker wiring polarity, etc.
The unique presenation in regards to soundstage and imaging is the most unique aspect of the OHMs and omnis in general that you will not replicate with conventional designs. Once you tune into that, you might have a different perspective on the bass as well. Or possibly not. I am not an advocate of even the best tube amps in general with the OHMs. They reach their potential best with lots of current and power and also are not very efficient and have the difficult load deal going. I've found even my smaller 100S3 benefit from the 500 w/ch Class D amp I am using these days. Micros are less efficient than 100s even I believe, so I suspect the same is true with them. |
Just to be clear regarding tube amps and OHMs, I don't doubt that some combos might float peoples boat and some listeners whose opinions I respect report fairly good results. I have not heard OHMs and tube amps enough to say conclusively. I'm just saying that big SS amps are the best match technically to get the most out of them. YOu can fall a good bit short of that and still have a satisfying combo.
There are a lot of OHM Walshes out there over the years that I suspect many have never heard driven to their max running off of lower power and lower current stereo receivers, and such. THey have traditionally not had a high price of admission and are run on lots of kinds of systems compared to much high end stuff.
As I indicated the 100S3s (Walsh 2 size drivers) even benefit from the 500w/ch Class D amp. How many people have had access to that kind of power to drive OHMs over the years? Not many, including me.
|
In general, I believe it takes inherently more power to get "kick" from omnis equivalent to what you might get with similar efficiency directional speakers aimed at your listening position. That is because with imnis, the sonic energy is emmitted in all directions whereas with more directional designs it is all essentially aimed at you.
Due to room constraints (12X12 with some large furniture and a TV in the room)I've had my 100S3s in a rather unique more wide and nearfield configuration for the last few months that I have found works well, yet is radically different from the typical setup and even how I have my 5s setup in the larger room.
My listening position is a couch on the rear wall. My electronics are on furniture occupying most of the left wall. The TV is in the front right corner, and there is a sizable computer desk center on the front wall.
The left speaker sits about 2/3 of the way from the left side of the couch to the rear wall. The right speaker sits about halfway between rear and front wall (about 2 feet further out from the rear wall than the left) and only about a foot from the right wall. Everything is tuned in quite well with more than adequate bass, proper top to bottom balance, detailed imaging and a room size sound stage that can almost immerse the listener in the music.
Its a totally different presentation however than in teh larger rooms with the 5s which are both equidistant from teh rear wall, about 5 feet apart, and where I normally listen a good 6-8 feet or more back from teh speaks. Occasionally, I listen from a chair that is about 2 feet in front of the speakers and about a foot to the outside of the left speaker. There, the soundstage is again more near field in nature and the image fills in nice and coherently with a slight shift in overall location to the right....the magic of omnis! |
Ron,
You will not be the first to supplement the OHMs with a sub when driven off a tube amp. It may be par for the course. |
I'm very interested in hearing people's impressions of the new and improved 1000's series drivers versus the older series 3 drivers that I have in both pair of OHM Walshes and were used in MWTs from the outset, I believe.
Having not heard the latest drivers, its difficult for me to provide reliable feedback on those based on prior versions in that one cannot assume what is similar, different or improved sound-wise. |
BTW the OHMs I would most like to add that I do not already have (if I had room) are the Walsh-less Hs and Is.
For application in smaller rooms, either another pair of Ls (with latest and greatest crossover and drivers from OHM) or one of the harder to find CAM/PRO series, which I have never actually heard, perhaps. |
There is quantity of bass and quality of bass. Amps with higher damping factors tend to work well with the larger OHMs at least I believe. When I was amp hunting, I only considered amps with damping factors > 50. My old Carver was lower and had flat bass particularly at lower levels. The damping factor spec on the amps I'm running now is >1000 according to Bel Canto's specs. And let me tell you, the bass is by far the cleanest and most fulfilling I have heard on OHMs, though when I first hooked the Bel Cantos up, the bass sounded quite lean compared to prior. |
Bondmanp,
You might consider some simple home grown solutions in order to get the OHMs to sit squarer. Anything that helps to stabilize them can only help the sound. How about some $5.00 felt pads from Home Depot underneath to square things up (similar to squaring up a table or chair)?
Folded up pieces of paper or newspaper should even work if hidden and not too unsightly. |
Bondman,
Gotcha.
A solid foundation can only help and not hurt, I believe. how much exactly is not clear to me in the case of the OHMs, possibly less than in general as John suggests. |
A thing to note to wean optimal performance on Walshes (like my F5's) is to check occasionally to make sure the driver is firmly secured to the cabinet at all times. The F5s secure the driver to teh base using 4 wing nuts that I find tend to loosen up a bit over time, especially when letting things rip at higher volumes. You want these to be firm, not loose, but do not over tighten them . |
I noticed a pair of OHM 4.5 mkiis up for sale here currently for what appears to be a very good price, just a bit over a grand! Seller indicates these were John Potis' speakers on which he published a review.
These are 2 generation old Walsh 5 drivers in Walsh 4 cabinets, adaptable for all size rooms. The mkii's used a different tweeter I believe than the newer series 3s, but the Walsh drivers are identical as I understand it. |
Army Scout:
You beat me, 4 pair of OHMs owned to 3.
I resist the urge to just dump all other makes altogether and go all OHM. I do like to contrast and compare different designs that I like, however in the end, if I had to downsize, I'd be fine with pure wall to wall OHMs, even after over 30 years of ownership. |
Here's some email news from OHM I just received that should be of interest to those looking at upgrading older OHMs.
"Dear Ohm owners,
To encourage you to move up to the "latest and greatest Ohms ever", we are increasing the trade in values of all old Ohm Walsh speakers.
You can get 40% off the new Walsh Thousand series with the trade in of older Ohm Walsh speakers (maximum trade in value is the original retail of the trade in.)
Model Price after Trade-in Savings Old model needed
MicroWalsh SE $ 840 per pair $ 560 Any Walsh speaker
Walsh 1000 $1200 per pair $ 800 Walsh 2 or higher
Walsh 2000 $1680 per pair $1120 Walsh 3 or higher
Walsh 3000 $2400 per pair $1600 Walsh 3 or higher
Walsh 4000 $3360 per pair $2240 Walsh 4XO or higher
Walsh 5000 $3900 per pair $2600 Walsh 300 Mk-2 or higher
Shipping & Handling is still only $50 per pair.
This offer is good thru April 30, 2010. We may extend the offer if we get enough response.
Please give me a call to discuss your needs and options.
Good Listening!
John Strohbeen, President,
800-783-1553" |
That should be a very nice upgrade (three generations of driver improvements) from original Walsh 4's to the latest 5000 drivers! I would expect to hear a big difference. Please let us know how it turns out. |
Yes, I would agree also that many often mistake different for better and it can be hard to not waver when one believes the grass might be greener elsewhere. |
I regularly listen to high end systems for reference and comparison and have worked to get my system into the same league.
THese days, I think I have accomplished that. I might be the Blue Jays or Rays rather than the Yankees, but my setup competes.
One thing I can assert is that the OHMs have never been the bottleneck. Every change I make is clearly audible.
You do have to look at the whole system together including room, etc.
Once you do that, choice of speakers can become a very personal choice to determine what kind of sound you want. My goal is to sound as much like a live performance of any musical genre as possible. The OHMs let me do that. OTher speakers might edge them out in some categories (as the OHMs might as well) but the OHMs are clearly the total package at nominal cost. |
"I'm leery of suboptimally flat FR"
KRistian,
NEver heard the term "suboptimally flat FR" before.
What does it mean?
Also, I would not condemn someone for having a change of heart on these things over time. It happens all the time and does not necessarily mean that the process is flawed. You generally have to take some hits in the interest of learning. My hope would be merely to keep the costs associated with the discovery process to a minimum. |
"Kristian85 hit the mark, IMO. Perceptive and succinct."
Maybe with the observation, if I understand it correctly, that blogging openly can subject one to criticism, which is undeniable, but otherwise, I'm not sure what the mark is? |
My system and the OHMs in conjunction are pretty flat based on my ears and test recordings I have used.
There was a review in stereophile back in the 80s (still available on-line) that indicated some midrange variation with the original Walsh 5s.
A follow-up review withdrew that criticism after some tweaks by John Strohbeen.
The current drivers are 3 generations removed from the originals and flat response is one critique of the Walshes seldom seen these days.
I had original Walsh 2s and now the more recent models and drivers. The newer drivers are much more refined and copetitive with modern speaker designs than the originals from 30 years back or so. |
The unique design of the OHMs (Walsh drivers) are what attracted me to them originally years ago based on the reputation at the time of the original OHM Fs.
In general, I look at truly innovative or different designs as a way to break barriers and perhaps accomplish something really different and perhaps better, particularly at certain price points. After all, there are many very good conventional designs that may all sound different but have more in common than not.
Of course there is innovation and then there is also snake oil...determining which is the case often requries some degree of technical acumen in addition to good ears.
I'd be happy to offer a demo of my system as well if in the Baltimore/DC metro area sometime if you contact me by mail. |
Rplef,
That's a very good question.
Audiogoner Mamboni is a professional classical musician and major OHM proponent I believe.
Getting those aspects of classical music right as you decribe has been one of the driving factors that has landed me where I am currently.
massed violin sheen and richness - The best reference system I have heard to reproduce this was MAgico mini;s on very high end tube amplification and DCS digital source. Only recently with the move to tube pre-amp and high power S power amp have I been able to approach that as a reference, but currently I am in the same ballpark, though OHM and Magico presentation is much different.
woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring - the OHMs and my system in general have been champs at this for a while now. The OHMs may be the best I have heard at reproducing large massed brass orchestras in a realistic yet non-fatiguing manner.
The wide range Walsh driver is the key to reproducing these things well. Proper amplification is also key. But once you get everything tuned in, the OHMs are top notch for classical IMHO. They have the muscle to do this exceptionally well overall in addtion which smaller designs do not. Monitors, even MAgico minis will never deliver the power and range of a large scale classical recording on a realistic scale, though the timbre is quite good. OHMs can. |
BTW, I supect a full/wider range Walsh driver like those found in original OHM Fs or perhaps even newer versions of those might be able to take massed strings up a level in comparison to OHMs Walshes, which use a separate supertweeter. Full range drivers with no crossover are uniquely suited for this I believe.
However, full range Walsh drivers and other more conventional full range drivers (save perhaps the largest and best) may be challenged to deliver the muscle behind performances in general that the OHM Walshes can. Off loading the top end from the Walsh driver makes the OHM Walsh design able to go louder with more ease whereas OHM Fs were notorious for being subject to damage if overdriven. Dale Harder's newer Walsh designs appear to have alleviated that to some degree using more modern design principles and materials, though they still come with warnings against being overdriven. |
One way o another, speakers (including OHMs) must be mated with amps that are well suited to diving them optimally. Optimally often infers the best case for achieving a generally (if not exactly) flat response. Same true with OHMs.
Active speaker designs see to be one way and perhaps the easiest to accomplish this. The designer does the integration for you. That's a great and perhaps the easiest approach in general for many I think, but certainly not the only way. Matching amp and speaker yourself certainly provides more flexibility and variety in end results, so it may take a while for someone to stumble (or objectively determine) what the right match is. The right match for an individual may not be the same as intended by the speaker designer, although one would expect the designer to be the most qualified to make the determination of how to meet their sound goals technically by integrating amp and speaker.. |
Its true our ears are sensitive detectors of sound.
Try the old test of listening normally and with hands cupped behind the ears to see how much difference can be heard in response to a small change. |
Thanks John.
One of these days, perhaps before too long, I will test the waters with the latest drivers.... |
Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are.
It could have to do with tonal balance in a particular room. WHen the supertweeter is more predominant, I have noticed soundstage tends to be smaller. Perhaps things also become more forward?
OHM Walshes in general are not for those that prefer a more forward presentation. Not much goes on in front of the speakers in general I have found. Same true of mbl omnis I have heard. THis may be a general trait of omnis but I am not certain. |
"What I cannot abide are speakers with messy FR and dispersion curves as that can only worsen in-room FR.
I can say with confidence that that the OHMs should rate very well in this aspect. |
Yes, I did the measurement thing years ago out of curiosity, and I also had an Audio Control auto EQ unit at one point. These days, I have no interest and just trust my ears.
I can add that increasing treble levels on Walsh 5s using the on-board adjustments do make the sound a tad more forward than otherwise based on my experience listening with different levels set on the Walsh 5 drivers.
A Walsh that sounds forward is probably having somewhat more of the overall sound being produced by the super tweeter rather than the Walsh driver, which, like most omnis I believe, is naturally laid back as a result of more sound being emitted towards the rear than most box designs. |
Zk,
Thanks for that.
BC did a nice job putting a unique twist to the design of this speaker to help make their product standout!
Should help OHM get more exposure in teh high end audio world as well, though I'm not sure how much JS really cares about that. He probably knows most of his sales will come from the much larger portion of the music listening population that are closer to the mainstream.
I hope they sell well. |
I like to generally sit in the "sweet spot", dead center and a bit further back than the performance width.
I listen with my larger OHMs in a similar configuration but I listen to the 100s in the smaller room more nearfield like being front row just left of center.
Sometimes with the larger OHMs in the larger room, I sit near field also, just 1.5 feet in front of and a tad outside of the left speaker (they are about 6 feet apart) and the soundstage shifts yet remains detailed and coherent.
One nice thing about good omnis is you can sit if different locations and get different presentations without moving the speakers, which can make for a nice and easy change of pace. |
Fin,
Thanks. Really, I just like to blather on and on about OHMs more than anyone else i suppose. I do try to be consistent!
Yes, at a live concert I tend to go for the sweet spot if possible. Most other locations in most venues deliver more compromise.
Regarding shifting soundstage at live events, it can happen in some venues with un amplified acoustic instruments and vocals, but there is usually mikes, amps and speakers involved to some extent, which works against that. When it works, its mostly a result of venue acoustics and the geometry involved with how the sound reaches your ears. When the geometry supports the ears ability to triangulate to determine location of instruments, it can happen. It is probably true though that in general it is less common and pronounced in experience than listening to a good pair of OHMs or mbls even with a recording miked in an appropriate manner to capture the relative location of instruments to a good degree.
The new amps are a home run. OHMs really benefit from the power, current and damping factor to a great degree I believe, as do many dynamic speaker designs. The Dynaudios also sound better than ever, the timbre of the BCs on these is less towards the hot side now. The OHM Ls sound way better than I have ever heard them, and even the little Relaistic Minimus 7s on my deck are happy as can be.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of OHM owners out there have never heard their speakers optimally driven to the max and are missing out. That's because a lot of OHMs have been sold over the years starting at relatively low price points (under $500) as part of nice sounding but underpowered systems running off less ballsy amplification typical in receivers and even many integrated's. That works fine for most, but those who care might wean a lot more out of their OHMs by looking at bigger yet still greener Class D amps. |
John,
We do our yearly trip to NY every June. Its coming up again. We stay at the Parker Meridian, down the block from Carnegie. Last year I got to hear a performance at Carnegie listening just right of center in Dress Circle level. I had heard that you voice the OHMs based on listening at Carnegie and as I was sitting there listening, I felt right at home. The sound there was indeed quite exceptional and holographic even at times. |
Wow, mamboni, I've been waiting for some insightful assessments of the 5000s. Knowing your background in music, your accolades carry a lot of weight for me!
Now you're giving me the upgrade bug I thought I had dispersed finally once more..... |
"Rebbi- do you miss them?"
I don't think Reb will know for sure until he has evaluated the MErlin monitors.
From what I know, I think those are a good choice for assessing what is possible with monitors and the Merlins are probably a good choice for what appears to be a pretty lively room in Rebbi's case.
I tried to end my hunt with the Dynaudio monitors, and they came close, but no cigar in the end. I still like them enough to keep them though. They work as good as anything as a matter of fact in our small sunroom, which also happens to be the most lively room in our house. |
Rpfef,
Plinius SA100/MkIII is 100 w/ch correct?
That's OK, but probably not enough to bring out the best in any OHM Walshes, particularly in regards to bass impact based on my experience with them.
I would think that would go pretty loud still though large scale classical music like you describe in particular may not be up to snuff.
I can say with confidence that the more recent OHMs with a high power, high current SS amp behind them matches the best systems I have heard in this regard. Recent Class D amp breakthroughs raise the bar in terms of amp size and power consumption needed to drive them to the max for music that requires a lot of power behind it to deliver.
Always have heard good things about Shahinian but unfortunately have never heard those. thanks for sharing! |
One thing I notice about Shahinian versus OHM is Shahinian has a forward firing woofer I believe. The OHM Walsh driver fires downward. A forward firing driver might impart more low end impact that can be felt to a listener sitting in front than a downward firing in that more sound reaches the listener directly, all other factors aside.
This difference in the presenation of OHm Walsh speakers is something that people should be aware of and I believes help drive the need for higher power amps. Those who are used to speaker or subwoofer drivers firing directly at them might be put off by a seeming lack of impact by the Walsh drivers in comparison. A smaller percentage of the sound produced reaches your ears directly with the OHMS or even other mostly omni designs, like mbl. Once you feed these enough power to really energize the entire room (not just your listening position), things start to really shape up. |
"I own Shahinian Hawks. In the next few days, I will be setting up a pair of Ohm Walsh 200's alongside them."
Should make for some interesting discussion! |
"I don't know why ohm did not stick to the old pyramid designs,"
Cost control pretty much I think.
The good news is there are lots of these cabinets around that can be fitted with the latest and greatest drivers.
I really like having the casters on the bigger F5s. They make fine tuning location and moving the speaks in general a snap. It's not hard probably to remove the feet from many of the pyramidal cabinets and replace those with castors from OHM or even the local Home Depot perhaps. |
I noticed a pair of 100S3s up for sale by Winegasman, who I don't think we have heard from in awhile.
Has another OHMer jumped ship?
Winegasman, are you out there? What's the latest news with you system-wise? |
"Hmmmm, when I had my 100's, I thought John said that they wouldn't take any of the X000-series drivers due to size incompatibilities...."
Most likely he had not adapted the new drivers to that particular cabinet yet. Over time, he seems to work out how to adapt the newer drivers to as many old cabinets as possible, thereby providing the most potential upgrade paths possible. I do not think he would advertise or sell a new driver on an old cabinet until the combo can be tuned properly. Just plopping a new driver on an old cabinet would not be an optimized solution in that each cabinet's acoustics are different. Eventually, these get published to the web site at which point I suppose they become a formal product upgrade option.
A significant part of OHMs business is providing upgrades to older units, which both helps keep costs to current owners low and helps keep the customer base intact. If teh upgrade is not published on the web site, then its availability would not be assured. |
Its a yearly summer promotion it seems. I took advantage a few years back to get my F5's. Worked out swimmingly..... |
BTW, with the promotion sale price + 40% max discount for trading in two pair of old OHMs (my old Walsh 2s and a pair of C2s I picked up on ebay for about $130 in order to get $700 trade-in value) the F5s ended up costing me $2400 + the cost of the C2s plus the cost of shipping 2 pair of speakers to OHM for the trade-in. Good deal! |
" his experience runs a little counter to posts in this thread about the need for high current to really make them sing.
What to make of this?"
You may not be pushing the limits of volume and dynamics possible with the OHMs with a Fisher tube receiver, but the end results might still be quite pleasant.
I lot of people run OHMs off of gear that is perhaps less than optimal and remain quite satisfied. Its all relative. |
I would have gone for the Wyred except I decided to splurge and go for the BCref1000m2s for a significant premium.
The premium got me 100K input impedance compared to 60K and perhaps an upgrade in the on-board power supply.
I like the Wyreds as the best value overall though that are capable of driving the OHMs to the max and also mate well with most tube pre-amps.
So if you want to splurge, you can substitute the BC ref100m2s for the Wyreds in the equation, but you may end up with very comparable results with the Wyreds as well I suspect. Some reviewers have suggested an audible sound difference between the two, but I have never had the opportunity to compare.
And yes, I am a fan of the MErcury Living Presence recordings as well and they provide some of the most captivating sound available on a suitable system. A lot of those used very simple miking techniques combined with a focus on delivering a captivating stereo sound experience back in the day when stereo was a new and big thing. The OHMs deliver this in spades as they are capable of doing with most all very good recordings I have tried when driven to their max potential by an amp like the Wyred or BC Icepower amps.
I do not understand what the Icepower detractors are hearing to justify that position. The sound may not be to everyones taste (nothing is) but there is certainly no graininess or any other artifacts that people associate with anything even remotely digital in nature. |
Zk,
YEs, I would easily recommend those with smaller rooms like my two 12X12 rooms go straight to a pair of smaller OHMs in an optimized nearfield configuration with suitable amplification as well and rest in peace from there.
I run monitors in one of my two 12X12s but frankly if that were my main listening room I'd probably just add another pair of smaller OHMs and call it a day. |
Having heard well set up true omni mbl speakers in a sizeable room unlike any that most of us schlubs will ever have, I would consider those to be the all time champs I have heard in terms of image depth and 3-d soundstage.
The pseudo-omni OHMs approach that kind of 3-d soundfield best in a near field configuration I find.
depth of soundstage is the only area where I would say good true omnis like mbl in a very large room with lots of space behind them have the edge over my OHMs in my rooms normally. |
Bondman,
Yes, I have the CD of that particular MLP release.
I have a dozen or so different MLP titles on CD and pick them up whenever I see them at reasonable cost without a second thought. None on vinyl yet though unfortunately. |
Bondman,
Anxious to hear about the new pre-amp. Do keep us posted! |
Sweet, Bondman.
That Mac is a nice piece! Pretty reputable company to go along with it.
Enjoy! |
