Parasound: I have zero experience with Ohm subs, but two things make me optimistic about them. 1 - You get a 120 day return option, risking only shipping. 2 - John Strohbeen knows how to design and voice loudpspeakers. Why not try one out and post your impressions?
Well, I've had my Ohm Walsh Center speaker ($700 + shipping) for a week now, so I'd thought I'd comment. This is the smaller version of the center, roughly 20" wide and 6" deep. The cabinet is only about 2 or 3 inches high, with the Ohm Walsh driver mounted on top in the center. This is a smaller Walsh driver than in my 2000s, and rises about 6" above the cabinet for a total hieght of about 9". Fit and finish of the black wood-grain is excellent. As per John Strohbeen's recommendation, I have the center tilted down toward the listening seat, since it sits atop my ancient SD RPTV. I sit about 10 feet back from the TV. As per Ohm, the Center is crossed over at 80Hz via my Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 pre-pro. Bass is supplied by a Definitive Technology PF-15 sealed 15" sub with a 185-watt internal amp. The bass and LFE signal are smoothed out using both a Paradigm X-30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP parametric digital EQ.
This little Walsh Center is an Ohm Walsh speaker through and through. It has the same clarity and definition of my 2000s, with a very smooth presentation of both music and dialog. Several films I have viewed using the Walsh Center were in Dolby Digital 1.0 - i.e., mono. Even though all the sound above 80Hz came from this one small speaker, there was no apparent lack of dynamic impact or any sighns that the Walsh Center was being pushed too hard.
This center is an excellent compliment to my 2000s, and along with the MWTs I found used for surround speakers, soundtracks sound wonderful - realisitic, natural and enveloping. So much so, I am seriously considering removing the Paradigm Atoms that reproduce the back-surround channels. Another solid product from Ohm. |
OK - day two. I didn't have the strength last night to fiddle with the subs or move the Vandys out of the way. I did toe-in the 2000s just a smidge, maybe 1/2" from parallel.
I watched a few tracks from The Best of Sessions at 54th Street (DVD - PCM stereo audio). This of course went through my cheap Sony DVD player and Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 prepro into the C-J preamp. I am very familiar with this DVD, and the extra detail from the Ohms vs. my Vandys was very impressive. Imaging was not as good as with CD, but that's likely due to the prepro. Some of the tracks, especially the Ani DiFranco cut "32 Flavors" gave me chills up my spine. Very engaging. Very encouraging!
I also played two CDs I just bought (never heard on my system with the Vandys, so can't compare). The first, "Sweet Heart Dealer" by Scarling, sounded terrible. Very digital, thin and bass-shy. I am guessing it's just the way this CD was produced. I did play a cut from Quicksand - "Thorn in My Side" that I know for sure is poorly produced, and while listenable, the 2000s did not make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
Next up was another new purchase, "Begin to Hope" by Regina Spektor. All I can say is, based on what I heard on my not-yet-burned-in, improperly positioned 2000s with improperly set subwoofers, is, if you own Walsh speakers, BUY THIS DISC! It just clicked. Great timbre, huge soundstage, excellent detail retrieval, superb imaging. I was emotionally engaged through most of the disc, and there was that sweetness to the sound that was very appealling.
So, two discs, the same signal chain, and two very different results. I suppose that this is what is meant by good systems providing garbage-in, garbage-out. My Vandys, by comparison, seemed to homogenize music more, so nothing sounded really great, but nothing sounded really bad.
Two very significant observations:
1. I frequently nod off when listening to music in the evening. Not eye-blinks, but deep sleep disturbed only by my choking on my own saliva. This did not happen last night. Although I began to doze off a few times, the music startled me into an alert state almost immediately. This is a very good sign.
2. Typically, when I sit down to listen to music, I experience fatigue soon, and switch to a movie (I have a combo 2-channel/HT surround system). This did not happen last night. When the two CDs were finished, I did watch the DVD, but it was a music program in 2-channel stereo. Another very good sign. (I may have to cut back on my NetFlix subscription!)
Further updates to follow. |
Questions for Mapman, Rebbe, and other Ohm owners:
In your opinion, how do the MWT and 100s do on image depth both behind and in front of the speakers?
Is it difficult to get the speakers to sonically disappear?
If any Ohm owners have personal experience with Vandersteen speakers, especially the model 1C, can you describe the relative similarities and differences between Vandys and Ohms?
Thanks in advance! |
Rockinrobin: Along with the Ohm 100's, the Songtower is a speaker that is on my list for consideration of a speaker upgrade. If you end up auditioning the Ohms against your Salks, I'd love to hear your thoughts! |
Rebbi - thanks for the virtual system post! Love the Ohms in black. Is it a satin finish or glossy? Was there an upcharge for this finish? TIA |
Well, since we're all discussing current, why don't those of you who have amps with current ratings post the current ratings here. Although I don't own Ohms - not yet :-) - my Odyssey Audio Stratos HT3 is rated to deliver 45 amps of current. I do not know if that is per each of the 3 channels or total. Here is a link to the specs of my amp (I did get the cap upgrade option): http://www.odysseyaudio.com/products-stratos-ht3.html
Before I take the plunge, I will check with John at Ohm to see if this is a good choice for his speakers in my room (a basement, 24' X 20' X 6' ceiling [DUCK!]), but if you folks want to give me your opinion about this, I am all ears.
I also have a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers which would stay if I upgrade to Ohms. They roll in @6dB/octave starting @80Hz, and the Vandersteen in-line resistors roll off at the same slope starting at 80Hz. So the output to the mains is down 6dB at 40Hz, and 12dB at 20Hz.
The amp has a pretty liquid, detailed, yet smooth character, with good dynamic punch, good PRAT, and good soundstage width. Hieght and depth are fair, nothing spectacular. BTW, if you are looking for a bang for the buck amplifier with hefty current capability, the Odyssey Audio line is worth a look. |
Ah, Tech HiFi! That's where I got my first speakers - Advent New Large Utilities - in 1978. They were on sale for less than $200 ($179/pr?), IIRC. This is back when Tech HiFi, Sam Goody, Rabson's and other mid-fi retailers were big businesses, and often advertised in newspapers. It was a newspaper ad that alerted me to the sale price for the Advents. When's the last time you saw ads for hifi gear (other than Bose) in a newspaper? Boy, times have changed! The Advents are still in service in my secondary den system, with original foam surrounds. Thanks for the memories, Mapman! |
Diebenkorn: Thanks for the comments. Please feel free to post more impressions as you listen further.
Does anyone know if the prices will go up for the next version of the 100? (I hope not.)
Mapman - Not only do I remember Crazie Eddie's, I knew how to read the price codes on the shelf price cards. As their "insane" ads stressed, they would beat any price. Of course, most consumers would just assume the shelf price was the lowest price and pay it. Big mistake. Those who did shop around would present their competitor's ad before asking if the item was in stock. Big mistake #2, since Eddie's would suddenly be out of stock if you had a good price to beat. I would first ask the salesman if the item was in stock, have him write up the sale, and call the stockroom to have it brought up to the check out. Only then would I produce the ad with a lower price. I did this many times.
I myself worked for a while at Lafayette Radio on 45th Street while I was in college. They were already owned by Circuit City, and sold all mid-fi stuff. The best was probably Mirage speakers. I remember looking at the first CD player they sold - a Hitachi, IIRC - with a price tag of about $1000.
Sorry to everyone for drifting OT! |
Parasound63: Funny you should say "I haven't listened to this much music since I was 16." That's exactly what I am looking for. My current rig is not bad, but I never have long listening sessions, usually switch to watching movies, and rarely listen to a complete album. I guess that's classic listening fatigue. When I was 16, I would listen for hours to my system (Kenwood receiver, Technics 'table with cheap Stanton pickup, or Superscope Cassette Deck and New Large Advent Utility speakers) for hours. Surely, this was, at best, mid-fi, but I loved listening. Although time is a more precious commodity these days, I long for a speaker that i can afford that will make me opt for music over video.
Until now, only two speakers I have heard under $10K convinced me that I would listen more often if I had them. One, the Roman Audio Centurian (~$6500 when last available) is out of production. The other, Silverline Audio Bolero, is pricey ($9K list, but probably lower street price).
Based on this thread, I am going to try to get the boss's approval to try out the Ohms. Unfortunaley, based on J.S.'s latest email, the price of entry for me into the world of Ohm just went up from $1700 to $2800, if I have measured my room correctly and understand the room-size application correctly. But $2800 is still a lot less than the other two speakers, so come this fall, I hope to contact John and order a pair od 2000s (or the 1000s if John thinks they will suffice).
If I have the kind of reaction to the Ohms that you, Rebbe and Martykl got, perhaps it will be my last speaker (especially given the 40-50 year life-span of the new line, which is probably longer than my own).
I will keep this thread posted as things progress.
Meanwhile, I am dressing up the acoustics in my room and just got my preamp back from a factory refresh at Conrad Johnson. I want to make sure that everything else is in place before I order the Ohms.
Thanks again, everyone! |
Thanks, Parasound, but I won't have the cash until a bonus check on August 31st. FYI, only my preamp is C-J. My amp is the Odyssey Audio HT3.
Mapman - this must be a no-risk trial for me. I can't spend that kinda money without a way out if they aren't everything I hope they will be. Ohm's 120 day trial is the only reason I am even considering the purchase. Buying used for an upgrade or trade-in means too many complications if I do not like the Ohms in my system. Plus, I admit that I like the idea of rounded cabinets and improved finishes. I don't mind spending the $2800, if the 2000s are all that I hope they will be (in fact, they'd be a bargain at $2800 if they produce the same reaction from me as the Roman Audio Centurians or Silverline Boleros). My current speakers, Vandy 1Cs, were bought new at full retail nine years ago. For the money, it is still one of the better speakers out there, and was maybe the best for under $1000 nine years ago. I do not regret paying retail at all: If a product offers good value at its list price, I am fine with paying retail. |
Thanks, Parasound and Zkzpb8!
Parasound - I am a firm believer in burn-in of speakers, most electronics, phono pickups and, to much lesser extent, ICs, speaker cables and power cords. Although I want to let them run in while I am not around, I get nervouse with my preamp being on too long when I am out of the room (tubes, smoke, fire, yadda, yadda), so I will keep them running as long as I am awake and at home.
Zkzpb8 - I also have a pair of Vandy W2q subs that will remain in place with the Ohms (the W2q is an amazing subwoofer, if you value musicality and seemless integration over brute force). Were you able to directly compare the Ohms with any Vandersteens? If so, which models? Indeed, if $2800 will take me off the upgrade path, it will be money very well spent - then I can upgrade the rest of my system
;-D
Thanks. |
Question for the Ohm-o-philes: One possibility for my foray into Ohm Walsh speakers is the Walsh 4.3, which is a 3000 driver in recycled Ohm Walsh 4 cabinets. Ohm's web site does not have the dimensions of this speaker posted. Can anyone supply them for me here? I like the 9" footprint of the 100/2000 cabinets, but I must admit, getting a Walsh 3000 driver for the price of a Walsh 2000 is appealing. However, space is limited. FYI, room is ~2800 cubic feet, which is in the overlap zone between the new Walsh 2000 and Walsh 3000. Thanks in advance. |
Thanks, Aurelius, it is a big help. Simply put, the 4.3, which I think is the same cabinet as the 4.5, is too large for the tight space I must use for speaker placement. In the meantime, John Strohbeen has reviewed a diagram of my floorplan, and told me that the new Walsh 2000 (which is only a 9" x 9" footprint) should work fine in my situation. Ordering will probably be next month, so I will post my experiences going forward as they happen. |
Just in case anybody is wondering about my Walsh 2000 purchase, there has been a delay. First, the finish needed some extra work. Next, John Stohbeen felt, after listening to my pair, that the speakers needed some kind of an adjustment. Expected arrival date is now October 12th. Of course I'm a little dissappointed, but gratified that Ohm is paying such close attention to detail and quality control. The Paul Mason of loudspeakers? I'll keep you posted. |
Getting closer to pulling the trigger on the Walsh 2000s.
One question: I sent my room diagram and speaker selector form into John Strohbeen. He agreed that the 2000s would be sufficent for my room. However, he commented that since I was using subs, he would provide a sealed cabinet, instead of the standard vented one. He mentioned that this would allow for a smoother blend with the subs.
My subs are the Vandersteen 2Wq (a pair). These use an in-line, first order filter between the preamp and power amp. The roll-off starts at 80Hz, so the signal to the mains is down 6dB at 40Hz, 12dB at 20Hz. Vandersteen specifies that the mains must be reasonably flat down to 40Hz to use them with the 2Wq. The circuitry in the subwoofers compensates for this roll-off. My current speakers are Vandersteen 1Cs, which are vented. The blend I have now is completely seemless.
Bottom line: I think John's idea of using a sealed cabinet is based on the higher-order crossovers used by most subwoofers. My inclination is to insist on the standard, vented cabinet to maintain a robust response down to 40Hz. I think I will get the best blend this way. Also, I would imagine the efficiency of the 2000 would decrease if the cabinet were sealed and not vented. Although I have a pretty beefy amp, my room is large, and one major reason for the upgrade is to avoid the compression I get at louder levels from the Vandy 1Cs.
Thoughts, anyone? |
Thanks - will stick with the standards vented design. BTW, pics of the new thousand series Walsh speakers, now in production, are now up on the Ohm website. Badda-bing - Bubbinga! |
Well, I finally, FINALLY, pulled the trigger (been following this thread for a long time!) on a pair of Walsh 2000s. Although I wanted a satin black finish, that was not available, so I ordered a black finished wood veneer. I ordered the standard vented cabinet. Note that they still come with casters. Jay at Ohm took my order and was very helpful and patient with my numerous questions. Lead time was quoted as 3 to 4 weeks. UPS to New Jersey is $50. Wish me luck, I'll keep y'all posted. |
Good question, Mapman. AFAIK, the casters are affixed to the plinth base, so you get both. I asked Jay if the plinths sat flat on the floor, since my basement floor (carpeted) is not completely flat. His response was that they come with casters, so an uneven floor shouldn't be an issue. I guess I'll find out when the speakers arrive.
Question for Ohm Walsh owners: Do the Ohm Walsh speakers require a perfectly level horizontal set-up to sound their best? I know other speaker manufacturers are adamant on this point, but perhaps, because of the Walsh design, horizontal leveling is less critical? |
I think rebbi is correct. I was actually thinking about the Walsh 100S3 before the new line came out. In the new line, the 1000 is too small for my room (~2800 c.f.), so I went with the 2000. Given the improvements to the design, the economy, the dollar, and the cost of keeping the entire operation in New York City, the $1100 jump in price (100S3 to 2000) for a similar place in the model line was not outrageous to me. I don't hold it against John that he obfuscated a price hike somewhat by rearranging the line. The bottom line is that very few speaker companies aim for one sound - their best possible - and then just offer different models for different size spaces. Most other companies start with a statement speaker, then make progressive compromises to hit certain price points. Not only do these compromised designs work better in smaller rooms, they don't perform to the level of the statement model. Ohm claims that the goal is the same level of performance from the entire Walsh line, with different models optimized for different sized rooms. I am impressed with that approach, which indicates a no-compromise attitude towards performance.
Besides, the longer expected life span of the new series has serious appeal to me. If these speakers are keepers, I intend to run them until I die or go deaf. |
I hear ya, rebbi. The 2000s were a stretch for me too. But, I'm almost 50 years old, I get almost nothing from keeping the money in the bank, and with the kids about to start college, this may be my last chance for a decent pair of speakers. Considering my long-time dream speaker lists for $9K, if the Walsh 2000s do the trick for $2850 delivered, I will be one happy camper. |
Well, Mapman, I just found out today that my $9K dream speaker is now my $12K dream speaker :-(
The Silverline Audio Bolero is now the Bolero Supreme, with a 33% price increase. This speaker nearly brought me to tears when I heard it at a show years ago. They are not a neutral speaker, but the colorations are intentionally euphonic and beautiful (to my ears, YMMV), with no sense of shrouded detail or distortion, huge dynamic range, gigantic, holographic soundstage and liquid, smooth detailed highs (top-line Dynaudio drivers). And that was in a hotel room with a flee-powered tube amp! The most addictive, beautiful sounding speaker I've heard that didn't have a 5-figure price tag (at the time). My plan was, if I did not like the Ohms, to buy a pair of Boleros used (still much more than the Walsh 2000s) or try to buy direct from Silverline (no local dealers) and get a discount.
This price increase makes a new pair out of the question for me. If the Ohms go back to Brooklyn, I may have a long difficult search ahead of me. I have my fingers crossed with the Walsh 2000s, though. |
So my 2000s are not coming today. That's OK. I called Ohm, and they held up the shipping, because upon final inspection, they were unhappy with the cabinet finish. They will be applying another coat of finish, and should ship on Thursday or Friday. I have no problem with this. I prefer that my speakers be as near-perfect as possible before they leave the factory. This would put delivery still within the delivery window I was given when I ordered.
Stereo Times has a new review of the Micro-Walsh SE by Frank Alles that is very encouraging. FWIW, his rooms, especially the larger one, are a bit larger than the c.f. range that the Micro-Walsh SEs are intended for. That would make Alles' only sonic criticism moot, ad far as I can tell. |
I did get my 2000s last night! :-)
The boxes were huge and heavy, with triple-boxing and wood and foam inserts. Good thing, too: UPS did their usual best to destroy whatever might be inside. They only succeeded in damaging the outer boxes, however.
I unboxed them (pretty easily), then unwrapped them. There were a few surprises. I have exchanged emails with John Strohbeen to address some issues, and John seems most determined to resolve everything to my satisfaction. For that reason, I will not be commenting on these issues at this time. Suffice it to say that John is dedicated to cadillac customer service.
My basement floor (carpeted cement) is not flat. The speakers wobble significantly. My Vandersteen 1Cs use a 3-point spike base, so this has not been an issue. Ohm is sending me some pads to level and stabilize the speakers, but until these are in place, I cannot fairly comment on the sound of the speakers. I also have to take some time and dial in my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers.
Conveniently, the ganged banana plug connector that was supplied with my Vandersteen 1Cs matches the spacing on the Walsh 2000 speaker terminals, so the switch was easy.
After listening to a demo CDR I compiled on my Vandersteen 1Cs, I switched to the Ohms. By this time, they had reached room temperature. The Ohms are 25.5" from the side walls and 37.5" from the front wall (I have very little room to move these closer or farther from adjacent walls). Note that there is a huge 55" SD RPTV behind (by about 10") and in between the speakers, and there are CD cabinets next to and on top of the RPTV. The rest of my gear is in my "System" link.
Space is tight, so for now, the Vandys are placed against the side walls next to the Ohms. This will be changed as soon as possible. Note that the signal from the amp is high-pass filtered, first order, below 80Hz, so it is down 6dB at 40Hz, and 12dB at 20Hz.
Initial impressions were positive. I could tell immediately that the 2000s were better than my Vandersteen 1Cs is two key areas: Timbre and flatness of frequency response. In some areas, the two are actually more alike than different. I am not very surprised by this, since both use designs that eliminate or minimize box and baffle colorations. I also heard a bit more detail with the Ohms, and there was more extension of soundstage into the room. The center image was better defined and more stable, as well as taller, than the Vandys. Most noticeable, however, was the elimination, on certain familiar material, of a tendancy for specific musical notes to jump out and obscure other parts of the music. I had always attributed this to room acoustics (which are far from perfect). But I guess this was due to irregularities in the Vandys' frequency response.
The 2000s are clearly less efficient than the 1Cs, as I tried for at least a general level match using a Rat Shack SPL meter, and had to raise the volume on the preamp roughly one to two "hours" on the dial. I still was listening at a comfortable 9 or 10 o'clock, however.
Naturally, the speakers are not broken in, and I have just begun the lengthy process of burn-in, positioning, dialing in my subs, and critical listening.
I will keep this thread informed, but for now, I am cautiously optimistic. |
Question for Ohm owners: How far apart are your left and right speakers? Are you happy with the results?
I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of. The alcove in my basement is only 10 feet wide (the basement, however, is ~2800 c.f.). This means that, in order to get them away from the side walls, the Ohms will have something like 5 feet between them. Is this a serious issue with the 2000s?
I can sit anywhere between 3 and 10 feet back from the speakers, assuming they are about 3 feet in from the fronth wall.
Thanks, folks. |
Update: Ohm factory says my Walsh 2000s should ship on Monday, the 27th. Since I am one state over, I should have them the next day. Shipping on the 27th means that Jay, my salesman at Ohm, was spot-on when he told me that the speakers would ship in 3 to 4 weeks. Customer service is important to me, and meeting an expected delivery window speaks well of both Jay and Ohm.
More updates to follow. And, yes, I am cautiously excited! |
Parasound - Your idea is actually a very good one. First, I agree, it should aid in the burn-in process. Second, my comments would be more relevent if I listen to them full-range. That said, you've got to hear the Vandersteen 2Wq to understand how well they work. Completely different presentation from your typical home theater burp-box, and very easy to blend with one's main speakers.
Rebbi - I would certainly try some out to see if an upgrade is worthwhile. What kind of budget are looking at? Does your Unico have pre-outs? If so, you might consider a separate power amp, especially if you like the Unico's character. |
Update: Vinyl! Finally tried some vinyl on the 2000s this weekend. I have an original VG+ Fredereick Fennel conducting a Cole Porter song book, a Mercury Living Presence Wilma Cozart (pre-Fine) production. Sound was very good, very clear, and again, with marvelously true-sounding timbre. So far, truth of timbre seems to be the Walsh 2000's strongest attribute, followed closely by detail retrieval. Even on a mono copy of "Invitation to the Dance", sound was spacious and full (although of course not as widely-staged as stereo LPs). Perez Prado - "Prez" in RCA Living Stereo (older pressing but not a shaded dog), was dynamic and exciting, with great horn sound - not too edgy, but plenty of bite and blat. Drums were especially realistic on this LP. An Isaac Stern Mozart recording from the 1970's was less appealing, but I am guessing it was the LP, which seemed to have a miniaturized soundstage.
I then played a few cuts from some Sheryl Crow CDs that would give me trouble on the Vandersteens. Especially "Safe and Sound" - a terrific song, btw - would sound very congested and pinched during the louder passages toward the end of the track. The 2000s passed this test very well, pushing Crow's voice back in the mix a bit relative to the Vandersteens. Not necessarily better, but different, and this allowed the band to be heard more clearly. Soundstage on this cut should, and did, extend into the room. The producer uses phase to make some of the sound sound like it is coming right out of your ears. I heard this with the 2000s, but to a slightly lesser degree than the Vandersteens, which was a bit of a surprise. But the greatly reduced sence of congestion and pinchiness during the louder passages was a real home run.
I am expecting the support pads from Ohm soon. Once in place, these should stabilize the 2000s on my uneven floor, and I can revisit some of the tunes I've played.
I still haven't tried them without the subs, or dialed-in the subs for the 2000s, but I will. Just need time!
Rebbi - I use a Conrad-Johnson PV-11 w/phono I got here on the 'gon a few years ago for $800. I am very happy with this unit, and it will probably be in my rack for a long time. Keep an eye out for one if you are thinking of separates. |
OK, the pads and shims came the other day. Although using these has made the 2000s much more stable, they are not rock solid. Interestingly, John Strohbeen has let me know that Walsh speakers, because they fire downwards, are not as sensitive to cabinet movement as conventional dynamic speakers. It does make sense, I suppose. The pads and shims did seem to improve transient attack sounds slightly. If I end up keeping the 2000s, I may experiment with some carpet spikes anyway.
BTW, over last weekend, I heard a six-figure analog system with well-known speakers that sell for over $30K/pr. I can't say if it was the speakers, room or electronics, but I don't think my modest system gives up very much to this mega-buck rig. Quite a feeling (that I chose not to share with the system's owner).
Listened to Lisa Loeb "Tails" on CD. Really beautiful overall. Again, listened to the whole CD (something I rarely did with the Vandys). I actually look forward to sitting down and listening - another new thing for me!
Starting to think that my Vandy subs are fine set right where they are. They're up in level a bit versus the Vandersteen 1Cs, but still blend seemlessly, and I enjoy the extra bass output on most things I have played. Jury still out on this one. I hope to try running the 2000s full range over the weekend. Stay tuned! |
Rebbi - that's why I avoid my system on weekday mornings! And I also enjoy Sade a lot. Last night I listened to the standard CD of Pink Floyd's "Wish You were Here." I chose this specifically because it was nearly unlistenable on the Vandersteens. While it is obviously a poorly mastered CD, I really enjoyed listening to it. I followed that with Porcupine Tree (Prog-Rock theme-night), "In Absentia." Got to say I wasn't feeling it, but I was very tired by this point. It sounded very good, but something wasn't clicking; I was missing the emotional involvement I have experienced a few times with other music on my Ohms. I think this is a well-produced CD, maybe my expectations were too high. Anyway, the 2000s are surely not broken in yet, so I am not rushing to judgement.
Mapman - I agree that I should at least try some kind of base with spikes, but why square? Wouldn't a three-point spiked base work as well? That's what the Vandersteens use. My floor is very uneven, so adjustable-height spikes would be helpful. But unless I can find something cheap, this will have to wait a while. |
I guess I will have to revisit PT CDs when the 2000s are fully broken in.
I removed the Vandy subs from the signal path to run the 2000s full range for a while. A brief listen to the Stereophile Test CD #2 was revealing. I was surprised by the low and mid bass extension and definition, clearly strong output to well below 40Hz, as demonstrated with the bass solo track, the organ piece, and the Corey Greenberg composition.
The phase test was also interesting. When the out-of-phase voice and instrument were in the right channel (along which I have a straight wall), the sound clearly came from way behind me to my right, over my shoulder. In the left channel, however, where the room opens up before the listening position, it still sounded "phase-y", but did not come from behind me.
Although the 2000s seem to do bass very well, they actually affirmed my impression of the Vandy subwoofers. The sonic character of the bass did not seem any different, except for a little less feel-it-in-your-gut sensation. This speaks well of both the Ohm 2000s and the Vandy 2Wq.
A co-worker that I am converting to an audiophile is stopping by tonight with some of his favorite recordings for a little listening and comparison between the Vandersteen 1Cs and Ohm Walh 2000s. Should be fun! |
My co-worker/budding audiophile stopped by Monday evening. Unfortunately, his burned CD-R of his favorites wouldn't play, so we will try it again some evening. But we listened for a while to both the Vandersteen 1Cs and the Ohm Walsh 2000s. No question the Ohms were easier to listen to, if a bit less dynamic (still not broken in). Before he left, I hooked up the Vandy subs again. Just needed to feel that bass again.
I have two question for Ohm Walsh owners:
Once fully broken in, were the vocals from your Walsh's still very laid back?
Also, and I'd never thought I'd say this, I am bothered by the feeling that the 2000s are a bit recessed in the brightness range, 4-8kHz. This lends cymbals, for example, a more tizzy feel, and a less metalic feel. It seems as thought the Walsh driver rolls off too soon before it hands off to the tweeter at ~8kHz. Is this another burn-in issue, or is that a characteristic of the later Ohm Walsh designs with added tweeters?
I was listening to some R.E.M. last night. The electric guitar, while clear & clean as a bell, overpowered everything, especially the vocals. I could barely hear the vocals. I am sure it's a lousy recording, but the sense of being laid back was extreme. Also listened to Ani DiFranco - "Evolve" - on CD. Here, the laid back quality of the 2000s combined with the CD's in-yer-face mix to balance out very nicely. The horns on several tracks, intentionally set low in the mix, were very sweet and real sounding.
Yes, Parasound, the Vandy 2Wq subs run parallel to the mains, in a setup similar to REL. However, unlike the RELs, the Vandy does provide hi-pass filtering for your mains via an in-line filter between preamp and amp, and a compensating curve in the subs' built-in amp. A truly seemless blend, at least in my experience. |
Mapman, Mamboni, Foster: Thanks for the info. Just to be clear, I don't find the treble above 8kHz recessed, but rather the octave below 8kHz. If anything, the treble above 8kHz has a bit too much zing, with occasionally over-emphasized sibilants, especially on vocals. These may be a source material issue, however. I have toed-in the speakers slightly.
Power-wise, as I've mentioned, I think I am covered with my Odyssey Audio HT-3. I will eventually get to IC, speaker cable and power cord upgrades, but I've blown my budget for now.
It is encouraging to hear that the brightness range will develope as the speakers break in, so I will refrain from further comments on this aspect of the 2000s until more time has passed.
BTW, for those of you with uneven floors, like me, I spoke to the Sound Anchors folks yestersday. For about $280, they will custom make a pair of their cradle bases for my 2000s. These will have a 3-point adjustable spike arrangement, allowing me to get them perfectly level and hieght-even with each another. They even will make the sides of the cradle base low enough not to block the vent above the plinth on the 2000s. I know Ohm feels this kind of setup is not required for Ohm Walsh designs, but it's the only way to keep my 2000s from wobbling and keep them straight. I can't imagine they will do any harm. |
Rebbi - I also vote tube preamp. My C-J PV-11 mates well with my Odyssey Audio SS power amp. You might be able to find a nice C-J PV-5, 6, 11 or 12 within your budget. Look for one with a phono stage if you can find it. The MM phono stage in my PV-11 is very good. Other brands in your price range, used, are Rogue, ARC, and Audible Illusions.
IMHO, if you can't afford something decent right now, buy a cheep SS pre used (NAD, Rotel, etc.) as a place holder, and sell it when you have more cash for a better tube preamp. |
Rebbi: Good luck with the Shrimp. I've heard Manley gear at shows and always came away impressed. IMHO, the tube-pre/SS-power combo can be marvelous. If you really miss the remote, you can do what I did - I positioned my rack and preamp so that the controls are within arm's reach from my seat.
Mapman: Are you looking for a new power amp? If so, what are your parameters & budget?
Well, I continue to burn-in my 2000s. While they do some things extremely well (timbre, soundstage, detail, lack of compression, et. al.), I am still on the fence about some aspects of the Walsh 2000's presentation. I have moved the 2000s to a more radical toe-in, with the flat face of the front of the speakers intersecting at the listening chair. I am trying to tone-down the super-tweeter a bit, and this is what Ohm suggests. Too early to tell if this will do the trick. Ultimately, John has offered to swap out the drivers to lower the tweeter output a bit if I am still unhappy after the break-in, so one way or another, I suppose this issue will be resolved.
I am going to try this weekend to trim back the subwoofer output a bit. Although on bass-shy material the added bass output is welcome, on material with more substantial bass it can be a bit too much.
If any of you lurking out there have new thousand-series Ohm Walsh speakers, please chime in with your thoughts on the super-tweeter output. Thanks. |
Parasound - (Sorry this is so long.) While I am not quite 2 months into the demo/break-in period, my only lingering criticism of the Walsh 2000s is the macro-dynamic presentation. However, this seems to be improving. Initially, I missed the startling dynamic impact of my Vandersteen 1Cs, which themselves have some limits to their output levels. But, more and more, I am getting a little of that jump factor out of the 2000s.
The other thing I have not been able to get out of the 2000s, so far, is a lot of extension into the room. The Vandys, when properly set up, can throw a suprinsingly 3-D soundstage. Not much depth behind the speakers, but good width, some hieght, and plenty of fill between your seat and the speakers. The Walsh 2000s, in my room, so far, have a wider soundstage, with even more hieght, and some depth behind the speakers (a room-related issue, I think), but not much extension toward the listening position. If there is out-of-phase information in the recording, sounds can come from behind my head(!), but only on my right, where I have a solid wall.
And, only rarely, I get that upper-midrange glare from a note that stands out a bit too much. This is most likely recording-dependent, and occurs maybe 1/50th as often as it did with the Vandersteens. I think that since it is so rare and unexpected with the Ohms, it bothers me more than it did on the Vandersteens, where it was a constant on all but the finest recordings.
Please note that I am being hyper-critical here. I have never spent this much money on any piece of kit for my system, and I am still in the home-trial period. I want to make sure that I will be happy with these speakers for many years to come, perhaps forever, since I doubt I will be able able to afford another expensive speaker upgrade. I do try to just listen occasionally, but I am still in the process of picking the Ohms apart, so I may be splitting hairs. Overall, they are amazing. The lack of congestion at higher SPLs and truth-in-timbre are probably the two finest aspects of the 2000s, but they also are great at dissappearing, smoothness, detail, micro-dynamics and lack of distortion. I began looking for a speaker upgrade thinking I could not abide metal tweeters like the one in the Vandersteen 1Cs, but the Ohms have revealed that what I couldn't handle was a crossover smack in the middle of the audio band, and all the problems that even well-designed cross-overs introduce. Having said that, I have never liked the single-driver dynamic speakers I've heard, so the Ohm Walsh design makes a lot of sense for me.
Between attending audio shows and membership in my local audiophile club, I have had the opportunity to hear many different systems and speakers in many price ranges, many of them really big bucks systems. In all honesty, the only speakers still being made that I might prefer, now cost $12K (the Silverline Audio Bolero I've mentioned previously). But I haven't heard that speaker in years, and it was run off of a low-powered SET tube amp that is night-and-day different than my SS amp. I think that is high praise for a sub-$3K pair of speakers. Obviously, I am leaning towards keeping them, but will reserve final judgement until later in the trial period. |
Mapman, everyone else... Thanks for the encouraging words. The 2000s do enough right that I want this work out. The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage. I will continue to experiment with placement.
My speaker cables are Kimber 4TC - decent budget cables, but I'm sure not the last word in speaker cables. I will look into the DNM option, but as with the speaker bases and matching center speaker, financial constraints will put this purchase on hold. On top of that, I just dropped some coin on a locally well-liked modded DAC. I wasn't ready to upgrade my CDP, but this was an opportunity to pick it up used at a substantial savings. |
Question: When does Porcupine Tree sound like Nirvana?
Answer: When heard over my system with Ohm Walsh 2000s!
;-) (details below)
Much has changed over the last few days. As I mentioned, I got a deal on a really nice DAC. Although for now the digital cable I am using is a budget model that I doubt is getting the most out of this DAC, it still has brought significant improvements to my system. I also upgraded my PS Audio Quintet with a PS Audio Jewel power cord.
Between these upgrades and more run-in time on the Ohms, my system has slightly less bass output but better bass definition and extension. This works out well, since the bass output from my CD player/DAC is now similar to the bass output level from my turntable, which is lighter on bass than my CD player without the new DAC. I can now leave my subwoofers dialed where they are, and get satisfying bass output from both sources.
My system now sounds better than it ever has. I am getting smooth, detailed sound with a wide and high soundstage, some good extension into the room, and more balanced soundstage left-to-right. Although, due to the room layout, the soundstage is still irregular, I am finally getting some extension into the room from the left channel, which lacks a full-length wall like the right wall. The highs are smooth and clean.
Listening to a new (for me) CD of PT, "Stars Die" (a double CD collection of older PT tracks) was extremely enjoyable. Holographic soundstage, deep, solid bass, clear vocals, and that spot-on timbre. Listening to the second CD of the set on Saturday was a real carnival ride!
Over the weekend, I heard a system including a decent preamp, CD player and $20,000 powered speakers. They could definitely play louder than my Ohms (although the 2000s are as loud as I could want them to be) and were very dynamic, but they didn't do a lot of things as well as the 2000s, like soundstage, overall smoothness, and fine detail retrieval. I had that s--- eating grin on my face as I listened to this system, thinking about how my $2800 speakers and $1500 amp outperformed this $20,000 powered speaker in almost every important way!
Is my system perfect? No. Will it ever be? Doubtful. I am hoping more burn-in will bring better dynamics, better transient definition and detail retrieval to the Walsh 2000s. I am also hoping that experimenting with positioning and adding bases will further improve the soundstage and imaging. But I am really enjoying the limited time I have to listen, and look forward to listening more.
Away from the Ohms, my PV-11 is acting up again, with some high frequency noises that come and go. Although the C-J folks are very nice, I can't help thinking they are selling me tubes that are not very good in the PV-11. I had purposely sent the PV-11 into C-J for a retube and checkup prior to ordering the Ohms, so that I would be good to go for the trial period. I am not going to interrupt the trial period by sending it back again. Maybe I'll look elsewhere for different tubes. I guess I should post on the preamp forum for ideas, but if any of you have suggestions, I am all ears.
|
Rebbi - Glad to hear it. I know exactly what you mean about instruments sounding like the real thing. One thing the 2000s did right out of the box was this dead-on presentation of timbre. Guitars have a sound that reminds me of when I used to play (albeit badly) guitar myself. Horns are uncanny in their realism. And yes, there is a real sense of the body of stringed acoustic instruments. I was not used to this, and at first thought the cabinets were "singing". Then I began to realize that this was an authentic part of the recording. Enjoy your new gear, rebbi. Keep us posted. |
Thanks, Mapman. Good point about omni dispersion patterns. I am cautiously optimistic about the macro-dynamics. |
Thanks Mapman, Rebbi & Parasound. I am not putting the kind of hours on the 2000s that many would, so I guess I have a ways to go yet for break-in. Plus, since I am running them with a pair of subs, the 2000s see a 1st-order roll-off beginning at 80Hz, which is probably prolonging break-in as well.
Extremely interesting comment from Parasound on the glare at the two month mark. I am about a week away from the two month point right now. I guess I need to be patient.
I still think that, contrary to what John Strohbeen tells me, the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases. I suppose that on a flat floor the Ohms would be fine, but my cellar floor is anything but flat, and even with the shims and pads Ohm sent me, they are not totally stable.
Once I make a final decision on keeping the 2000s (which seems likely at this point), I will order the bases from Sound Anchors (they are custom made and not returnable).
I have a combo 2-channel/HT system, and have found the Walsh 2000s fine for films and TV. Right now my center and surrounds are mismatched (Vandy center, surrounds and Paradigm Atoms for the back surrounds). The timbre-matching issue aside, I have no issues with the surround sound produced by my system. Eventually, I will get the Ohm center channel speaker, and watch for some used Walsh speakers for surrounds. |
Mapman: I did remove the subs from the signal chain briefly last month. I am sure the bass output from the 2000s is respectable, but I absolutely love my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs. I missed them enough that I put them back in soon after. I'll live with the longer break-in time that results.
My amp is a solid state Odyssey Audio HT3 with cap upgrade (150w X 3). Odysseyaudio.com. There is also an Oddyseey Audio circle over at that audio circle web site. IMHO, it's a heck of an amp for the money. If I could afford it, I would look at either a Butler or a Moscode, but an amp upgrade is far down on the list. Preamp is a C-J PV-11 w/phono.
The Sound Anchor stands are cheap for well-healed audiophiles, but for me, the $300 or so cost is affordable, but not an impulse buy.
One of the reasons I like the Vandy subs so much (and there are numerous reasons) is that they do provide a visceral, feel-it-in-your-gut kind of bass, even with my carpeted concrete floor. In all honesty, and I know this sounds a bit silly, if the Walsh 2000s didn't blend well with the Vandy subs (they do), I would return the Ohms rather than give up the 2Wqs. |
Mapman - Your points are well taken. The cubic footage of my basement is within, but near the top, of the cubic foot range Ohm specifies for the 2000s. Thus, the subs should help the 2000s by lowering their output below 80Hz.
Also, I can't stress this enough, the 2Wqs are not typical subwoofers. I've heard plenty of low and mid-priced subs over the years, and none of them did what the 2Wqs do. Namely, they reproduce not just bass energy, but true timbre. They are tight, fast and clean in the extreme. The unusual crossover scheme allows a better blend than any sub I have heard. Plus, they are designed specifically for corner placement, and work quite well in my room.
If you have never heard these subs, you should try to. They simply do not make themselves known unless you unplug them. Then you hear their absence. There is no boominess or constant rumble, and I swear all of the bass sounds like it is coming from the Ohms (and previously the Vandy 1Cs), and not the 2Wqs. Placing a hand on the cabinet during loud bass passages will reveal a very solid cabinet (90 lbs.) that does not vibrate in tune to the music. A lot of it has to do with the crossover design, which is a first order type (pretty unusual these days) and simple, in-line filter for the amp. Also, using three small drivers instead of one large one could be a factor.
You can read about them on the Vandy site - Vandersteen.com. Also, Richard Hardesty had a similar view of these subs. IMHO, they are one of the most underrated high-value products in HiFi today. Sure, if you drop big bucks on the JL, Thiel or other high-end sub you could get similar results, but these list for about $1400, and I bought mine used for considerably less hear on the 'gon.
For all of these reasons, the 2Wqs stay. The only area where there is any discontinuity between the Walsh 2000s and the 2Wqs is in macro dynamics. The 2Wqs have noticeably more dynamic impact in their range than the 2000s do in the range above that. That is why I made the comments about the dynamics of the 2000s in an earlier post. I could live with the system as is, but I am hoping the dynamics of the 2000s will improve with break-in.
I have a third sub (nutty, right?) for LFE and redirected bass from the center and surround channels. It's an old Definitive Technology PF15. It is everything the 2Wqs are not (and that's no compliment). But with the help of a Paradigm X30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP (parametric digital EQ), it works well enough for film soundtracks. It is out of the loop for 2-channel listening. |
Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange? You know, laws of physics, yadda yadda.
BTW, I was floored by my Walsh 2000s twice in the last week. Once was while listening to a CD of John Williams Baroque guitar solos. The reproduction of the timbre of the acoustic guitar was mind-blowingly real. So much so that, when I went to a record show last Sunday, I searched for guitar works (only found one Spanish guitar LP, though).
Another time was listening to a couple of Gershwin pieces on CD - Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (a Bernstein recording, IIRC). I know they're two well-worn works, but on my system with the Walsh 2000s, they really clicked. The dynamics were better (still not perfect), but being able to follow each musical line was thrilling - all without any congestion during the numerous crescendos. This CD was a real carnival ride! |
Cdc - Have you ever heard an Ohm Walsh design? I don't say this to be nasty, I am just curious. If so, what did you think? If not, you should try to find someone near you with a pair that you can hear.
Before I started my trial of the Ohm walsh 2000s, I would have probably agreed with Ted Jordan's premise. I have a difficult room, acoustically, and I expected I would end up with very directional dynamic speakers, e.g., a D'Appolito type design. This would minimize the room effects of my low ceiling and assymetrical room layout. With a 4-month in-home trial, and many positive remarks on this web site, I figured it was worthwhile to try out the Ohms. It may be that I am hearing a large amount of reflected sound, but it could be argued that many conventional dynamic loudspeakers have a very wide dispersion pattern, resulting in a large (if not as large) ratio of reflected to direct sound. Jordan might also consider that an audience at a live performance in real space, as well as any microphones employed in that space, will also hear a large amount of reflected sound. Rarely does every instrument in an orchestra beam direct sound right at each audience member's head.
I can't determine why, but I would not describe the sound of the Ohm Walsh speakers as in any way "thin". That's not to say that I have never heard speakers, some of which were designed for a more omni-type dispersion pattern, that sounded thin or "phasey". But the Ohm Walsh speakers in my room do a surprisingly good job of image definition and stability. Better, in fact, than the dynamic speaker design they are being auditioned to replace. As for dependence on room acoustics, I think that applies to almost any speaker design outside of headphones. Of course, YMMV. |
Cdc: FWIW, I am upgrading to Ohm Walsh 2000s from Vandersteen 1Cs. In my room, with my gear, the 1Cs actually produced a different, but similarly 3-D soundstage as the Ohms. I was surprised by this, to say the least. I have noted above that the 1Cs actually extended into the room more than the Ohms. The 1C is a 2-way design with a minimal baffle, and open top plate. So, technically, it is not a basic dynamic "monkey coffin" design. I will repeat that the Walsh 2000s do a better job of localizing performers and maintaining a stable image than the Vandys did. If I keep the Ohms, it won't be because of an improved soundstage over the Vandys; it will be because they offer better imaging, almost no congestion at peak levels, amazing truth in timbre, and good low-level detail retrieval. IOW, the Ohm Walsh's are anything but a one-trick pony, which is how I think many people think of them until they hear them. The more I think about this, the more credit I give to the Ohm's design, which is as close to a single-driver design as possible, with a super-tweeter that comes in at about 8kHz, IIRC. Note that even the MBL, and, I think, the Duevels, use more standard crossover points in a multi-driver configuration.
That said, I have never heard a single driver design that I could live with. These were mostly at shows, but I found they sounded "peaky" in the upper mids and lower treble - exactly the range that I find very smooth on the Ohm Walsh 2000s. Although the bass reproduction was also dissappointing on these single-driver designs, I could, and do, live with subwoofers. Since my hearing is very sensitive in the upper-mid/lower-treble range, the Ohms provide a very enjoyable listening experience for me. They are not rolled off in this range, but I think they just lack the roughness and distortions that all but the most expensive crossovers seem to exhibit. YMMV, of course. |
Congrats, Mamboni! Enjoy the 5000 drivers.
Frazeurl: FWIW, one of the reasons I went with the Ohm Walsh speakers is that the entire Walsh series is designed to have very similar sound, just scaled for different cubic-footage listening rooms. Of course, I would expect peak output level and bass extension to increase with size, but otherwise, the entire X000 series is supposed to be pretty similar.
I have a question for Ohm Walsh owners: I am going to write John about this, but lately (about 2.5 months into 4 month trial period), I am noticing a bid of forwardness in the low-to-mid midrange, I would guess about 300-400Hz. It shows up on many, but not all, recordings. It is especially noticeable on piano and horn content. Some notes in this range project out in amplitude above the rest, sounding forced, strained, and a bit distorted. Is this another temporary break-in stage? My 2000s have seasoned dramatically over the 2.5 months I have had them. Some treble sharpness and upper-mid glare have smoothed out very nicely, and macro-dynamic range has improved a bit, too. However, I am still hoping the dynamic punch will get better still. But this issue in the lower-mids is quite disturbing, lending the 2000s a forced sound that is not very natural. My big fear is that it is cabinet-related - a resonance issue. However, I don't recall this being a problem until the last week or two, so that implies it is a break-in issue. As long as it is temporary, like the upper-mid sharpness that came and went in a couple of weeks, I should be okay with the 2000s. This issue is unfortunate, as in other aspects, these speakers are incredible.
I appreciate any thoughts you guys might have. |
Tim / Frazeur1 - Thanks. That's a huge relief to hear. As it happens, I listened to a classical disc last night, a CD version of an old RCA Red Seal: Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No.2; Beethoven: Piano Concerto No.5 "Emperor", with Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and Van Cliburn on piano. The Beethoven sounded so-so, with some of the thickness I had described above. The Rachmaninoff, however, sounded much better, with much less of the lower-midrange push that was bothering me. I know I was really enjoying this piece, since I cursed everytime I had to pause it due to telephone calls (some of which I just let go to my answering machine).
This is the second time that another Ohm Walsh owner has had the identical break-in experience as what I am experiencing. Really amazing, IMO. I will continue to run the 2000s in and keep you all posted. |
Frazeur1, Martykl, Mapman: All good thoughts. I am not the kind of guy who opens up gear or speakers (except maybe to change a tube), so whatever is inside the cabinets of the 2000s will stay there. Also, it is not really a mid-bass hump; it's much higher up than that, perhaps in the lower mids, 300-400Hz. And remember this is a newer phenomenon, only a few weeks old. That's why I think it is a break-in issue. Listened last night to a CD of Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique. There was very little of the aberation I was hearing in this range. Jury is still out. I agree that a speaker that resolves this well will benefit from improvements in ancillary items like cabling, as well as electronics. Lean times are going to keep me from trying these things for at least a few months. And when I do have the cash, first priority are those spiked bases from Sound Anchors. |
Lat night I listened to a CD of Copland pieces, including Fanfare for the Common Man and Appalachian Spring. Although there was no piano in the mix (piano pieces were the worst offenders of the lower midrange abberation I was hearing), the sound was smooth and nicely balanced top to bottom. As more experienced Ohm Walsh owners often say, it just sounded "right".
I am also ready to pronounce the macro-dynamic capabilities of the 2000s as improved to the point where this is no longer an issue. Without hooking my Vandersteen 1Cs (which were surprisingly dynamic) up again, I feel that the dynamic impact on sudden swings in volume are at least sufficient to startle, if not quite what the Vandys had. Perhaps, with the reduced efficiency of the 2000s relative to the Vandys, my amp is a bit "challenged" on peaks. Although my Odyssey is only rated at 150 watts per, it has a lot of current output, and huge capacitance (60,000 mf per channel). It is plugged into a PS Audio Quintet, which PS Audio claims will not limit current to the amp.
The soundstage literally extended beyond the sidewalls. A truly ethereal experience! Try listening with the lights off - the walls melt away from one's vision and hearing. |
Crunch Time!
One month remains of my 4 month trial. In all honesty, I like most of what the 2000s do, and want to keep them. One by one, all of my issues with these speakers have been resolved, except one: The problems with piano reproduction just below the middle midrange. I cannot determine if this is source-dependent or not. On several piano-solo recordings, the emphasis and distortion in this frequency range is serious enough to be a deal breaker. However, if I can determine that this is due to some factor other than the Walsh 2000s themselves, I will probably keep them.
Can anyone suggest some solo piano recordings that sound smooth, clean and neutral on their Ohm Walsh speakers? I will get them and try them out pronto. TIA.
Michael - If I decide to keep the 2000s, I will first be ordering some spiked bases for them. Then, as finances allow, I will order the Ohm Walsh center channel speaker, and then look for some used Ohm Walsh floorstanders for surrounds. I will, of course, keep everyone posted here of my progress. |
