t8kc - Very interesting post about your 2.2000s. I feed my 2000s with 150 watts per side (Odyssey Audio HT3 w/cap upgrade). But, IIRC, Mapman feeds his big Walsh's with 500 or 1000 watts per side (Bel Canto).
I think mine sound good with the mere(!) 150 watt amp because I cross them over (1st order) at 40 Hz to my powered Vandy subs. I did once have a pair of 500 watt mono blocks from Arion Audio for a demo in my system. They sounded great, but I was hard pressed to hear any big advantage over the Odyssey Audio amp in my system (again, which includes powered subs).
But if you want a good-sounding amp with plenty of juice, I would recommend a trial of the Arion Audio - http://arionaudio.com/. It appears they offer some sort of in-home audition program, and owner/designer Mike Kallelis is a terrific guy. |
Good morning my friend...
Its always fun to meet new forum member in the flesh.
Tate was kind enough to bring his 2/2000 and at a precursory listen
I was pleasantly surprised. Tate left the speakers for me to do some
deep deep testing and some measurements when I get a chance so we'll find out
how they measure in a few days......
The Ambien is asking me to lay down the iPad before I say something I'll regret
in the morning...🇸🇪 |
I went to visit peterr53 today and found out something interesting about my Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers. They need more than the 200W/channel that I am currently using (Parasound 1500). When we hooked up the speakers to his 1,000 w/channel system, the sound I originally expected came through.
We played the sample I use (intro to Money for Nothing - Dire Straights) with some revealing drum whacks. They sounded correct. Now I know why my 4XOs sound good with the same amp; they require just enough power from the amp. Funny how threshold situations can cause all sorts of confusion. So mystery solved! Now I have to start the search for more amp power.
Peterr53 has already outlined his system here, but hearing it in person is amazing. His subs (18") blow away any I have heard to date. The whole house shakes and you think you have been punched in the chest by Mike Tyson. Very viseral and impressive.
He previewed an action movie and the added bass really made it an experience to remember; better than the local cinema sound for sure. He claims 8 Hz and I believe it.
I can't wait to hear the finished product of his Walsh 5 modification.
|
Thank you for showing your cool system.... |
I posted some new system pics today. Same ohms except Ls got a room promotion. |
So it's Saturday and I'm suppose to do some pre tax work for the CPA but I'll do that later...hehehe
After holding of on digging in to the crossover board, I finally said
"to hell with caution" and removed the the whole board...barabing
It is amazing how complicated and convoluted the whole design is.
The switching network can not do anything positive for the audio signal. No oxygen free copper as far as the eye can see and plenty of HMG.......Hot melt glue lol
So all that is going bye bye, a new design for the tweeter modules
with micro adjustability for time alignment and the Rear tweeter will have a volume control. The top plate where the Walsh driver is attached will be made from a sandwich of aluminum, and rubber and I'm decoupling the plate from the cabinet as much as possible.
So........that's it for now.........🇸🇪
|
T8kc just email me and we can work something out.
Tomorrow is designing day, as I'm seeing my mettal guy on Tuesday. Everything is taken down to its molecules, and I figured out some more secrets of the beast....lol
aExcitement in the air....🇸🇪 |
...50 pages, wow. I guess there's 'life' in Walsh's after all. ;)
Guess I'll just have to keep tinkering....*S* |
Also, peterr53, if you would like to test the fall off of another set of Ohms, just let me know (I'm in SoCal).
|
peterr53, keep up the good work.
Very interesting.
I am seriously thinking about looking at what is under the cans of my 2.2000 upgrade that has issues.
|
Soooooo.....
The thought I had was, what would happen if I bypass the Ohm X-over and insert my own
that I built for another project.
The X-over is a simple 8 ohm (wrong impedance) cheap parts that I used for testing
and voila' my friends!! It worked like a charm, not perfect as It need to be a 4 ohm impedance unit, but never the less it works.
I'm surprised every day and It's a blast, can't wait to continue with some more testing.
More to come soon my friends....🇸🇪 |
Finally some action on the thread...lol
I think the big surprises for everyone is the Walsh driver falling of so early.
The opportunity for me to take a closer look at each driver is pretty much
exclusive in the whole scheme of things IE no one else has done it as far as I have seen
around the net. The extension of the tweeter is weird, looks like a filter blocking the signal.
I am ordering up a new cable for my signal generator to see if that's an issue.
I did take the switch circuit out yesterday and I'm going back to work on it momentarily.
Im sure cleaning up the wiring mess and removing the switches will greatly improve imaging and dynamic response. One odd thing is that the signal is inverted right at the signal input
so I will test that out....
Till then.......🇸🇪
|
t8 you would know best. . I would expect the two to have differences in sound to go along with the different driver size, cabs and age. That’s about it. If gen two rather than gen one then that is a step in teh right direction IMHO.
|
mapman, based on your speaker timeline, my 4XOs are of the series 2 variety. The Ohm website lists the manufacturing date range as late 1980s to early 1990s. If Ohm had made improvements up through the current series (which my 2.2000 are), they should blow away the "old" 4XO version.
I used an amp with sufficient power (Parasound 1500) and increased the volume during the 2.2000 testing to compensate for the efficiency difference which isn't huge (2 dB).
The problem that I am talking about is the inability of the 2.2000 speakers to reproduce sound that is clearly there in the 4XO speakers. Speakers typically don't create sound, they reproduce it from a source. So, if the source is the same and sound is missing from one set of speakers then something is wrong with the speakers.
It seems to me that trying to rationalize missing sound on the "room" when two sets of speakers share the same space is a stretch. I'm happy to be proven wrong as I would rather have both sets of my speakers play well.
I also think that trying to discount actual users expriences as spurious by comparing them to what was reported in a magazine years ago using a different set of speakers isn't the last word when discussing what is happening today.
I like Ohm speakers. The engineering genius of Lincoln Walsh is appreciated. When actual users report on the possible failings of the Ohm manufacturing company, I think it is important to talk about it. Ohm makes a profit constructing speakers; they need to hear (are you listening JS?) what is going on with their product and how their customers are reacting.
|
Interesting.
The advantage of XO models (compared to other originals like 1,2,4,5) is that they are advertised easier to drive and more efficient which is certainly a factor that might influence results positively in many cases.
I suspect they are likely more efficient than comparable newer 1000 models but have not verified that.
As a sidenote I also recall reading something from JS in his OHM site blog I think that indicated smaller models in a line are less efficient than larger ones, which would seem to make sense.
Also be certain not all OHMs of a particular model or line always sound alike. The sound heard can vary widely for many reasons. Being omnis/radials, room acoustics IS a particularly key factor as always. Amp used, quality of source and all the other usual culprits (including operating condition) can come into play as usual. Its a team sport. Speakers alone make no sound.
Also worth mentioning of course that Walsh 4s are quite a bit larger than 2.2000 and I am a steadfast believer that size always matters when it comes to speakers and their ability to put out large or sufficient amounts of good sound.
Another point is that as I recall with X000 series prices did go up in general for speakers of a certain size in the line so you get a smaller speaker (with advertised better drivers) for your money. That's where refurbs, sales and trade-ins can really help though.
|
bondman, here is the quote from one of my earlier posts.
"Ok, the jury is in.
The Walsh 4s win.
After much listening and knob twisting, there is now no doubt.
The W4s have more definition and are more transparent.
I was able to turn the bass up a notch on the tone control which gave it enough kick to satisfy me.
The defining test was listening to the intro from "Money for Nothing".
The drums had much more tone and roundness compared to the W2.2000 speakers which sounded flatter.
At that point I couldn't go back.
Now, what to do?
It looks like a pair of Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers will be for sale soon.
Or, I might relagate them to garage duty."
What surprised me was that I contacted Ohm about the issues and they just shined me on. They were pushing the line that it must be the room. This ignored the fact that I did a direct comparison between their 2 speakers in the same location.
I think that to assume all Ohm-Walsh speakers sound the same and are all voiced alike is to ignore the realities of production. A human is assembling them from parts sourced from who knows where. My 2.2000 upgrade speakers, with 6 months of break-in, never got better. As soon as I auditioned the 4XOs, the game was over.
|
I think but am not certain that 4XOs are original gen 1 Walsh drivers like Walsh 2s but made a tad more efficient for easier mating to amps.
I have not heard latest X000 generation but my working assumption is that most OHms gen II or later sound more similar than different whereas gen 1 is much different.
Mine are both series 3, one gen older than latest.
OHm walsh series/generations are as I recall:
originals 1,2,4,5, and XO variations (5s were subject of the Stereophile review I referenced above).
series 2 circa late 80s
series 3 circa later 90s
X000 current and around for at least 5 years or so now I think.
Each series historically appears to get a revision/fresh up every ten years or so. |
t8kc - You sparked my curiousity with your post. I have never heard 4XO's, but I have owned a pair of 2000s for over seven years and I love them. What about the 2.2000 upgrade did you find dissappointing? |
Peter regarding the earlier charts of walsh driver alone, which surely must be different than stereophile reported results on the entire original Walsh 5 speaker, there is no data elsewhere to compare with so it is what it is. There is no way to know know if it is normal for these speakers or not. That can never happen with a single sample in any case.
But if your complete speaker with tweeters in play roll off as indicated, I am willing to bet there is something wrong with this patient. Stereophile indicated virtual flat response to 20khz measured with the original Walsh 5's from early 80's tested. Data presented as I understand it would seem to point to the crossover in that my understanding is all measures were done with drivers connected to crossover. If it is the crossover then the walsh driver alone measures might be affected as well. No way to know that for certain though with the data available so far that I can see.
Unless I’m missing something I’d suggest talking to JS and see what he has to say.
|
Without comment on the accuracy of the graphs supplied here...
I’ve measured my Ohm 100s with several software packages (including, among others, the custom designed, high-Rez Studio Wizzard package and Audyssey pro). I have never seen anything like the roll-off under discussion here. Different speaker, different room, different measurement hardware/software/operator = different result.
Whatever has resulted in the graphs published here should not be extrapolated to the Walsh/Walsh-like drivers that Ohm employs across their line. |
Stereophile has been doing and publishing these measures for years so I would not discount them totally.
peter you should talk to JS then to figure out what is going on. Or maybe someone else here with expertise in this area could comment.
Obviously your results apply to your speakers only. But there is nothing to indicate they apply to any other pair so you should be cautious in public there.
I personally suspect you have a crossover issue at this point but I am no expert. JS could help you much better.
I am an engineer and have image processing background but not an audio engineer. 1/3 octave as I understand it is essentially a low pass filter that produces a more generalized output. That would be useful to enable a general comparison between data sets filtering details that matter for exact tonality but not for that initial purpose.
In any case you need apples and apples measures to compare at all. 1/3 octave apples apples comparison is only one possible with data and tools available at this point that is apples/apples. It would show general response with enough resolution to determine if two general response curves are similar or not. From what we know so far I would predict they continue to be radically different with yours still showing large gradual dropoff all else staying the same.
The review mentioned a small tonality variation detected. It was not clear to me if that was detected by ear only or supported by other measures done but not mentioned. John Atkinson surely has/had good ears but I I would still hope the latter.
Also these were original OHM 5s reviewed. I had original Walsh 2s, same gen Walsh drivers and I a/b compared them to my newer series 3 models when I got them and I can attest that there were significant midrange tonal variations and the originals were nowhere close. Stereophile may have been generous with their assessment and not published unflattering info perhaps knowing JS would attempt to address which he did starting in series 2 models shortly after.
|
Thank you t8kc....
everything I have done it has been on the up and up as I really don't have a dog in the fight. (just a bit) this is suppose to be for fun not a Paine in the rear end....
I started to deconstruct the spaghetti switch box, and finally removed the switcher late this afternoon. And I will replace all the nasty cheap stuff with
copper or silver (all of them) and I'll replace them with WyreWorlds new OFC copper as I do care? I have capabilities of measuring FFT and laser interferometry if necessary. The top plate is now floating on top of the cabinet held down with wing nuts.
The plan is to make a constrained layer part with aluminum, silicon sheets and Finnply, this should be a exciting next few weeks.
I might even construct a 10 inch F clone from some very cool materials as I was privy to at my last job in material sciences...
1/3 octave is like driving a Beetle, my preference would be a Porsche Gt 3 RS that allows much much higher resolution...🇸🇪
PS. The McClaren 650 S is even better, lighter and cool as..s#*_! |
My engineering experience tells me to believe what you actually measure and not what someone else tells you. Also, many magazine guys, in all fields, are typically writers first and technicians last. And I have first hand experience on that one.
Believe who you will, but in the end it is the result that matters and not the conversation that gets you there.
I love my used 4XOs, but was mightly disappointed in my new walsh 2.2000 upgrades so there is a variance in quality.
|
Mapman being a fanboy is one thing, but questioning and seeing
plenty of frequency charts from 2 different software packages and still think that some thing is wrong (two separate drivers looking identical) is a little silly. I have been in the audio industry for years
although I'm retired at this point gives me some background to say what you see is correct. Never said I had to make large corrections
but the Walsh driver does what it does and not one bit more....
|
There is a huge discrepancy. That is flat response measured and judged one of the best speakers of its time by a leading publication in the industry and yours is way out of the ballpark for reasons unknown. Yours do not look like anything I’ve ever seen measured from any decent pair of speakers working properly. Something is wrong. I doubt it will matter that much but try 1/3 octave on your gear maybe and then apples and apples comparison can at least loosely be made. If not comparable then I do not know what to tell you other than your measures and those from Stereophile are radically different for reasons unknown. |
" I was sure that a 1/3-octave frequency sweep would reveal an aberrant frequency response" That doesn't sound like someone who does a lot of testing! A 1/3 octave resolution is as corse as my software allows to go and I would never use that for serious testing. It's kind of using 10000 iso for portrait photography or gravel instead of sand for a foundation not to smart. Look at the readout, it gives you a feeling for whats going on but thats it. This readout was me watching TV, not testing. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpstgppmvnp.png.html?o=0 |
From Jan 17, 2008 Stereophile review of Walsh 5 speaker: " I was sure that a 1/3-octave frequency sweep would reveal an aberrant frequency response, but I was wrong. In fact, from about 500Hz to 20kHz (which was as far as I measured), the Walsh 5 was almost ruler flat when measured on the supertweeter axis. There were the usual dips and peaks in the in-room bass response, and the bass was down 4dB at 25Hz—in complete accord with Ohm’s specifications. The source for the coloration remains a mystery, therefore. Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/ohm-walsh-5-loudspeaker-page-2#BMwfiIR8TJXhr0v8.99" aftewrwards (from OHM site) :
Stereophile Magazine called the Ohm Walsh 5s: "one of the best American box speakers made" Years ago Stereophile Magazine reviewed the Ohm Walsh 5 speaker. Their conclusion back then was that current model had some unique qualities and was on the "verge" of greatness.
In response to that review Ohm made some adjustments and thus a new "5s" version of the Walsh 5 speaker was born. Stereophile reviewed this new model and in conclusion they had this to say: "a Great American Speaker—one of the best American box speakers made"
|
As for roll off, did you measure it? Or was it just feeling that it was extended way past 16k? remember unless your'e under 30 the chance you can even hear 12k is slim.
|
|
Hi Mapman....
I used multiple software versions to see if there's some issues
but nothing is changing, if anything it's showing about the same
readout from test to test. Go back in my posts and I have mentioned the 2.5k drop off many times and there's nothing beyond that number.
Nothing wrong with the speakers, as a matter of fact I mentioned how much I love them, but I'm the fiddling man and with that most everything get upgraded.
There was nothing wrong at all, both measures the same (what's the chance both are screwed up). I do think people expect more then the Walsh driver can deliver.
I just deleted those pesky (lol) switches very interesting and man does he use cheap wire in the switching network....🇸🇪
|
Peter I don’t understand what’s going on with the gradual roll off shown with tweeters in play. I’ve never seen that in any speaker. Charts of 2nd gen OHm walsh speakers from later 80s I have seen in the past were more typically flat, nothing that unusual. NEwer versions are supposedly not so radically different sounding. EQ should not be needed to that extent.
Do you have baseline plots of the speakers originally for comparison? Could there be something wrong in the crossover at this point?
Is it even known for certain speakers were in good working order to start? What prompted you to take them apart?
This is very interesting but the relationship between what is measured currently versus originally in properly working speakers is not clear at all at this point. |
Here I am with some more info to add to our arsenal of knowledge
and understanding about our beloved Ohm speakers. It took some extra time to
pull together additional charts to show what really is happening through the
frequency sweep. I always suspected the Walsh driver to be great but not
fantastic in the upper frequency region. After looking closely at the Walsh
driver the conclusion must be that the application is brilliant, but not the
latest in resolution or frequency extension.
The Walsh driver works like an “F” driver but nowhere near
it’s extension in the treble region, and if you are really honest at all, there’s
very little difference between a front firing woofer/midrange driver and the
Walsh driver. The difference is a removed dust cap and some tacky glue on the
lower (bass) part (for damping I suspect). The 360 degrees
off radiating sound is certainly one of the appealing reason for getting the Ohm’s.
Let’s take a look at the different readouts. The first will
be a 3D plot that shows both time and frequency in a dimensional way. The
brighter the sweep is the more energy is emanating from the driver, you can
also see valleys which are low energy areas. These measurements were taken at approx
15 inches from the drivers so I don’t think the room boundaries made any
difference at all. The driver was
the original soft dome tweeter, no extra EQ the only difference would be that
it’s not confined behind foam, paint, perforated steel and speaker cloth I.E.
no CAN. (4 layers)
Image one:
The Walsh driver no tweeter. Volume would be at about mid
80db, loud but not overly so. The bass frequency is a seams a bit on the plump side
and then a suddenly a drop in energy way earlier then expected. (wideband
Pink Noise). https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/D26z27
Image two:
Here you have a full frequency sweep allowing you to really
see what’s going on, and suddenly it drops of the cliff at 16k. (wideband Pink Noise). https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/b1976f
Image three:
Walsh with stock tweeter, no EQ, padded cabinet but no OE padding which would consist of a
3 inch layer of re-constituted (shredded and glued together) denim, fluffy
Dacron and an upper layer of netting separating the fluffy stuff from the Walsh
driver. The graph confirms the 3D plot, very bass heavy and then it falls of
pretty fast. These measurements were taken approx 1meter from both drivers. Frequency
sweep 20-20khz https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/WrD31L
Image four:
Walsh driver, stock tweeter, EQ and complete stuffing.
20-20khz
Wow look at that curve, so much better…Way better and more
midrange/treble energy. And the bass is under control.
Very little smoothing as I really like to see all the
ripples warts and all. The EQ was used with a tender touch nothing heavy
handed. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/8Y1zqV
Image five: (white trace)
Walsh driver stock tweeter, no EQ, light stuffing 20-200hz https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/7fGU4j
Image six: (yellow
trace)
Walsh driver, stock tweeter, no EQ, complete stuffing 20-200hz
A small but clear difference if you look closely, a slightly
flatter curve, but remember this is a very small slice of the whole frequency
curve. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/5ffK60
Image seven:
Walsh driver, ribbon tweeter, EQ and complete stuffing
20-20khz
As mentioned earlier the impedance value is 5 ohm’s on this
tweeter, so that will certainly add to some compatibility issues. But looking
at the curve it’s pretty darn good and I think with some additional tweaking I
could have done more. Below you’ll find an additional image of the same setup
but 20 degrees off axis. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/k4b4M0
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/b5016x
|
How do you make five hours fly by fast.....
Man I love fiddling with stereo equipment. The smell of hot tubes, transistors and power supplies brings back memories from the mid
seventies when I was a spry teenager. I walk by the stereo shop on the way to school everyday and finally I decided to enter the inner sanctum of my dreams.....Ahhh that smell from the tubes, transistors and power supplies were intoxicating and with that the beginning of a lifelong quest for better sound.
When I started to take apart 4/5k's it really wasn't because I didn't love the way they sound, but because I took apart the Micros.
The shock seeing the mess of a badly built speaker with parts so
cheap rattled me, so my curiosity was peeked and the 4/5k project took a on a life of its own.
Today was an eye opener again, but in my infinite wisdom I decided to use a different software to measure the frequency response.
The software is great, but transfer the graphs in to a file that a human can see was another matter. So I am going to have to take
pictures of the screen and then post them as soon as possible.
What new things did I learn today? How about the speaker measures better with more dampening in the cabinet. A little bit of EQ will go a long way for perfection. No output beyond 2.5k on the Walsh driver. A non resonant cabinet sounds better. And much more.
I manage to massage out a perfectly (or close to it) frequency response. The ribbon tweeter sounds and measures great even when I'm over 20 degree of to the side but not as great vertically.
I also believe an electronic X-over is a must for this design if you want to squeeze out maximum performance.
So that's how I manage to spend five hours nerding out on drivers,
EQ's and acoustic sound dampening.......🇸🇪
|
Good morning.....
Ill run a stepped frequency sweep from 20hz through 20khz that way we'll know
were it falters. I'll also will do some additional testing that I wrote about last night.
The dogs will hate me lol
Now it's eggs and espresso.........🇸🇪 |
I’ll take the first stock Flat cheap tweeter I think.
You also should do some off axis measures if that matters for you. I’d like to know how the folded ribbon compares in particular.
Also have you seen the audio frequency response chart online? That would be helpful for assessing frequency deviations at certain frequencies with ear sensitivity at same and also how those relate to various instrument frequencies heard in music. |
Tomorrow Saturday I will also try to change the crossover frequency to 80-100hz cutoff
to see if we can work the cone less hard and with that we can get some better mid/treble
output should be interesting indeed....
Mr Ambien is calling so I better go.......🇸🇪
|
Peter, thanks for all this engineering work. It is fun to "see" what is going on with these speakers. I concur that the mid-range can be attenuated in the Ohm-Walsh speakers. My 4XO speakers sound good, but the mid range needs some boosting to sound balanced. I have no trouble with the bass or treble.
|
The fortune cookie said: Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes... So after an eye opening first part of the test we must now figure out how the drivers work as a whole. I have tree different tweeters to test the stock tweeter, a soft dome tweeter I had laying around and the ribbon tweeter that was my test unit for further evaluation. As you can see there's two traces on the frequency sweep, the bottom one is the active sweep and the upper one is the actual paused graph. The first unit was the stock "SuperTweeter" This was a pleasant surprise, and you can see why it so pleasant pretty flat with no surprises anywhere in the frequency band. Now this could also be interpreted as safe, boring, and un-exciting. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpspgkcxtbf.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=6This frequency sweep is the no name tweeter 8ohm which is totally wrong as the stock unit measures 4ohm. It's a roller coaster but I didn't expect anything other than what you see. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpspgcrafiz.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=0Now to the Ribbon tweeter, This unit sounds great, sparkly but not etched or edgy, the problem is that it's a 5ohm unit and the lowest usable frequency is 3k or so which is very obvious as it starts to dip around......3k. I am replacing this unit with something that can be X-over around 1.5k-2K and with the electronic X-over I can make a smooth transition between the two drivers. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpsw91rq7bm.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=5Next I will try to play with the stuffing to see if that makes a difference. I might also try to bypass some switches to see if freeing up the drivers from the switching network makes a difference. Hope you guys enjoy the testing phase of my quest for better sound. Can sound be creamy?...........Swedish Flag |
|
Mapman you might be right, but all I can report on is what
I see and how I feel about the product. I applaud any manufacturers
that keep production in the USA. With that said there's many other
American manufacturers that build locally, source locally that still make beautiful cabinetry, excellent drivers, and still stay in business.
Next post measurements.......🇸🇪 |
I don’t know. Just saying I would not assume two different models are equivalent sound wise unless known otherwise. The devil is always in the details. I’ve never heard anything but positive reviews of MicroWalsh talls. Don’t know what might be different with shorts or surrounds. Also John is known to customize for customers liberally as needed or desired. It often can be very hard to distinguish one OHM model from another. There are many variations out there.
I bet he would at least consider using a custom tweeter type if one requested. The main thing he seems to care about is that the customers are satisfied. I’m sure he’d offer up his opinion of ups and downs with any particular variation, maybe even if not actually doing the work.
|
But....but come on now, same driver smaller
housing should not change anything but the bass....right?
Cant imagine they changed everything in the X-over for the tweeter only.
with that said I did previously remark on the hilarious $2 paper tweeter from 1970
and how bad it sounded. I did replace the tweeter with a modern design soft dome
tweeter that doesn't break up at higher spl's.
I still run some sweeps again for the hell of it should be interesting...
Back again soon....🇸🇪
|
Bondman I worked part time at Lafayette Radio in Lancaster Pa. It was located in a strip center outside of town (Two Guys was anchor store) and moved to Park City Center for a brief period. When it closed the location became Radio Shack store and I then worked there for a few years during and a bit shortly after college. I also worked PT at Tech Hifi during school in New Brunswick, NJ.
|
peter I don’t do surround sound but from what I have seen most surround speakers do not perform as well as mains unless I am mistaken (size and lower cost per reflects that). I would expect same with microwalsh surrounds (more limited) versus mains (more full range but less bass than larger models). I would not take measurements on one as representative of the other. There is a size and cost difference isn’t there? |
I have 6 micro Walshes on the walls as surround speakers and I'm sorry to tell you but they
don't perform very well on the high end of the spectrum. I'll run a frequency sweep on those later so you can see.
🇸🇪 |
I'd be willing to bet the crossover frequency with Microwalsh (smallest driver) is higher than with 5000 (largest). How much? Don't know but probably enough information available for analysis to make an educated guess. |
Mapman: Lafayette Radio!!! I worked there one year in college, 1982-1983. They were already owned by Circuit City, but still doing biz as Lafayette Radio. I was in the store on 45th St. in Manhattan. That street also had a number of other hifi stores.
Peterr53: You are correct about the "super-tweeter" definition. But consider that different models of the x000 might go a bit higher before handing off to the tweeter. And, again, I remember that the old Ohm web site did mention something about a 7kHz crossover (actually, just a resistor on the tweeter, as the main driver rolled off naturally above 7 kHz). A very rough phone app RTA showed that my in-room response did indeed tilt downward as the frequency rose. I actually expected this, and I am quite pleased with it. I do not feel as if I am missing anything in the higher frequencies at all. They are just a little subdued, which makes the system listenable for hours and hours with no fatigue. Could they be better? Sure. That's why I am following your posts so carefully. While I could never do what you're doing, I might pay someone who can to do these things. A bit of a risk, but if the results are as significant as you suggest they might be, maybe it's worth it. |
Good morning Bondman and everyone else......
The Walsh driver is not crossed over at 7k, look at the frequency sweep (pink noise)
there's just not enough energy to go past 4K let alone 7k. I will hook up one of the drivers
today run a sweep as is, then I'll use the parametric equalizer to see how far I can push the
frequency extension. It'll be a fun excercise.....
The other thing is the tweeter used is not a super tweeter. A super tweeter would pick up
after the regular tweeter drops of, let say 18k and above.
Espresso my drug of choice.........🇸🇪 |
peter,
Are those folded ribbons the same or similar to those used in Goldenear Aeon speakers?
I have heard those. Much different top end from any soft domes I have heard. Very polite is the term I used to describe the sound. I could easily live with a pair of the Goldenear Aeon speakers in the right room.
I find the OHm Walshes quite easy on the ear and not fatiguing though they can go somewhat that way in some cases. But not nearly as much as my Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII or Triangle Titus monitors.
I recently acquired BelCanto C5i Digital Class D integrated amp in my second system. None of my speakers have any sign of hotness or edge ever with this amp. Its the first I've owned (and the newest with latest greatest technology) that I could say that about. It would be interesting to hear a good speaker with folded ribbon tweeter on that.
Many factors that contribute to sound.
My very first "good" speakers (Criterion) had Heil air motion transformers. I bought these when working at Lafayette Radio circa 1977. I was a newbie then and liked those over other speaker brands sold with other tweeter types.
Problem was they would always blow out at modest volume even off 40 w/ch lafayette integrated amp I had at the time so I dumped them after about a year (for OHM Ls I heard at tech Hifi).
I'm sure the modern equivalents are much superior. There are many speakers from those days I would bet could sound in another league these days with modern digital and amplifier technologies in play.
|
peter I appreciate that but I am getting the sound I want and no time or interest in dabbling inside my Walshes at present.
My goal when I got back into this stuff several years back was to find the right speakers first and do whatever needed to get exactly the sound I wanted from there. My path was from OHM to Maggie to B&W and back to OHM in my bigger room over the course of about 25 years. I’ve done many tweaks around the speakers to get exactly the sound I wanted since I got them almost 10 years ago now (wow). I will say the sound can vary widely based on all the typical suspects that affect how speakers sound and what I have now is in another league from when I started. Many ways to skin the cat.
Maybe if something heads south, but I gotta say that I’ve owned OHM Walshes since 1982 and the only issues I have ever had were the internal braces on my original Walsh 2s come loose inside and have to be reset. Those speakers did move around the country in the back of my car a lot in those days. I am more settled now and my current OHMs mostly stay put.
I did refabric the hoods of my old Walsh 2s as well using a beige colored loose wove wool fabric mainly to please my wife aesthetically. Those were part of teh trade in I did for my current F5 series 3.
|
