Hah, nice one Map!
Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?
Hi,
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'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.
2,916 responses Add your response
Bass hump. Ouch! That’s the first I’ve heard that issue mentioned there but not uncommon. I might have brought a pair of Auralex subdudes along to set them on like I do at home on my second level (mine have no built in plinth underneath even). The Stereophile guy seemed mainly unable to handle teh "ambience" as he described it talking about reproducing original acoustics captured in a recording in a different room. Yes that’s exactly what the OHMs do that many do not and yes t can be hard for one to wrpa their ears around initially as well if not used to it. Many just want to hear the speakers not the room or at least that is what tehy are used to doing everything possible to take the rom out of teh equation. Unfortunately rooms are a reality and one has to find some way to deal with it, either use it or fight it or usually some effective combination of both practically. He did not say much else about the sound other than acknowledging the large sweet spot. Maybe the bass hump got him as well. John had an article on his site prior talking about the challenges of exhibiting in a hotel room so maybe he scouted in advance and had a premonition regarding the challenge. Room EQ would certainly be a great asset in a case like this but not something most will apply at home so not fair really in that sense. Trump went I heard and said it was all rigged. Just kidding.... |
Bond, glad you went and got to experience the setup, and also to meet John in person. Would love to have gone, but not close to NY, and work was beckoning anyway. Shows can be tough, but figured Ohm might be a bit easier to place in those rooms and get reasonable music out of them. Nice to hear an account of how things fared, thanks for the note! |
I went on Sunday. What a kick to meet John in person! I told him how his speakers bring beauty into my daily routine. He set up a pair of Walsh 1000s fed by a Peachtree integrated (150 watts/side, internal DAC), and used a $15 DVD player as a source. The sound was good, and the fellow in front of me bought a pair on the spot. My son-in-law, who accompanied me, almost pulled the trigger as well, until he called my daughter, and that was the end of that. But the rooms all suffered from an upper bass boom, and Ohm's room was no exception. I wondered aloud if moving the speakers a little further into the room would be better, but John's assistant said he had trieed that, and the positioning was as good as possible. I played a track from a PT CD that sounded lovely, lots of transient detail with no etch or excess brightness. John also brought a lot of potted plants along (I am aware of their desireable acoustic properties). One of the simplest setups at the show, and one of the best sounding, except for the systems that DSP'd the room boom out. When you factor in the prices of the gear and speakers, I think Ohm's room was a standout. To me, though, John is a legend in this business, and it was a thrill to shake his hand. |
I wonder how many "Ohmies"-or even those not necessarily Ohm lovers, managed to get to the NY Audio Show this past weekend? Anybody get to visit the Ohm Acoustics room and visit with John S. and listen to his setup? Am curious as to how well it all went down. I managed to catch a couple small snippets from my google searching, but nothing of much substance. Hopefully maybe some others will chime in at some point. I do think it was a good thing(Hopefully) that John decided to attend, if nothing else to get more exposure, although I wonder if he/Ohm really needs it, and also if anyone in the mainstream audio nerdophilia really cares? Anyway..... |
I’ve found that ability to sound good in rooms that are more challenging for whatever reason to be particular strength of the OHM Walshes. They can work surprisingly well close to walls and corners I find, as advertised, especially when compared to true omni speakers. The room I put my newer Walsh speakers in is a larger L shaped room. They replaced planar and conventional more directional box speakers in there neither of which worked particularly well. But the Walsh speakers tend to just place the music naturally into whatever room they happen to be in. A very unique attribute that many might consider. I find a main main key to good sound with OHM Walshes in particular in any particular room is to address floor interactions when needed, especially with the bottom firing ports on many Walsh models. Isolation platforms like Auralex Subdudes I use with my OHMS when on suspended plywood floors solve the problem. |
I'd expect original Walsh 4's to have more output capability and ability to deliver in a larger room. 2.2000s not as much but be better in detail clarity imaging (result of newer 2000 driver) and maybe tonality top to bottom in a suitable smaller room. These are two different size and generation models, apples and oranges as OHMs go, so anything is possible. I had original Walsh 2s from 1981-1998. I kept them initially to compare side by side to the Walsh 2 series 3 models I acquired back then (and am still using). I was looking for new large speakers at the time for my largest listening room and after a lot of listening and investigation of options I decided to give OHM a chance This was an apples/apples comparison in regards to speaker size and output capability. The newer series 3 drivers were superior in every way. I traded in the original Walsh 2s towards my larger F5 series 3 models that I also still use in my main setup. The Walsh2 series 3 were so good for what I payed I ended up keeping them around as well. |
That is some news. Would love to go but would be a challenge. We’ll see. Have never met John in person either that I know of, but would really like to. He was owner of Tech Hifi chain back when I worked there in college. That was where I had my first exposure to OHM speakers (alongside many other popular lines of the time). I sold many (all box models, no Walsh) back then. Even the conventional box models of his that made up most of the OHM line in the day were the best sounding there to me. Also the best value as I recall in many cases. |
Big news!! Ohm will be at the Chester Group New York Audio Show in November. Why is this big news? Because John Strohbeen told me himself that he eschews doing these shows, as he rarely has enough time to get the setup where he wants it to be. I intend to visit the show and hope to finally meet John in person. To me, he is one of the great designers of speakers in the industry. If you are able to attend the show, especially if you would like to hear Ohm speakers properly demonstrated, this is a rare opportunity. |
I'm sure you'll have no problem selling them. Where I'm at is, I decided that I don't like the way the speakers look with the grills on. They sound better without the grills as well. I've been looking around, trying to find some nicer-looking wing nuts to replace the ones on them, or similar type of fastener, and am wondering if anyone else has done something along those lines? I have also been thinking, wouldn't it be cool if the cans rotated a little? Let us say, forty-five degrees from front/center? That way the cabinets could sit nice and straight, while you aimed the tweeters where you wanted. Of course, I have no idea what it would take to build them like that, but something about that round can makes me think of turning it. And, of course, it offends my OCD to toe the cabinets out, or in an uneven way. |
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. Anyone interested in the 2.2000s out there? |
I basically agree with what Bondman just said. Here is my recent experience comparing various Ohm speakers. Ohm-Walsh 1 Nice sound, but lacking bass; if I didn’t compare with a Walsh 2, I would have been satisfied. I used it with a subwoofer for awhile and this helped. Ohm-Walsh 2 Better than the 1s, but these blew out when I upgraded my amp. Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 Fresh upgrade to fix the above blow out issue. Really a step up all around especially after break-in. Huge bass and nice upper end. I do feel that the voices seem a bit muted. Ohm-Walsh 4XO I had to buy these as they were in mint condition and the price was right. They seem livelier then the 2.2000s. More open, but not quite as much bass bias as the 2.2000 upgrade. The cabinets are huge; my wife thinks I have lost my mind. The bass sounds just as good, but it is more muted. I also noticed that the 4XOs are more efficient (91 dB vs 88 dB) and they definitely don’t require as much turning of the volume knob. I plan to run the 4XOs for a while and the switch back to the 2.2000s for a final comparison. BTW, the Walsh 4 cabinets are much better (and heavier) than the cheaper Walsh 1 & 2 models. I like the casters too. |
I will restate what I said before: The magic of the Ohms, whether walsh designs or not, is from John Strohbeen’s skill in voicing loudspeakers. While there are times I wonder about modding my 2000s (cabinet bracing, upgrading tweeter, etc.), I am loathe to mess with John’s handiwork. I just don’t see why I, who know nothing about voicing a speaker, would be able to improve on John’s design. I know, John was working within limited cost constraints, but even so, I doubt I could improve on his desings. sudont: I agree with Mapman. I have a pair of Micro Walsh Talls as surround channel speakers, and except for a bit of bass extension and macro dynamic ability, they are essentially identical in sonics to my 2000s. Ditto for my Micro Walsh Center. And they are actually a slightly older model, too. AND, IIRC, the 2000s use an aluminum driver, and the MWTs do not. Again, it comes back to John’s talent as a speaker designer and voicer. |
Accursed are you saying you get cabinet noise from vibration? If so I'd talk to JS and maybe take a look inside for anything loose that should not be. I recall internal braces in my old original Walsh 2s coming loose after a number of years and reattaching them myself fairly easily. Otherwise that's a new one for me. |
Accurus, Have you popped the top had a look in the cabs? I was reading up on stuffing and cabinet sound, and came a cross this article: The Cabinet Face & Stuffing They say that cotton, followed by fiberglass, are the best materials, and that neither are much used today for various reasons, not least of which is cost. Scroll down the page a bit to get to it. Here is another internal "tweak" I came across. I should say, I haven't tried any of these, but you might find it interesting. Not sure what's inside the Ohms, as I haven't looked inside yet. Mapman, I sometimes miss the tone controls and loudness button on my old McIntosh. I worry about my ears as I get older, and a little bump in the treble and bass could be useful here. But just try to find a preamp with these today! It seems only McIntosh still includes them. |
Yeah you have mentioned this before, but I have noticed sound emanating from the side wall of the tower. It wasn't exactly quiet either and must have an impact on the sound. Do remember that I am using the smaller and from what I can tell less well build cabinets of the 1000 series vs you who is retrofitting to older and better build enclosures. So the difference maybe far more relevant to new Ohms then Ohms of days past. |
Glad to hear others discussing the cabinet vibration issues. I really wonder if a modification could be done to the Ohms to make them vibrate less and what that would sound like. My first though was maybe some damplifier on the inside of the cabinet and my second though was something similar to what the Vortex Acoustics does which is take two boards and sandwich a rubber or goo between them to counter resonance at different frequencies. |
My opinion on Walsh speakers and low levels is that they are very good there when driven optimally by amp in particular but some different things to consider. The difference is the sound dispersal pattern compared to more directional speakers. A more directional speaker will fire more of the sound directly at you which may make it seem like things sound better at lower levels. They well may depending on what you expect to hear. No doubt the Ohms achieve their most realistic presentation at higher volumes as do most good quality speakers up to the task. Low volume listening is always a compromise when frequency response is flat because our ears are not flat in response. We do not hear extreme frequencies as well at lower volumes. That is the issue that loudness controls on amps used to tackle more often than not. |
One of the most unique things about the Walsh line is that each driver from smallest to largest in a particular generation of product inherently sound the same. The resulting sound will depend mainly on fitting the right size speaker to the room. So a micro Walsh in a smaller room sounds like a larger driver in a larger room all other things essentially held constant. So your room size alone dictates what speaker is needed for great sound. My my two Wash models. Are both series 3 one with 12 inch driver and larger cabs and one with 8 inch driver and smaller cabs. I've put both in a suitable size room for both to fit well and sound is in fact essentially the same. Id only add my larger F5s have the larger 12 inch drivers and the four 3 way level switches that allows one to fit the larger speakers well into even smaller rooms if desired. Personally I have no issues with the casters and actually like them in that they make moving the large F5s around super easy as needed. I've tweaked location and other things enough that the castors are a non issue for me though I see no problem with them sound wise on paper. Lots of ways to tweak sound as needed and the castors and controls on the F5s are both a boon for that. |
Mapman, Let me just add: When I first talked to JS, I brought up low listening levels, and he said the bigger speakers are easier to drive, i.e., more efficient. Does that make sense? I’ve always thought you wanted small speakers for lower level SPLs, and because they have less mass, they should be easier to drive. Anyway, what’s your experience with the different Walsh’s? |
Polarin, Agree with you about looks! OTOH, when you first get the speakers, the casters are convenient. Long-term though, they have to go. I like your solution. Spikes on heavy equipment can make it difficult to move around. I always imagine one of those spikes going right through my foot. Mapman, Thanks! Maybe Polarin's rubber feet on top of the SubDudes would work? Will the SubDudes support that kind of weight, though, even if they do fit?Here's another thing I wonder: Mapman, you have a couple of different Walsh drivers at home. How do they differ in terms of sound? Do the smaller ones do better at the high-mids? From what I've heard you guys say, they seem to do no worse at the low-end. What about sound at lower power levels? Do the smaller drivers do better in this regard? I find I have to play mine fairly loud to open them up, although this also seems to be a diminishing problem. Bondmanp, I think the cabinets have to play a significant role. After all, it is a type of bass reflex design, with its port on the bottom. I'm really not clear at all about how the CLS driver differs from a conventional driver, e.g., how they get it to vibrate the cone, and behave less like a piston. But looking at the "bottom" of the driver, it looks very much like a conventional driver, with a diaphragm, magnet cover, and flexible surrounds. This is firing into the cabinet, so it has to produce resonance. If I'm not mistaken, stuffing is used to control midrange within the cabinet. It would be interesting to know how much, and what kind of, stuffing is in there. A person who knew what he was doing might be able to make some adjustments there. I feel fairly certain I'm hearing the cabs, or the room, (or both). But as I say, much of this odd sound seems to have worked itself out, and the bass cut switch has helped in this regard. I'll need to go back to critical listening to see where I'm really at. I'm not distracted by their sound anymore, and that's a good sign. Martykl, Thanks for your comments! I can't help wondering sometimes if I bit off more driver than my room can chew. It would be nice to compare a smaller version of the Talls, just to see, particularly for quieter listening levels. But again, the sound is improving, and perhaps all these problems will work themselves out as I exercise the speakers? |
On my Walsh 3's I got rid of the casters, I simply unscrewed them and replaced them with solid rubber footers. I made sure that the final height was the same as the casters for proper vent clearance. I won't say the difference was dramatic but the bass tightened up nicely and overall clarity seemed improved. The speakers are more stable now and in my opinion better looking. |
Sudont I also have larger F5 series 3 Ohms. Listening to them as I write. I believe these are same cabs as yours, refurbed OhmF cabs on casters. 12" cans. These are are on foundation level in my home so no need to isolate those from floors like my smaller models with Walsh 2 cabs upstairs. It it looks to me like casters might just fit on subdude platforms. I'd measure and determine for sure if considered. Also of course you'd want to get the location right first then put speakers on platform. And lock castors. There res are other effective isolation products out there as well I'm sure but have not researched. |
sudont: I also thought I might have been hearing the cabinets "sing" in the lower mids. The cabinets of my 2000s do vibrate. But I think I was actually hearing the hollow body of instruments like acoustic guitars, cellos, etc. I would bet that John Strohbeen was well aware that inexpensive cabinets will resonate, and works with that rather than drive up costs by trying to prevent it. Also, with the drivers sitting proud of the cabinet, I don't think a lively cabinet is as much an issue as it would be with typical dynamic speakers mounted on a baffle in a cabinet. As for the floor, please note that my 2000s sit on a custom pair of Sound Anchors cradle bases. These solid, heavy bases have three-point adjustable spikes and enabled me to level the speakers very easily. They sharpened up the imaging and transients noticeably. I think they cost me about $350 shipped. Worth every penny. That said, I use them on a carpeted cement basement floor, so YMMV. |
Bondman, Yes, the Heil tweeter begins at 850 Hz, and goes up to, well, I don't know exactly, but out of my hearing range. I imagine they rated them to 20k. Amazing upper-mids, crystal treble. But, perhaps because of that mid-range crossover point, the Heils did not have quite the lower-mids that the Ohms have. It's possible I'm not used to hearing that, and that's why the Ohms sounded a little fat down there. As for bass, yes, that switch is a big help. Mapman, I read your discussion about the SubDudes. I, too, wonder if they'd work with these cabinets. This is the old pyramid cabinet, and it has a set of casters on the bottom. Do you guys have those on your speakers? My floor is a suspended design, carpeted plywood over two-by-fours, over a crawl space. My TT will pick up footfalls if I'm not careful. It would be nice to find an affordable solution. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. |
sudont, If you are finding the bass too much or not clean and articulate due to the larger driver size and if your floors are lively and have some give, like most modern suspended plywood floors found in upper levels of homes these days, consider placing the speakers on an isolation platform to clean up the bass and improve detail and clarity overall in conjunction. I use Auralex Subdude platforms (about $60 each) under my smaller Walsh 2 cabinets. Subdude 2 platforms are 15" square. May or may not be big enough for your speakers. Very good at taming the bass nicely by eliminating interactions with acoustically lively floors. Most floors are that unless directly on foundation level of the house. If you jump up and down and feel the floor give at all or anything in the room moves or vibrates, you have lively floors that are probably best tamed with most any speaker that is delivering the bass it should. |
sudont: Welcome to the thread and to the world of Ohm. I was very interested about your comments regarding the Hiel folded ribbon tweets vs. Ohm. I have yet to hear a folded ribbon tweeter that I didn't like. But, and this is key, the Walsh driver goes up to about 7kHz, where the super-tweeter rolls in (the Walsh driver rolls off by itself above 7kHz). So, a large portion of the treble is being reproduced by the Walsh driver. As to the positioning issue, you are fortunate to have the switch, to reduce the bass reinforcment you get when placing any speaker too close to the walls. Also, at some point, you may wish to experiment with diffusion panels at the side and rear reflection points. But please be patient. Unless you are playing them many hours each day, they will take several months to fully break in. Mine took close to six months. Also, while the speakers don’t insist you sit in a narrow sweet spot, I prefer to listen dead center for optimal soundstage presentation. YMMV, of course. And don’t forget that John Strohbeen is always available if you have any questions or concerns. You can usually reach him on business days at the Ohm factory in Brooklyn. He’s a heck of a nice guy, and a very talented speaker designer/voicer. |
Hey guys! Hope you don’t mind my jumping into this thread, (Infinite Jest got nothing on this thread). I began reading it a couple of weeks after my Ohm Walsh’s, (I believe they called them F-4049’s) arrived. They are refurb pyramid cabinets with new drivers, bought on sale. I wish I’d come across this thread earlier, as I had a number of misconceptions about these speakers, and might’ve chosen differently. Having never heard, or even seen them “in person”, I was concerned about bass reproduction. From the pictures, I thought the cans were much smaller than they are. As you all know, I needn’t have worried. But I was certain I would need Super Walsh’s, with their built-in subs, and of course the biggest driver I could afford. And when I first looked at the “beta” F-5015’s on their site, I thought, “Hey, I can almost afford these!” I was ready to pull the trigger. Then I noticed it was the “per speaker” price. Ugh, I hate when speaker companies do that! Who buys one speaker? Four grand was really my upper limit, and yes, I needed more than one speaker. Long story short, the sale came around, and I decided at the time that I would deal with non-existent problem of bass later. I have always purchased used equipment. You get more for your money and, as a working guy, that’s what I can afford. So I had no idea what to expect in terms of break-in. Out of the box, these speakers sounded terrible with most recordings. Very fat on the bottom, and recessed in the upper mids. They had a weird, hard to describe character, almost as if I was listening with a cardboard tube next to my ear. Yet, with certain types of recordings, mainly acoustic recordings, or sparsely-arranged amplified instruments, they sounded quite decent. They were very unforgiving of most multi-track rock recordings. To my ears, they had a very pronounced mid-bass, and I felt very much that I was hearing the cabinets. I was expecting a much more airy, non-cabinet/non-boxy sound. Into my fourth week, much of that seems to have worked itself out. Certainly the high end has opened up, and whether I’ve gotten used to the sound of the cabinets, or whether that has worked itself out too, I cannot say. It should be noted that I was used to folded-ribbon tweets, as I’d long been listening with ESS Heils. These were a modified/upgraded pair of AMT1-a’s which, aside from what the tweets did, made very transparent bass, (passive radiator design). Different in every way from the Ohm Walsh’s. As I say, these initial problems have worked themselves out, one way or the other. I do wonder though, whether I should’ve (could’ve) went with smaller, (and cheaper), drivers? This particular set of speakers comes with one three-position switch. It’s a low-end cut, although I don’t know exactly what it does. In the end, I settled on the bottom position, which provides the most trim, or whatever. I was having trouble frequencies in the mid-bass, or low-mids, and that bottom switch position seemed to tighten everything up. And it didn’t hurt bass response much at all. For instance, last night I pulled out Snoop Dogg’s classic “Doggy Style”, (now there’s an audiophile record, my friends!), and played the side with Gin and Juice. There’s a lot of very low-end synth bass throughout these cuts, and the Walsh’s conveyed that to my diaphragm very nicely. The highs are smooth and sweet, neither recessed nor harsh, with the sleigh bells sounding positively magical. I felt immersed in the music. Laid back, indeed! A big reason I bought these speakers was because I thought they would solve the problems of fussy seating and fussy speaker arrangement. As it turns out, more the former than the latter. I’m fairly limited in how far I can pull them away from the wall, and I have them about as far out as I can get without impeding traffic - 20” from the center of the cans. Nevertheless, this seems to work, again, as long as I use the bottom position of the switch. All in all, as these speakers open up, I’m becoming happier and happier with them. I have to admit, I was having second thoughts at first, but I knew I had to give them a chance to break in. So many people rave about these speakers, I thought, there must be something to them. As others have mentioned, I am now able to go to recordings that the Heils had problems with, and the Walsh's tame them. In fact, lately, I’m throwing all sorts of recordings at them - from Loretta Lynn, to Minor Threat, to Thelonious Monk, to the Feelies, to Led Zeppelin, to Stereolab, to Dr. Octagon - and they handle them all nicely. Living-room = 20’ x 15’ x 8’ = 2400 sq. ft. Speakers and seating are along the long walls. Speakers are 10.5’ apart, and about 11’ to “sweet spot” (triangle). I sit off to the left of this spot, though. They’re driven with a McIntosh MC352, off the 4 ohm taps. |
Actually, mapman, I have read about the "other room" phenomenon in the audio press for years. I am lucky (especially at my age) to have a bathroom in my basement near the man cave. When I go in there I leave the music on. I am always fascinated by how much the music sounds live, but in another room, in the bathroom with the door closed. I would suggest that there are more similarities between live and recorded acoustic music when heard from another room than there are when heard from the same room. |
JS at OHM posted about listening from another room as a test for how well a speaker and room are matched. Very interesting and something I've never seen mentioned before. FWIW when I walk down the stairs into my basement listening room and the music is going at real life volumes, I often think it sounds like walking into a nightclub and that must be a good sign. |
Bondman, I don't see changing my music system anytime soon unless I move to a different house so the Ohms are here to stay. I like the fact that they sound good even in another room. Apparently, this is a characteristic of the omni aspect of their design. I may do some minor upgrading of the cables as time goes on. |
Yes, I’m in the same boat. I’m using the Red Fuse that was sent to me for free to try for pretty much the same reason. I’m tempted to put the ARC stock fuse back in my sp16 just to be safe but "Living on the edge" for the moment and my baby is happy with the pricier free fuse as well. Very funny! Just don't take my OHMs away and I will likely find a way to survive in audiophile hell ..... |
Mapman - LOL! Flipping the direction of the fuse is on my "to do" list. Believe it or not, even 5 minutes for that is hard to come by. You won't hear any hyperbole from me about the fuse. I am not really a hard core tweeker. It is what it is. FWIW, I would have been happy with a much cheaper Acme fuse (well regarded by other local audiophiles), but the value I needed is not offered by Acme. It may possibly end up being one of those things where I know that my fuse is not holding anything back, even if the stock fuse didn't either. Sort of a piece of mind deal. I did think it was funny, or interesting, that someone on that thread read my initial impressions and immediately *knew* that I had the fuse installed in the wrong direction. Maybe he's correct. |
Thanks for the update, t8kc. I wouldn’t say that everyone who has heard my 2000s has had the same reaction as your son, although several have (and more react positively than not). In fact, my son-in-law was so impressed with my 2000s that he is trying to plan a new basement man cave around a complete 5.1 channel Ohm set up. Taste in speakers is like any other personal preference. You like peanut butter, someone else doesn’t. But the good news is that you have many years of great listening ahead of you. Six and a half years in (I was one of the early buyers of the 2000s) I still can’t get enough of my 2000s. I constantly lament that I don’t have enough time to do serious listening. Every change I make in electronics and room acoustics is quickly exposed by the 2000s as either a benefit or a detriment. As I have said before, barring hitting the Powerball, the 2000s will most likely be my last speaker purchase. |
Here is an update on my Walsh 1/2.200 upgrade. I have allowed some months to pass for break-in. Recently, I bought some old Yamaha NS-6 speakers at a yard sale for $10. I proceeded to recover the grills and replace the drivers as a gift for my son. The result was decent and I was able to compare them to the Ohms. The Ohms had much nicer bass with more rounded tones and lower frequency respose. Also, the Ohms sounded more open with clearer treble. None of this surprised me, but it was nice to get some confirmation. When my son (a lawyer and musician) came over to pick up the speakers, I had him audition some CDs he was familiar with on the Ohms. To cut the story short, he was blown away by my Ohms. One sample he played was a tecno track that had very fast bass notes from a synthesizer. He couldn't believe that the Ohms could keep up. He said most speakers he has heard play that track created a muddy sound. I have to say that I really am enjoying my upgraded Walsh 1 speakers. They intergate well into the rest of my modest system (Parasound 1500A amp, B&K Reference 5 S2 preamp/tuner and Sony NS-315 CD player). Thanks to John S. |
While I've never heard the Micros I did pick up a pair of Walsh 2's a few years ago on this site for $500, and only afterwards discovered they were still in business here in NY, in Brooklyn, a mere 50 miles from my house. After a brief email exchange followed by a couple of phone calls with John himself I drove there to have them upgraded/updated for $1200 - a very reasonable investment. Imagine speaking with the owner directly in this day and age, walking into a very funky and obviously well used shop and seeing that independent business people CAN survive with providing excellent product and customer service. Hats off to John! |
Schubert, that point that I was making with that statement is that the Ohm's make all recordings sound good. As I have sound now that I have the Ohm's I am realizing how much my listening sessions were pulled in the direction of tracks that sounded good for the Magnepans. Not the freedom to enjoy my diverse collection. Don't read too much into the whol classical music thing. I certainly have a few Bach and other albums in my Audirvana library. However what impresses me with the Ohms is that if I want to listen to AC/DC they sound amazingly good with that as well. I don't feel like I am going from hi-fi Patricia Barber's heart beat being heard on one album and then jumping to a good rock album that might as well sound like an MP3. That is the beauty of the Ohms is that they can play a variety of music in a sonically pleasing way. |
BTW, after thinking about orchestral music and Zappa, I had to give this one a listen. Its a very 'audiophile" recording I would say if one has ever heard a good version on a good hifi. Always makes me smile and get my feet tapping :^) Zappa was very much and uniquely into percussion in his orchestral arrangements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHx5C4O0Cvg |
Schubert glad you're back. Hope things are well. Obviously some orchestral music could also be considered "audiophile" music in certain contexts such as when talking about recordings that are off particularly high quality in regards to both technical and artistic merit. Yes they are not the same and not all "orchestral" music is necessarily even considered classical in its truest sense. It just means music played by an orchestra. Could be Beethoven or Frank Zappa. I doubt any slight to orchestral or classical music was intended by referencing it as "audiophile" though I know that term often gets mixed reviews. |
Schubert, call it what you will but there are certain music types that you hear at every stereo shop demo or magazine review. This is what I would call audiophile music. If I hear one more Patricia Barber or Diana Krall demo I don't know what I will do. :) There are certainly favored demo tracks out there. Martyki, thanks for the feedback and I will try to post another when I get more time. I have been swamped lately. |