I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
I'm not sure if this is acceptable technique or not, but this is something that's working for me.
Obviously, I'm obssessed with bass response, and I've noticed that the Ohm's are faithful to the source material. If the recording is lean on bass, the Ohm's reveal it. My past speakers tended to make most recordings sound the same- but not the Ohm's.
Anywah- they are light enough and easy enough to move that I can adjust bass, soundstage and imaging by moving them. Closer to the back wall, more bass but smaller soundstage. Move them out, less bass but WIDE soundstage and the 'floor-to-ceiling' effect.
I don't know if this is crazy or not, but for me it makes more sense than boosting EQ and adding distortion.
What size room, by the way? And what finish on the speaks? Rebbi (Threads | Answers)
Rebbi, my family room is rectangular (stuffed with furniture) 11X18X8. The Walsh 5 S3 speakers will be on a short wall on each side of a fireplace. They have the rosewood finish.
Just got mine. Pretty good. They do some things great right out of the box. Different than typical box speakers. I have some opinions of them already but I don't want to say until I've given them a chance to really settle in and have compared them to some other speakers for reference. I sold my Arros too soon to compare them. I have a set of Zu Druids that will be here Friday. That's the first of my in home shootout. The Gallo 3.1 will be next. I'll keep everyone informed if you are interested.
Mailman199: I have a set of Zu Druids that will be here Friday. That's the first of my in home shootout. The Gallo 3.1 will be next. I'll keep everyone informed if you are interested.
Absolutely, please post your impressions as soon as you have a few sentences worth and then keep updating them. :)
OK, I spent all day with them today. I find them power hungry but very interesting. I'm going to try and track down a nice Rotel amp as I think that would be a good match for them.
The tonal balance is very nice and Johnny Cash and Diana Krall both sound "right". In my particular room they are fairly responsive to the positioning of the speaker and the imaging can be overwhelmingly wide to very tight depending on how I set them up. The back wall really did just disappear when I first played them. :-)
I'm could sit here and type about them all night but I won't.... yet anyway. I need to spend some more time with them. :-)
I continue to tweak my setup, largely with respect to tinkering with the placement of my 100's. I am trying to get the best balance of imaging, soundstage and tonal balance. At the same time, I'm aware that the Ohms are still breaking in.
What's bugging me is that I feel that my experimentation is random, or hit miss. I pull them out from the wall, push them back, toe them in, toe them out... it's kind of like dancing the speaker Hokey Pokey, if you get my drift... And then I lose track of what I'm doing and I'm not sure if what I heard two iterations ago is better than what I'm hearing now. At least I do have my current "best setup" marked with tape on the floor, so I can get back to that.
Another issue: I'm not sure what source material I should be listening to while I do this. Vocals? Something I'm really familiar with?
I guess what I'm asking for is help doing this systematically. How should I start? What am I listening for as I move the speaks in different ways?
I know my last post may have been rambling, but I think we're experiencing a similar thing. For me, they sound great no matter where I put them, but different locations result in different qualities.
I'm fairly comfortable with the idea of moving placement depending on source and desired result. I'm just not used to it. Any other speaker I've every had or heard needed to be in just the right location, and I had to sit in just the right spot. The Ohm's- not so much.
On the other hand, I'm not exactly an audiophile, and my knowledge is fairly limited. So, I'm open to the possibility that an 'Ohm Guru' could show me the 'right' way to place them. But that's why I went with the Ohm's in the first place- they're not sweet-spot dependent for good results.
Once I hook-up my beast of an amp, I think I'll be in a better position to dial them in. But delays in remodelling seem to keep pusing that even back further and further.
For music, I would say vocals and piano would probablay help you evaluate the sound. For positioning I'd be looking at the position where the soundstage would be the widest and deepest and yet not sacrifice too much low end, but that's just me.
I think you have the right mindset for how to best locate the OHMs.
You have to play around with different locations, listen and decide what works best for you.
Just avoid location within a foot or two of walls. Some locations will sound great and some just OK, though perhaps few flat out bad.
Also remember to play with toe-out. Toeing the speaks out for more direct effect from the super-tweet can be used to sharpen things up and even compensate for left/right balance issues in some rooms like my L shaped demon. Direct exposure to teh super-tweet will also effectively collapse the sound stage width as well, which may be a positive or negative again depending on room acoustics and personal preference.
I like "Season of the Witch" and other Donovan cuts like "Jennifer Juniper" for example as a reference track for setting up OHMs because it is a spatially sparse and simple yet tonally diverse production where the mix provides just a few sparse yet fairly detailed recording element locations across the soundstage that are easy to focus in on and access discretely.
If things are going well with the overall system setup, this cut sounds spectacularly detailed, spacious and lush on OHMS or any good system for that matter. If not, it will sound quite mediocre and bland.
Thanks a lot for the last couple of posts. I've been thinking that because these speakers are so easy to relocate due to lack of floor spikes, that I'm going to try moving them much further out into the room than is practical on a day-to-day basis. If I find a good spot, I'll just mark it with tape and then move the speakers when I want to sit down for some serious listening.
Mapman, I also have "sort of" an L. shaped room... although it's really pretty hard to describe unless I were able to actually sketch you the floor plan! ;-)
In any case, because my seating position is pretty much restricted to a particular piece of furniture (a day bed) in a kind of niche opposite the speakers, I'm a little restricted as to seating position. Actually, the 100s, being semi-omnidirectional, with their wide sweet spot, are great for a setup like this, because you get a nice sound pretty much wherever you sit.
On the other hand, the right-hand speaker is a mere 18 inches off the side wall, and I'm wondering if that isn't compromising the way the system currently sounds. It's NOT that it sounds "bad," but I keep thinking that I'm not getting the most out of the system. I'm going to try moving them WAY out into the room, and I'll see what happens... I will report back... ;-)
thaks everyone for all the help, input and advice. My wonderful experience with the Ohm's is making me want to learn a bit more before I spend more money on future upgrades.
I just ordered Jim Smith's 'Get Better Sound' after reading a lot of positive reviews.
Hopefully, that and time will further enhance the experience.
I had a great experience last night, and it's making me re-think my belief that there is no such thing as a break-in period.
I was listening to Porcupine Tree "The Start of Something Beautiful" off the 'Deadwing' cd. I actually had too much bass, and had to attenuate a little. This is a first, even though I've listened to it at least 3 times previously. The soundstage and detail also seemed greatly enhanced. I think I have about 60 hours on them now, and must admit that the sound is improving- and not just a little bit.
Later that night, I convinced my wife to listen to the same track, and she was greatly impressed. She told me that she kept expecting the speakers to distort during the synth breaks, and was impressed with how clear and pleasant the sound was.
After we were done with the PT, she actually requested to listen to The Catherine Wheel 'Wishville'
So- even if the speaker improvements are more psychological than physical, the elusive WAF is increasing measurably!
Believe me, there is a break-in period, both for the speaker mechanism, and the first time listener, with these.
BTW PT Deadwing is a very challenging album for most systems. When the system overall is clicking though, IT SOUNDS REALLY GOOD (kinda like Pink Floyd on Metallica's steroids)!!
No doubt about Deadwing. My old Deftech surrounds could not handle it in multi-channel. I actually hooked up my Pinnacle towers to handle surrounds at that point.
My experience with Definitive Technologies was not good. And Deadwing more than anything else brought out their defects.
The MWT's seem to handle anything and everything. But I (painfully) have to wait a few more days before I can hook up my main amp. Maybe this weekend...
Thanks for everything, Map. Seriously. I feel that I owe you one for all the help you've been.
Glad to help spread musical enjoyment wherever possible.
I would not tune my system initially using Deadwing though(too much going on in general to be able to sort through things), but once you think it sounds right, Deadwing is as good an acid test as most anything. If it sounds good start to finish, I venture to say that almost anything else will also.
BTW, I saw Porcupine Tree live on their FOABP tour in a small local concert venue nearby a year or so back and it was absolutely awesome! Strongly recommended
It was as loud as it gets, but very well produced and everything sounded phenomenal. It had to be otherwise it could have been very unpleasant at those db levels.
Now that I've decided to put the 100's wherever they sound best, and then move them out of the way when I'm not listening, so that they don't take over the room, I'm really getting somewhere.
I wanted to see how they'd sound a good 33 inches out from the rear wall, which would normally block the use of a recliner chair we have, but is fine while I'm listening.
Man, what a difference! I'm not sure if the difference is that they're so far off that wall (prior to now I'd had them only eighteen inches out), or whether it's that I'm in a more "nearfield" situation now, but the sound stage has gotten even larger, highs are airier, bass is much better defined, and image specificity is excellent. Oh, and soundstage depth and layering is better in spades!
I was listening to Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits today on vinyl and it sounded breathtaking... I couldn't stop listening. I'll report more, but I think I'm getting closer now...
Right now, I have the 100's about 33 inches off the rear wall, and from the inside edges of the plinths (not the most scientific measurement, I know) they're 6' 6" apart. They're sounding fantastic!
Listened this morning to the vinyl of Paul Simon's "Rhythm Of The Saints." Track 2 is "Can't Run But." Sense of ambient space is amazing; marimbas fill the air. Wow! :-D
Ya know, Rebbi, if I posted every amazing moment I've had with the Ohm's, we'd be at 1000 responses already. They are THAT good, aren't they?
Mine seem to be changing character a bit. The bass is filling-out nicely. On some recordings, the treble almost seems harsh, but then mellows out. I guess I've never had speakers good enough to experience break-in until now.
The biggest improvment is moving them in closer together, but as I've written before, they seem ridiculaously close at under 5 ft. But, I can't argue with my ears or the imaging. Sitting nearfield as far as I do, at 6', could be the reason why.
Listened to Cowboy Junkies 'Lay it Down' this weekend. Used the vocals for placement and imaging. As much fun as I can imagine having moving speakers 1/4" at a time.
Actually, Rebbi's observation is consistent with one I find telling re: Ohms. Music featuring multiple percussionists just sounds different on these speakers. The track which really struck me was "With These Hands" by Alejandro Escovedo. Again, a wall of maraccas, congas, tom toms, etc. Don't know that it's "real" (strictly speaking), but it is convincing - and fun.
Marty
PS - Para, IIRC, Ohm's placement recommendation defines a square, so if you're sitting 6' away from the point midway between the speakers, you should expect the speakers to be app 6' from each other.
I was talking to John at Ohm some time ago about this. He said that people tend to rave about the Ohm's soundstage presentation with two very different kinds of recordings.
The first is the "audiophile purist" kind of record -- single mike, lots of "hall ambiance" captured. On these tracks, you get a wonderful sense of space and air in the room..
The other, paradoxically, are WELL PRODUCED, heavily multitracked studio recordings, like "Graceland," "Brothers In Arms" "Two Against Nature" or "Rikki Lee Jones," where the engineers have deliberately put in "phasey" effects and used other tricks toward an artistic effect. In those recordings, the Ohms will totally take over the room and put you in the middle of the fireworks. ;-)
I was wondering what John demos with at shows (assuming that Ohm does shows). Any idea? I'd love to program one of those demos.
As to purist vs studio tracks. The Lindsey Buckingham tracks that wow me (you can add "Come" -with its monster guitar solo - from Fleetwood Mac's "Say You Will" to that list) are definitely in your second group, while the jazz that occupies most of my listening time generally falls into the first group.
For something else in that "purist" camp, you might want to try the new Allen Toussaint cd "The Bright Mississippi". A beautifully recorded set of N'awlins standards re-worked in a brooding, spare, but subtly more rythmic fashon than the originals. Woodwinds, horns, piano and a WHOPPIN' big bass drum.
I'm kind of a broken record (no pun intended) about this one, but I really love the original soundtrack album of the film "Princess Mononoke" (on the Milan label). For a beautifully recorded orchestra doing really good film music, you can't do a lot better. I even told John about it; wonder if he ever picked it up... it sounds luscious on the Ohm 100's, just glorious.
Marty, I don't think John does shows. I think they're content over at Ohm, quietly going about building speakers. The last I heard of John at a show, was RMAF in '07 at the Blue Circle booth. He was there getting consumer feedback on the Penny, before production...
Marty - I was thinking the same thing while going from room to room at the HE Show in New York. I went after owning the MWTs for a year or two and had a good barometer with some hours in on the Ohms.
The thing I walked away with was that the spacious sound of the Ohms is achievable with regular old cone 'n dome speakers... It just takes a lot more $... I heard some speakers that I liked (although many of them still sounded 'hi-fi' to me) but they were pretty pricey and the sweet spot was always small. The rooms are not great sounding, but I think the Ohms would be more forgiving than what I heard. I'd like to hear the Blue Circle Penny...
It's more of a satin finish... maybe a bit more gloss than your standard satin. No, no upcharge. Black is one of their standard finishes, and it was my wife's preferred color. :-) By the way, sorry for the quality of the photo... just a snap from my cell phone!
Thanks for the nice comments. The media center unit was a kit from Crate And Barrel, of all places. It's handsome and solid as a rock, but the openings in the back for cabling are too few and too small... the cable situation in the back ain't pretty. If I can find somebody with the right tools, I may remove the back this summer and see if I can make some more openings in the back to neaten things up. I know some folks swear that the way cables are "dressed" affects the final sound...
I was in NYC recently and finally made it a point to attend a performance in the main Stern Auditorium at Carnegie Hall.
In the back of my mind I also had the unsubstantiated assertion I had read a while back on the net that OHM Walsh speakers were voiced to sound like Carnegie Hall. Could that be true? If so, what does Carnegie Hall Sound like?
I asked the ticket clerk at the hall to recommend good seats to listen from. I sat in the front row of the "Dress Circle" level, just right of center and well elevated about 2/3 of the way up above stage level.
The program included various chamber orchestras and choruses performing various spiritual pieces. It was a most enjoyable performance overall and I would have to give at least some credit to the venue itself for making it that.
I think Stern once commented that the hall is an instrument in itself, which I would have to agree with. The hall delivered fantastic clarity and detail to the performance. Soloists and percussion in particular seemed to smoothly and cleanly resonate within the venue. My eyes teared on several occasions.
So what of the assertion regarding the OHMs? I'll just say that I felt right at home, albeit on a larger scale, with what I heard and leave it at that.
One thing I found very interesting was that a lot of the sound that reached my ear was reflected from the rear stage walls. I say that because the sound of soloists performing at stage level seemed to eminate from a point that was a good 12' or more vertically over their actual location, a very surreal effect I do not recall ever hearing to this degree anywhere else.
A while back I wrote a review about the Walsh 5's wherein I likened their soundstage to Carnegie Hall (the old hall that is, the one that the architectural genius Tuthill designed and built, before Stern and his nouveau renovators ruined it into just a 'good' hall), front mezzanine center to be exact. I performed at Carnegie and attended concerts there. The magical quality about Carnegie is the combination of tons of scintillating air, a vibrant yet critically damped acoustic, and astounding lucidity of instrumental and vocal articulations. In the old Carnegie, one could sit on stage rear and hold a conversation with someone sitting in the balcony without hardly raising the volume of one's voice. The Ohm Walshs recreate that magical acoustic space in my listening room. Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereos, as well as live recordings from Carnegie Hall itself, enjoy a special synergism with the Walshes.
I picked up the recently recovered Monk/Coltrane recording from Carnegie at the Hall's gift shop. It is a real treat.
One of the most amazing sounding recordings I own on the Walshs is the "Classic Concert" recording with Mel Torme and company from back in the 80's.
I think it is at the end of "Round Midnight" on this recording where Torme hits an extended high note that seems to come from behind and above me off the Walsh 5's. There were a few moments sitting in the hall involving a celeste or cymbal of some sort where the high frequency sound did a similar trick while I was sitting a good ways up and back, front row, Dress Circle. It was very cool!
Well after reading this for months I pulled the trigger on some Walsh 2s then had them refitted by Ohm. Set them up yesterday right next to my Ohm C2s. Very interesting. Not blowing me away out of the box but definitely good stereo separation, bottom end. Listened to a variety of things yesterday....Alison Krauss, Shelby Lynne, Diana Krall...all pretty good. Bill Evans...a little tinny on the piano sound. Hotel California...just ok. Tommy Emmanual-great acoustic instrument sound. Running off an old Mcintosh MA5100 integrated. Will work on breaking them in and finding the right placement. Not an ideal room as I have them about 15 inches off the front wall but there are shelves on both sides loaded with cds about 20 inches away. I will have to keep my ears open and maybe even run them off my separates later and see if there is an improvement. There does seem to be something of an "Ohm" sound but at this point the C2s seem to have more detail but less of a clean and low bottom end.
J - I started out with an MA6200 on my MWTs, then upgraded to a Cyrus 8vs2 and the speakers went up a notch in performance. Deeper bass, more detail... Surprised to hear Bill Evan's piano sounded tinny - his touch is anything but that. Plus, I always dig how the Ohms resolve piano.
I recall the C2s having the brightest inherent timbre of any OHM speaker save perhaps the E, which was a much lesser speaker. Not sure what the OHM C2 upgrade does in this regard, though I am certain it extends the low end.
My L's have the OHM sub bass activator tweak and a custom Morel woofer upgrade I installed myself. These sound best with good SS amplification I have found. Until I upgraded my amp from an older Carver m4.0t to the current MF A3CR (higher Current), I actually preferred the Ls to my Walsh 2s (100S3 drivers)for certain pop/rock recordings. The MF is lower watts (150w/ch) but higher current than the Carver (360w/ch) was. The OHM Walsh speakers need this to really shine.
Also, the Walshes need to break in and are inherently less efficient than C2s I believe, so they do require more power to truly thrive. I am not familiar with your Mac, but it is possible that an amp that does fine with the C2s may not do as well with the Walshes.
Aside from this, the presentation of the Walshes is totally different than the more conventional OHM box designs. That will never change.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
