Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

This thread is a great expose of audiophilia nervosa. It emphasizes perfectly how audiophiles are nearly unable to seperate better from different sound. Note the OP's initial OTT excitement over the MWTs, as followed by the rollercoaster ride that was the ensuing months of public anxious wrangling over what was really best, those or the Totems. After all the Ohm gushing, the OP finally decides he doesn't really like them. A kid picking petals off a flower: I love you, love you not, love you, love you not....

Folks, for these reason it's really important to learn critical listening and to know what you like. This will keep you from going through the same money-losing and manufacturer-bothering anxiety that the OP went through.

Let it suffice to say that in this age of self-obsessed public blog-wrangling with personal issues and decisions, if you do this, expect to be subject to criticism.

It was the OP's gushing and OTT exclamations re the Ohms when he first heard them that I found amusing and instructive. The OP was hopefully disabused of the notion that different is better.

Strohbeen has the patience of saints, and is to be highly commended. Though I am normally strictly beholden to active speakers (ATCs etc.) due to far lower distortion than passives, I'm certainly curious to hear some Ohms, and will do so when possible though I'm leery of suboptimally flat FR over the audible range at the listening position. As a trained listener, I'll know in 15 minutes or less whether they're for me. Usually in the first couple of bars.

I'm buoyed by the reports of fairly flat in-room FR of recent Walshes. I'm certainly intrigued.

Now, if the goal of hi-fi [to the source material] is truly that, then good active speakers are far superior to any passive. Audiophiles' preference for loudspeakers with passive crossovers over actives is a matter of not being used to the *far* lower distortion of good active speakers, and unwillingness to get rid of those phallic symbols that are audiphile amplifiers.

ATC's outstanding reputation precedes them as evidenced by nothing but excellent reviews from professionals and amateur audiophile magazine reviewers alike. This is supported by the usual and erroneous criticism that ATCs aren't "musical," as if a component could have that characteristic to begin with. "Musical" means the response slowing, phase problems, sloppier bass response, and much higher general distortion of passive speakers as driven by amplifiers that have difficulty controlling the drives through passive crossovers. Some folks are used to this and therefore prefer it; you won't hardly find any top professionals who still use passive monitors to really hear what is on recordings.

Audiophiles are about 30 years out of date. Professional speaker and audio technology is so far ahead of audiophile technology it's silly; I suggest you explore Event Opals, K&H, and many others, including AVI (for a speaker system with SOTA sound that makes redundant a whole system), Emerald Physics (their speakers are at the top of the curve technologically) and the superior Linkwitz Orion system.

Passive loudspeakers are seriously outdated technology; imagine if your new cars still came with pushrods, solid rear axles, sliding pillar front suspension, and drum brakes. Passive loudspeakers with big, overbuilt amps (only necessary to overcome the detrimentals of passive crossovers) and preamps are nothing more than that.

The biggest joke in audiophilia is Audio Note and their ridiculous $100K or whatever it is two-way with the massive silver-loaded passive crossovers; as if you could ever maker a silk purse from a sow's ear. If that company wasn't so steadfastly regressive, it would have made a far supeior version of that speaker for far cheaper by making it active with dedicated amplifiers. Period. That mega-buck crossover still has an order of magnitude higher distortion than an electronic one. It would be like Ford selling a version of the Mustang with a silver-plated and diamond crusted solid rear axle and claim it is better than the stock car's solid rear axle. 20 times more expensive than independant rear suspension, and still nowhere near as good. The same goes for Wailson Audio and their way-over priced elephant coffins, and all the other purveyors of high-priced passive speakers.

Almarg is correct; shoving a highly resolving system's signal through the electronic nightmare that was an Audio Control 101 to achieve flat response at the listening seat is an error. It would also ruin the sound due to the sheer amount of electronics, though they worked fine for mid/lo-fi systems. I sold those things 20 years ago from a store 4 blocks from the Lynnwood, WA factory, and sold LOTS of their excellent car gear, electronic crossovers and EQs alike.

In-room response is absolutely desirable. What I cannot abide are speakers with messy FR and dispersion curves as that can only worsen in-room FR.

For a simple test done by a fine Brit manufacturer showing the superiority of active vs. passive crossovers, see http://avihifi.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html . Of course, that is just one aspect; the amplifiers needed to drive drivers directly don't need a lot of current, so are far cheaper, smaller, and easier to make.

Martykl, there is never anything to be traded away by using electronic crossovers. I don't know why you think that. There are only strong advantages. There is no credible debate over the statement that it is always desirable to reduce speaker distortion. Passive crossovers produce several hundreds of times more distortion than a good electronic crossover. It is *always* desirable to remove that distortion from the signal.

The more important factors are speaker-room interaction, which affect the signal endlessly more than getting a new amplifier, new cables, etc., and general speaker quality--as in a better active speaker!

Tvad, it's difficult, and requires more sophisticated measuring techniques involving measurements from many places in the room. See Lyngdorf's website for how they recommend doing it with their digital room correction system. Which is difficult in and of itself.

It is indeed impossible to get accurate results out of Radio Shack gear. Plus, I'm not beholden to the artifices of pin-sharp imaging and stereoscopy, which don't exist anywhere in real life to the extent it can on some systems. It's why I don't really bother with room correction or damping; I optimize speaker positioning and go directly to enjoying music. I'm far less interested in tweaking about than I used to--I'm a red giant in astronomical terms, at the end of my long audiophile life.