Since this appears to have become the de facto Ohm Walsh thread, I have a couple of questions about my Ohm Walsh 2s. I picked these up a couple of months ago and immediately loved the spacious omni soundstage and imaging. Still do. One big question is what I can reasonably expect of their performance in a room that is 15 x 35 (though the primary listening positions are within the 15x15 space around the OW2s). I get a wonderful image between the speakers, but it never extends outside the space btween them. It doesn't matter if they are 6-7 feet apart or 10. Nor have I heard that sense of the sound floating through or the sound stage filling up the room. Is this simply a matter of the 2s being too small to adequately energize the space or are there some more tweaks I can do?
Second, the OW2s tend to sound better when I stand and my ears are above the tweeters. Anyone have this experience? Any hunch as to why this is the case? Is this a problem to be fixed or a peculiar interaction between these speakers and my (peculiar) ears?
The third question---maybe related to he second--concerns image height. Generally, it is at tweeter level--not bad, but hardly realistic. Sometimes it is only around 2 feet high (this always seems to me like the sonic equivalent of the great Spinal Tap scene with the dwarves dancing around the tiny Stonhenge). I've read in this thread that image height is recording dependent--but this shrunken?! |
Thanks Mapman.
Yep, 1st generation with stamped cans and controls on the bottom. Volume certainly not a problem. I'm driving these with a vintage Sansui amp (the Japanese version of the AU-819) with 90 wpc, so power and current are not a problem either.
I gather that the upshot is that these OW2s are what they are and that their performance is unlikely to improve by much. True, they are not as precise and dynamic as my more contemporary speakers (Monitor Audio S2s and Linn Tukans), but they are still extraordinary speakers (amazing for ones going on 30 years old).
What would you (and others) consider the most cost effective way to improve the performance or the upgrade path with the most bang for the buck? I'd like to get the options straight before looking for later versions or calling Ohm.
Did you keep the old cabinets for aesthetic or functional reasons (or both)? I find the bass from mine to be shockingly good, despite limitations of vintage.
I'm pretty hooked on the Ohm omni sound. Can't imagine not having some version of them now. It might have been foreordained. My very first pair of speakers were Ohm Es, bought with my paper route money from Tech HiFi in '77-'78, and I've always wanted a pair of the Walshes since then. Talk about delayed gratification! |
Marty,
By that you mean that the soundstage and image extend to the right and left of the speakers, rather than remain between them, right? That's what I do not get with mine. I know that Ohms are not forward and the soundstage knocks out the back wall, which mine do a bit (but not dramatically). That's fine with me, though accounts of Ohms' imagining encompassing much of the room do have me envious.
My problem on occasion is with image height--not so much the knocking out the back wall as a bunch of musical midgets tunneling through it. That may be a matter of recordings. Better recorded material rarely if ever suffers from this problem.
Mapman: I bought them at the shop on Route 59 in Nanuet, NY (just over the Jersey line). I'm still kind of proud of my 13/14 year old self for picking out those speakers. A few years later I went to Rutgers in New Brunswick (class of '86). I think I bought an Onkyo receiver and tape deck from your shop around 1985. My roommate blew up the Es while throwing a party at our place on Louis Street; I had the Onkyo gear for the next 15 years. Ah, college. Seems like yesterday. I can barely remember it.
I'll call John S and see what can be done within my modest current budget. I'll also look to see if there are any good used deals around on newer models. If anybody knows of any for sale, let me know. In the meantime, I can't say I'm hurting for sound--those old 2s make excellent living room speakers and they sure beat the mass market junk out there today (and yesterday). |
Hello all,
It's been a while since I last posted here. When I last did so, I was thinking of possible ways to improve the sound out of my original OW 2s. In the meantime, I got a great deal on a pristine set of OW 2XOs on EBay. Of course, UPS promptly trashed one of them in transit (hey, I got off light--they only trashed one). The mounting board was shattered and the tweeter was knocked loose & rattling around inside the can (what DO they do when shipping boxes?).
I called John S at Ohm who said to ship the cans back for repair and matched revoicing. (Some good advice from Mr. S: have UPS do the packing to deprive them of heir favorite defense, it's your fault for packi g poorly.) I sent them off and in about a week, they were back, along with a replacement mounting board. Even better, John S comped the "high repair" and new board, saying 'it's on the house.' Perhaps he was in the holiday spirit in the run up to the holidays, but a shout out and thank you to John.
The board repair and reinstallation were simple, except that the new board was slightly too big and I had to sand it down to fit. The metal bracket used to screw the old cans not the old particle board mounting panel also didin't fit, but they are unnecessary because the new plywood boards are much higher quality and sturdy enough to hold the screws and the can in place.
John S had told me that he still voices each pair of cans personally to maintain the house sound and that they are voiced as close as possible to the newest generation of Ohms. For that reason, he said, many people think their repaired speakers sound better than before, though the differences are subtle..
Because I still have the original 2s for he moment, I could do an A/B comparison with the repaired 2XOs. At first list, like someone who posted earlier, I wasn't pleased with the difference. The 2s sounded more precise and more detailed, especially in the high mids and up. In comparison, the refurbed 2XOs sounded, well, blah--flat and rather lifeless. On many recordings, the sound of the two sets was virtually identical. But on others, they were quite noticeably different, and the differences weren't subtle. The repaired 2XOs suffered by comparison--highs a bit too rolled off, lacking detailed harmonic and salient reproduction, weaker dynamics, and murky, indistinct imaging and soundstage.
I wondered if the repair had gone wrong or if UPS had managed to damage the cans somehow, but figured after all that hassle I'd just see if I'd get used to them.
Nearly two months later, I decided to give the comparison another try. The differences now are even more pronounced. Only now the 2XOs are vastly improved and now show the limits of the original 2s. Something in the can(s) seems to have needed some running in. Don't know what it might be--supposedly Ohm only glued back the tweeter and replaced a broken inductor coil. The clarity and overall sound of the 2XOs is now beautiful, and much more balanced. The sound is much richer, warmer, and better integrated top to bottom. The midrange is notably more robust, though the highs still sound a bit rolled off. Now, in comparison, the old 2s (still wonderful speakers btw) sound not only bright, but their sound is thinner and dryer. The detail I was picking up before was due to the accentuated highs. The 2XOs now image much better with more detailed resolution, and give a better sense of acoustic space in the room or hall. They still seem to be getting better, with the soundstage broadening out beyond the speakers. They didn't do this before when playing the same tracks, and the 2s never did this and still don't. I doubt that this is the result of my ears adjusting.
If this is an evolutionary improvement in sound, score one for Darwin. Now I'd really like to hear the most recent models (or maybe I wouldn't since I won't be spending that kind of money any time soon). But once again, I'm happy and grateful to have these extraordinary speakers. |
Bondmanp--sorry to hear of the short! Any idea of the cause? Hope the repairs don't set you back too much--or too long. |
And yes, I agree with your comment about John S. He's what I'd call a real mensch. In dealing with John, it strikes me that Ohm is very much his avocation, as well as a vocation and business enterprise. Pretty cool, and quite rare in this day and age. |
I have a question for the inveterate amp swappers out there. What effect, if any, does a higher damping factor have on Ohm Walsh performance?
Rather than opt for massive power increases, could one get the same/similar (or different) improvements in the drivers' sound quality through an amp with more damping? Alternatively, is higher power somehow the functional equivalent of a higher damping factor?
I've got a vintage Sansui with 90 (honest, conservatively rated) wpc, and a damping factor of 100. I'm thinking of using it as a pre-amp and running it into a NAD power amp with 125 (also honest) wpc but a damping factor of > 200. I'm not sure the difference in watts would make that much difference, and the Sansui is a much, much faster amp. I'd like to hear some opinions as to whether it would be worthwhile before I lug that NAD beast upstairs and hook it up. |
Thanks for the response Map.
I recall reading that John Portis at Stereophile was a big Ohm fan and adopted an Electron Kinetics amp as his reference piece, in part because (if I remember correctly) of its high current and damping that matched well with Ohm Walshes. My Sansui is supposed to deliver plenty of current, but doesn't deliver high damping specs--hence my question.
As you suggest, there are so many other factors that distinguish amplifier performance with a given set of speakers that we'll likely never conclusively settle the matter.
I know that the whole damping debate continues, and that it theoretically shouldn't matter above 100 (that's the figure I've always come across), but I'm in no position to adjudicate the claims pro and con. I don't even claim to understand the physics/electronics theory underlying the arguments about damping.
If/when I hook up the NAD and/or Adcom, I'll let you know if I hear any differences. (Bel Canto 1000 wpc amps will likely have to wait for another lifetime.)
This really is an extraordinary thread. It's turned into an Ohm's-eye view of all things audiophilic. What does this say about Ohm speakers--and about Ohm-heads? |
I'm thinking of upgrading from my 2XOs to the current generation 2000 drivers mounted on my existing g cabinets (love the old pyramidal look, so I'm looking at the upgrade package).
Before I pull the trigger and sink the money I to this, I'd love to hear thoughts on the upgrade and any comparisons between the original 2XOs (or 2s) and the new 2000s. How do they compare? What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging.
Background info:
Room size = 16 x 35 x 8 (approx 3200 cu ft), slightly larger than recommended for the 2000s, but divided into a dining and living room areas. My listening area takes up less than half the total space, and I'm seated 12' from the back wall and 10' from the speakers.
Amp = vintage Sansui AU-D707 (same as AU-819) w/ 90 wpc (excellent sound, rarely turn volume past 9 o'clock).
Sources = Rotel 1080, Squeezebox Duet run through a SMSL dac.
Any thoughts or advice appreciated! Thanks! |
Thanks Map. That's very helpful.
Any thoughts on the fit between the 2000s and the 3200 cu ft room size?
Anyone else care to chime in? |
Thanks Bondman. I've never been clear on the meaning of "energizing the room." Not being much of a bass head, I have to say I've pretty happy with the low end with my original 2s and the 2XOs, especially within my listening zone (sitting all the way across the room is a different story). My room has a hardwood floor over a crawl space that seems to be conducive to bass. It is also a very live room with lots of wall space to the sides that tends. To broaden the soundstage beyond the speakers. Bookshelves and a fireplace serve to break up the rear reflections.
My vintage Sansui with 90 wpc (@ 8 ohms) handles them with no apparent difficulty. John S told me that this amp should do fine with the 2000s, which are a slightly easier load, but that the bass would be subdued in a slightly oversized room. I haven't heard trace of clipping, even if I play them loud. Old Sansuis had killer power supplies and were allegedly conservatively rated. |
Coot, don't overdo it on toeing out. I've found the toeing out the Ohms very slightly improves the treble further away without detracting noticeably from the soundstage or image. You can barely notice, unless looking carefully up close, that the cabinets are not perfectly squared. I suppose the relatively wide dispersion of the tweeters allows for this. |
Map, if the problem is clipping, that would be be amp flinching rather than the speakers. Still, the difficulty in driving Ohm Walshes--even the originals (but not the A or F)--is often exaggerated.
The great high volume performance may be due to the way the surface area of the speaker is used to radiate sound. The physical excursion of the cone material should be shorter and perhaps the effective surface area (or the efficiency of its utilization) is greater.
But the OW's ability to go loud may be the flip side of a weakness of the design--I've found that my 2s and 2XOs sound best when played quite loud and tend to lose more detail, resolution, and reproduction of spatial cues at low volume than I'd like. This is, in part, recording dependent, but I don't get the same loss of detail, etc. at lower volume with my conventional speakers. I'm hoping an upgrade to the 2000s helps to address this limitation of the early OW models. It would end an endless family battle for control over the volume knob! I'd like to hear others' impressions of later series' performance at low volume. |
Map and Bond, I am VERY happy to hear your low volume impressions. I ordered the upgrade to the 2000s a few days ago. I was a bit uncertain about it, in part because of this issue. You guys have helped stiffened my spine.
Bondman, your clipping problem is puzzling. It's probably buried somewhere in this now endless thread, but what's your amp and how much headroom is it supposed to have? How loud are you driving the music (peak/non-peak) when your system runs into trouble? It would be surprising to me if that much wattage would clip at non-deafening levels. Does the amp ever seem to run out of gas on non-peak volume? Could there be a problem with the amp--maybe the power supply caps? |
Aww . . . you guys have put a big smile on my face. Happy belated fathers' day! |
Finsup, keep us posted on how your 5000s burn in. Any comparisons to prior OW generations and other versions/models welcome too.
Yes, danceability--for lack of another term--is usually an underrated quality. I think Ohm Walshes sound like real people hear in real acoustic spaces (in a good way, not the way MY now noticeably aging ears hear in my living room). (;-) I think you could describe the sound as organic, as distinct from ananlytical.
JC |
Bondman, that is weird, but your ears are the judge here. Serious clipping isn't subtle in my experience. They'd know. Though I do wonder if something was wrong with that amp.
You're on to something with class D amps. My tech was showing me some pro-audio OEM units he makes out of standardized modules: cool, clean, insane power, and TINY! I think we'll be seeing a lot of these amps in some shape and form in the future. |
It's ironic that Map's wish for more transparency appears on the endless Ohm Walsh thread, since Ohm has never been known for being open about what's in their cans.
I suspect those class D modules are very cheap (not in quality or build, but in price), highly standardized, and substitutable. Not what you want to broadcast in a market that thrives on mystique (and at times audiophiles' willful suspension of disbelief).
Companies using these types of modular components, probably the majority out there to one extent or another, have to manage their supply networks and quality control to maintain standards, let alone a "house sound." The problem is that this management task is often made more difficult by cutthroat price-based competition among suppliers of standardized commodity goods. These newer manufactures also haven't been around long enough to establish a clear house sound and reputations for maintaining it.
This is where Ohm is distinctive and special. I've heard that the components used vary even within the same model and vintage. BUT, Ohm has a decades-long track record of almost obsessive, monomaniacal preservation and refinement of the house sound. Wanna know what's in the can? Tough. But you know in advance the character of the sound will come out of it, regardless of model.
Is there any other audio manufacturer that is comparable in this respect? |
Exactly. That was my main point too. |
I recently got a Micromega Mydac which has received very good to glowing reviews. Most intriguing for Ohm Walsh fans is the repeated observations that the Mydac excels at 3D imaging and enhancing the soundstage. Of course, this plays to the Ohms' strong suit.
I run a Squeezebox Touch into the Mydac, and the dac into an Acurus DIA-100 integrated amp (substituting for my ailing Sansui). The Acurus is known to be very sensitive to source (quite true). The Mydac does improve the sound from the Acurus top to bottom, with great clarity, detail, and high end extension. But the most impressive change came from my Ohm 2000s. The Mydac matched superbly with them, broadening the soundstage beyond the speaker (which only happened occasionally prior). The imaging is now notably more 3D and holographic on recordings where this characteristic is present. It's not a particularly warm sound; it's more neutral and transparent, much like the Ohms and the DIA-100. IMO, this sound signature works well with the Ohms' well-behaved tweeter. To top it off, the Mydac is an affordable budget item. One gets a lot of bang for the buck on the dac market these days. But this one seems to play particularly nice with Ohm Walshes. |
Hey Tim! Great to hear from you. All's well here.
I got a great deal on the dac from an Agon'er and am very happy with it. Even at the retail price, this thing is impressive. It has a great usb reclocking function, and a 3rd party app turns the Touch's usb input into an output.
The bang for the buck ratio in budget dacs has become fantastic in the last couple of years. |
I've found that Ohms can handle surprisingly large spaces, well in excess of recommendations. I have a pair of OW 2000s in a 15'x30' combined living and dining room, having had the 2s and 2OXs before them. (None of these models could be described as remotely strident--Ohms have a well controlled high end that steadily improved with each generation, but did not result in that hyper-real artificial etched imaging sought by many audiophiles.) The room is significantly larger than Ohm's recommendation for the 2000s (the 3000s are the recommended speaker size). Yet, they fill the space wonderfully well from the highs through the low bass.
The only problem I had was a need to tame a boomy bass that resulted form my bare hardwood floor over a crawlspace. The downward firing port made the floor vibrate like a giant drum head. Placing the speakers on granite slabs was very helpful in cutting down the boom and tightening up the lowest frequencies. This accords with those pointing out floor interactions as often in need of correction.
|
Bondman,
I can't believe you're talking about an audiophile haven in River Vale, NJ!! I grew up in River Vale, a little more than a stone's throw from the NY State border. It's so small; it's almost never mentioned anywhere. Even people from other towns nearby often didn't know about it. Too bad I have no one left there now to visit. I'd love to hear those German Physiks! That's the closest I'd likely ever get to them.
|
peterr53,
How's your DIY Walsh/omni speaker project going? Any changes, advances, or innovations? I've got a set Ohm Walsh 2XO cans in great shape that I thought I'd be able to find an old set of cabinets on which to mount them. After a couple years of looking and posting WTB (want to buy) notices, it appears that isn't going to happen. Hence, I'm really curious about your cabinet and crossover ideas.
|
