Thanks - will stick with the standards vented design. BTW, pics of the new thousand series Walsh speakers, now in production, are now up on the Ohm website. Badda-bing - Bubbinga! |
The new models look very nice.
One thing I notice though is 5 models now, each increasing in size. My recollection is that prior there were only 4 models.
I could be wrong on this one but I thought that the only difference between 300s and 5s were the level controls on the driver, not the cabinet size. |
Well, I finally, FINALLY, pulled the trigger (been following this thread for a long time!) on a pair of Walsh 2000s. Although I wanted a satin black finish, that was not available, so I ordered a black finished wood veneer. I ordered the standard vented cabinet. Note that they still come with casters. Jay at Ohm took my order and was very helpful and patient with my numerous questions. Lead time was quoted as 3 to 4 weeks. UPS to New Jersey is $50. Wish me luck, I'll keep y'all posted. |
Are the casters a standard alternative to the plinth base?
My impression was that the plinth was used starting with the 100/200/300/5 series in place of the casters used on the larger, older first and second generation OHM Walshs.
Personally I like the versatility the casters provide and I do not hear any noticeable sonic ill effects. |
Good question, Mapman. AFAIK, the casters are affixed to the plinth base, so you get both. I asked Jay if the plinths sat flat on the floor, since my basement floor (carpeted) is not completely flat. His response was that they come with casters, so an uneven floor shouldn't be an issue. I guess I'll find out when the speakers arrive.
Question for Ohm Walsh owners: Do the Ohm Walsh speakers require a perfectly level horizontal set-up to sound their best? I know other speaker manufacturers are adamant on this point, but perhaps, because of the Walsh design, horizontal leveling is less critical? |
Looking more carefully at the pics of the new line on th OHM site, it appears that there are actually 6 models currently compared to 5 prior:
prior:
micro
100
200
300
5
current:
micro
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
4000/5000 appear to share the same largest cabinet size similar to 300s and 5s prior.
Not clear to me yet how the new line compares to old line in terms of cabinet size and target room sizes model per model. There does appear to be one extra model and cabinet size overall this time around though. |
I am looking for a second set of speakers, the room is extremly large 25 feet long 18 ft high 15 feet wide. The room also has a balcony that divides the space in half. I am looking for speakers that fill most of space (going to put on balcony or cross beams that come off the balcony and open to suggestions) Budget around 500 (somewhat flexible) 30 hertz would nice but might just get a sub. Using a denon receiver (av not the best but adequate for me) I bought some of those ohm frs 9 on ebay and they are good but not what I am looking for (problems with tweeter). Any help would be appreciated. |
prior:
micro
100
200
300
5
current:
micro
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
4000/5000 appear to share the same largest cabinet size similar to 300s and 5s prior.
Not clear to me yet how the new line compares to old line in terms of cabinet size and target room sizes model per model. There does appear to be one extra model and cabinet size overall this time around though.
I've been trying to figure this out myself, Mapman. It looks to me like the 1000 is a new model, somewhere between the Micro and the old 100... The 100-S3 (which I have) has a cabinet which is 9 x 9 inches. I'd originally assumed that the 1000 was the replacement model for the 100, but its cabinet is only 7.5 x 7.5 inches. The cabinet of the 2000 seems closer in size: 9.5 x 9.5. If so, I'm not replacing my 100's anytime soon... that's a full $1100 more than I paid for the 100's. But I wonder if I can just upgrade the drivers? |
I think rebbi is correct. I was actually thinking about the Walsh 100S3 before the new line came out. In the new line, the 1000 is too small for my room (~2800 c.f.), so I went with the 2000. Given the improvements to the design, the economy, the dollar, and the cost of keeping the entire operation in New York City, the $1100 jump in price (100S3 to 2000) for a similar place in the model line was not outrageous to me. I don't hold it against John that he obfuscated a price hike somewhat by rearranging the line. The bottom line is that very few speaker companies aim for one sound - their best possible - and then just offer different models for different size spaces. Most other companies start with a statement speaker, then make progressive compromises to hit certain price points. Not only do these compromised designs work better in smaller rooms, they don't perform to the level of the statement model. Ohm claims that the goal is the same level of performance from the entire Walsh line, with different models optimized for different sized rooms. I am impressed with that approach, which indicates a no-compromise attitude towards performance.
Besides, the longer expected life span of the new series has serious appeal to me. If these speakers are keepers, I intend to run them until I die or go deaf. |
Bondmanp,
Just to be clear, I don't begrudge John a dime of the price hike. I'm just not sure I can afford it. :-/ |
I hear ya, rebbi. The 2000s were a stretch for me too. But, I'm almost 50 years old, I get almost nothing from keeping the money in the bank, and with the kids about to start college, this may be my last chance for a decent pair of speakers. Considering my long-time dream speaker lists for $9K, if the Walsh 2000s do the trick for $2850 delivered, I will be one happy camper. |
Bondman, I'm curious what is the $9K dream speaker you mentioned? |
Well, Mapman, I just found out today that my $9K dream speaker is now my $12K dream speaker :-(
The Silverline Audio Bolero is now the Bolero Supreme, with a 33% price increase. This speaker nearly brought me to tears when I heard it at a show years ago. They are not a neutral speaker, but the colorations are intentionally euphonic and beautiful (to my ears, YMMV), with no sense of shrouded detail or distortion, huge dynamic range, gigantic, holographic soundstage and liquid, smooth detailed highs (top-line Dynaudio drivers). And that was in a hotel room with a flee-powered tube amp! The most addictive, beautiful sounding speaker I've heard that didn't have a 5-figure price tag (at the time). My plan was, if I did not like the Ohms, to buy a pair of Boleros used (still much more than the Walsh 2000s) or try to buy direct from Silverline (no local dealers) and get a discount.
This price increase makes a new pair out of the question for me. If the Ohms go back to Brooklyn, I may have a long difficult search ahead of me. I have my fingers crossed with the Walsh 2000s, though. |
Bond,
I never heard the Silverlines but I know they have a great reputation and a good following on this site.
If there is a lower cost design that can challenge them, it may well be the OHM Walshes.
Most tend to think of the OHMs as extremely neutral though.
I would agree but have found that they will reveal the flavor of the electronics behind them quite well, so there are ways to tweak the sound there if desired.
For example, I have used the mhdt Paradisea tube DAC with the OHMS and that provides a healthy dose of tube "euphonics", particulary a lovely and enticing but somewhat artificial amount of presence in the midrange. It can be clearly heard say in comparison to the phono, which also runs through a tubed phono stage in my ARC pre-amp.
Currently, I'm using the SS mhdt Constantine DAC, which is essentially the Paradisea sans tube output stage. The sound with this is much more like my phono stage, ie more neutral I would say.
Rolling other tubes in the Paradisea can also deliver a more "neutral" sound like the Constantine as well, I have found.
I like that the OHMs let you hear what you feed them. It opens up many possibilities regrading the nature of the resultant sound. |
FWIW,
In a more apples to apples vein, I use Silverline Sonatinas (great looking, original pre-Avalon lawsuit cabinetry) in my family room. IIRC, they were priced similarly to my Ohm 100s - presumably they're more expensive today. I like the Sonatinas, but it's easy an easy call for the Ohms, running away.
Marty |
Bond,
FWIW, you mentioned the Silverlines use Dynaudio drivers.
I have Dynaudio Contour monitors in addition to OHMs. The OHM sound is not unlike the Dyns, albeit the presentation of the soundstage is naturally different. The OHMs are also full range and deliver more "meat on the bones" without strain, as I like to say, at realistic listening levels which to me makes things sound more real and lifelike as they should. Typically, only larger and certainly more expensive speakers are capable of that. |
Hey, Guys,
I spoke to John Strohbeen a couple of days ago. Here's what I learned about the new Ohm lineup.
The new 1000 is indeed a new point in the line that sits between the old MWT and the old 100 -- the cabinet and driver are of an intermediate size between those two older models.
If you have an Ohm Walsh model that was built within the past year, more or less, it has the same, new supertweeter as the new X000 line, so the top end should be identical. (Presumably, my 100's fit into this category.)
Unfortunately, the 100's cannot be upgraded with the 2000 driver. The diameter of the 2000's driver is just slightly too large to fit on top of the 100's cabinet.
Ohm continues to stick with its goal of having each speaker in the line possess the same sonic character, just generating different volume levels for different size rooms. John told me that the 2000 will play somewhat louder than the 100, and that its low end may have a bit more authority, but other than that, it should be very close. He told me that if I'm satisfied with the 100's, there's no need to upgrade to the 2000's, especially since my 100's put out more than enough volume for my current room.
You have to admire the kind of honesty that would lead someone to discourage an "up sell" to an existing customer! |
You have to admire the kind of honesty that would lead someone to discourage an "up sell" to an existing customer! Yeh, John S. is a down to earth person, and in my experience is not in the business just to make money on the next sale. I dealt with John by phone and email more than any other manufacturer and I like him. He treated me well, and more than fair. |
Foster, any new progress to report in your setup? |
Hi Mapman, yes, I have new electronics with the Walsh 5000's. It's been a long process. Sent my drivers back to to Ohm thinking there was a problem with the highs but it was actually that the tweaks to the drivers I originally asked for made them too bright. The drivers were perfectly fine. John adjusted the drivers and that has worked out well. While the drivers were at Ohm I purchased a high current/high power amp and yet this hasn't been a slam dunk. In my room the bass has needed improvement and finally after settling of the new system has filled in nicely. But my limited placement options causes the speakers to be too close to the front wall and too much in your face. I decided to go with a parametric equalizer since my room has been a bit too small and cramped to really work well with lows and highs of the 5000's. After years of eyeing this eq on numerous online web stores, I saw a used Avalon AD2055 and purchase it; waiting to receive it and with the flexibility the 2055 provides I fully expect this to take the system over the top. |
Yes, I've never owned a parametric equalizer, but always thought them to be a practical and useful tool for tough rooms, particularly a quality one with flexible parameters.
This is the McCormack amp now correct? I suspect that is a very good match to the OHMs from what I have read. If the $600 (used) Musical Fidelity A3CR I acquired and still use did not pan out, a McCormick was a leading contender along with a few others, including the Class Ds. |
Question for Ohm owners: How far apart are your left and right speakers? Are you happy with the results?
I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of. The alcove in my basement is only 10 feet wide (the basement, however, is ~2800 c.f.). This means that, in order to get them away from the side walls, the Ohms will have something like 5 feet between them. Is this a serious issue with the 2000s?
I can sit anywhere between 3 and 10 feet back from the speakers, assuming they are about 3 feet in from the fronth wall.
Thanks, folks. |
Bondmanp, I think the distance is a bit of an issue but not too bad. I have my 5000's about 5 feet apart and about 2.5 from the side walls. Just don't have more space. I think my room is somewhat small for them and the soundstage could be bigger but the room is limiting that somewhat. Maybe in the future when I move to a bigger home....
Mapman, yes I'm using the McCormack DNA-500 amp and VTL 2.5 preamp. I still don't think I've maximized things. One thing I enjoy about integrateds vs separates is not dealing with extra interconnects, power cords and coming up with the right preamp for the amp! |
"I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of."
I don't think that is necessarily the case.
I've had my F5s as close as 4-5 feet apart and the soundstage extended from wall to wall, ~3 feet to the right and 12' to the left in my L shaped room (see my system pic) when I sit close enough to have a clear line of sight to the far left rear wall. If I sit further back, the soundstage is correspondingly narrower, depending on line of sight to the left rear wall.
Also, in my small 12X12 room, currently my Walsh 2s (100s) are a good 8-9 feet apart and at an oblique angle with the rear wall (due to tight quarters) and this also produces a soundstage from corner to corner along the rear wall.
I have found they actually work very well in tough rooms, with careful attention to placement and related system factors. |
I have older ohm's and are used when bought. I am big fan of ohm walsh series along with magnepans. though different concepts, for my taste, I like having BOTH at the same time being driven by separate amps, in my case classic 90's carver amps and a must to improve any loudspeaker/amps at least system's lower than $10k is a DAKIOM feeback stabilizers like r-103, 203 or the newer models 253 and 263. I'm a believer of tweaking a system or part. In fact, I like the hobbyists and techs who do make modifications to existing systems that MAY need improvement. What I like about ohm's is that they are pretty versatile loudspeakers and can be played for music and movie with equal results. Other loudspeakers that are directional or conventional, placement, tweaking and good sound source is a must. OHM is user friendly, in other words, you don't have to spend mega bucks on amplifiers and HT receivers to make them sing. NO speaker system is for EVERYBODY, because no one has come up with a speaker box than can be remolded and mold back to it's original shape if you should alter it to your taste. I owned bose 901's in the 80's and I thought they were great for me back then, but room size, acoustics and source is the 901's downfall in most rooms besides it's unrealistic bass reproduction. I do not agree with their parts and design build, but their concepts of direct and indirect reflections I don't think any audio engineer would disagree totally. Ohm walsh series however creates better spatial imaging and realistic bass than conventional designs or strange designs like the bose 901's. The systems that are similar in concept as ohm acoustics is duevel, german physiks and decware rl series and of course MBL's, decware being the only company like ohm that are REASONABLY affordable to the average music lover. The rest is beyond normal income. To me planars and electrostats creates the most realistic reproduction of certain instruments like the piano and strings where as an omni directional design like those mentioned are more realistic as ensemble, group or combination of instruments being played, but individual solos I believe the planar and electrostat systems reproduce a truer sound. I have all the various designs except line source and horns which only elites can afford. But for those of us on a budget, ohm, magnepans, decware with the help of purchasing DAKIOM products/stabilizers will do WONDERS to your system however in expensive, but the finer grade of source, it's obvious your ohm's and maggies will show it's true potential. |
I still mess with the positioning of my 100 S-3's from time to time. Moving them out from the wall about 18" more than they were previously tightened up the bass and opened up the midrange, i.e, the sound is more tonally in balance. I continue to play around with things like distance between left and right channels to see how that affects imaging specificity and sound stage width and depth.
The problem I have is that my time to just enjoy music these days is so limited that when I finally do get to sit down for a session, I don't have a lot of patience for "listen, get up, move speaker, go back, listen some more..."
I need an audiophile friend to lend me a pair of ears to work on placement! |
FWIW, today is the last day of my 120-day in home trial period. It never was an issue for me though, since from the first note they (MWT's)weren't going back.
The versatility of the speakers when it comes to placement in fascinating for me. For general listening and WAF considerations, they're about 9" from the rear wall and about 5' apart. But for powerlistening, moving them into the room to 18" from the rear and about 6'3" apart expands the soundstage and seems to give more 'presence' in the midrange.
I use a very, very cheap (but surprisingly good)sub for the bottom octave, crossed-over at 50 Hz. It works well in my small room, although with a larger space I know I'll need better quality and output.
In all, I'm very pleased...
-P |
3 months into ownership have just upgraded the amp to an ATI 1502 @150 wrms per channel fed by an SAE preamp with Parametric eq. Definittely an improvement from the MAC 5100 and the old SAE amp which sounded pretty good anyway. Straight thru the Ohms sound pretty darn good tho' I keep wanting more highs? When I listen with the eq in I can get that. Emailed John and he advised to use the eq if I liked it. Also offered to build me custom supertweeter to achieve the sound I like basing it off the equ settings. A bit frustrated as I am wondering if my 50+ ears are just off and dont get the sense of true music sound or if others have also felt the Ohms a little lacking on the top end? I thought I saw some of that referenced previouslyl but the success of this thread now means its hard to find stuff in it. Anyone else feel the Ohms need a little more highs? BTW Walsh 2 w 10023 drivers. |
Joekapahulu,
Are the tweeters oriented towards your listening position? That will typically brighten up the highs. If you sit further back, you might need to toe the OHMS outward to point the tweets more towards your listening position. |
What Mapman said. Toe in and toe out will definitely affect the forwardness of the Ohm Walsh high end. Also, experiment with distance from the back wall. Too much bass reinforcement from near wall/corner placement can muddy the highs and mids. |
A third vote for toe in. When I originally set up the speakers, I had the inadvertantly angled the tweeters outward instead of inward. For a few uncomfortable moments, I had that bad sinking feeling. About 30 seconds later, I figured out the mistake. This is fundamental to the balance of the speaker, even small shifts can be quite audible. It makes all the difference in the world.
Marty |
Good point also on the effect of placement relative to walls and corners on tonal balance and clarity Rebbi. |
I have them setup per the "manual" with the tweeters oriented to the listener and the boxes more than 1/2 in front of the rack to the side of each speaker. I havent tried orienting them out. That could be interesting. The placement ahead of the rack definitely helped. Unfortunately, it is not the perfect room, if any is, and its not a dedicated audio room. However, the C2s I had setup before and the Spendor S3/5s setup behind the Walshs both have more highs. John did not and I understand that box speakers sound different. |
I dont think walls are the issue here. They are 20 inches from the front wall and 4-5 feet from the side wall. The room is pretty bright as there are windows to the side and behind me nearly floor to ceiling. I also get more highs when I use the eq in line so I think its the nature of the drivers themselves. And, again my ears may be too attuned to the box sound and artificial highs that are not natural to music. I think that Rebbi originally wrote of getting a different set of tweeters installed in his MWTs, from the 100S3 units. I should have that already so it may simply be that the speakers are softer and my ears overly sensitive. |
I know the C2s well. They are inherently brighter in tone than Walshes and most every other OHM speaker I have heard. People either like them for that or not. |
Update: Ohm factory says my Walsh 2000s should ship on Monday, the 27th. Since I am one state over, I should have them the next day. Shipping on the 27th means that Jay, my salesman at Ohm, was spot-on when he told me that the speakers would ship in 3 to 4 weeks. Customer service is important to me, and meeting an expected delivery window speaks well of both Jay and Ohm.
More updates to follow. And, yes, I am cautiously excited! |
Bondmanp,
That is so cool! Keep us posted! |
So my 2000s are not coming today. That's OK. I called Ohm, and they held up the shipping, because upon final inspection, they were unhappy with the cabinet finish. They will be applying another coat of finish, and should ship on Thursday or Friday. I have no problem with this. I prefer that my speakers be as near-perfect as possible before they leave the factory. This would put delivery still within the delivery window I was given when I ordered.
Stereo Times has a new review of the Micro-Walsh SE by Frank Alles that is very encouraging. FWIW, his rooms, especially the larger one, are a bit larger than the c.f. range that the Micro-Walsh SEs are intended for. That would make Alles' only sonic criticism moot, ad far as I can tell. |
Interesting the European Signature version has a tipped up top end. Maybe to make resemble the MBL sound more? |
Bondmanp,
Thanks for the tip. John Strohbeen must be thrilled; that's a rave review in anybody's book! |
Just in case anybody is wondering about my Walsh 2000 purchase, there has been a delay. First, the finish needed some extra work. Next, John Stohbeen felt, after listening to my pair, that the speakers needed some kind of an adjustment. Expected arrival date is now October 12th. Of course I'm a little dissappointed, but gratified that Ohm is paying such close attention to detail and quality control. The Paul Mason of loudspeakers? I'll keep you posted. |
Too bad about the delay, it'll be worth the wait, though.
Who's Paul Mason? |
"Paul Mason" was a vineyard that used to have the slogan, "We will sell no wine before its time." |
|
Bondmanp,
Didja get your speaks today? :-) |
I did get my 2000s last night! :-)
The boxes were huge and heavy, with triple-boxing and wood and foam inserts. Good thing, too: UPS did their usual best to destroy whatever might be inside. They only succeeded in damaging the outer boxes, however.
I unboxed them (pretty easily), then unwrapped them. There were a few surprises. I have exchanged emails with John Strohbeen to address some issues, and John seems most determined to resolve everything to my satisfaction. For that reason, I will not be commenting on these issues at this time. Suffice it to say that John is dedicated to cadillac customer service.
My basement floor (carpeted cement) is not flat. The speakers wobble significantly. My Vandersteen 1Cs use a 3-point spike base, so this has not been an issue. Ohm is sending me some pads to level and stabilize the speakers, but until these are in place, I cannot fairly comment on the sound of the speakers. I also have to take some time and dial in my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers.
Conveniently, the ganged banana plug connector that was supplied with my Vandersteen 1Cs matches the spacing on the Walsh 2000 speaker terminals, so the switch was easy.
After listening to a demo CDR I compiled on my Vandersteen 1Cs, I switched to the Ohms. By this time, they had reached room temperature. The Ohms are 25.5" from the side walls and 37.5" from the front wall (I have very little room to move these closer or farther from adjacent walls). Note that there is a huge 55" SD RPTV behind (by about 10") and in between the speakers, and there are CD cabinets next to and on top of the RPTV. The rest of my gear is in my "System" link.
Space is tight, so for now, the Vandys are placed against the side walls next to the Ohms. This will be changed as soon as possible. Note that the signal from the amp is high-pass filtered, first order, below 80Hz, so it is down 6dB at 40Hz, and 12dB at 20Hz.
Initial impressions were positive. I could tell immediately that the 2000s were better than my Vandersteen 1Cs is two key areas: Timbre and flatness of frequency response. In some areas, the two are actually more alike than different. I am not very surprised by this, since both use designs that eliminate or minimize box and baffle colorations. I also heard a bit more detail with the Ohms, and there was more extension of soundstage into the room. The center image was better defined and more stable, as well as taller, than the Vandys. Most noticeable, however, was the elimination, on certain familiar material, of a tendancy for specific musical notes to jump out and obscure other parts of the music. I had always attributed this to room acoustics (which are far from perfect). But I guess this was due to irregularities in the Vandys' frequency response.
The 2000s are clearly less efficient than the 1Cs, as I tried for at least a general level match using a Rat Shack SPL meter, and had to raise the volume on the preamp roughly one to two "hours" on the dial. I still was listening at a comfortable 9 or 10 o'clock, however.
Naturally, the speakers are not broken in, and I have just begun the lengthy process of burn-in, positioning, dialing in my subs, and critical listening.
I will keep this thread informed, but for now, I am cautiously optimistic. |
Bondman,
Fun stuff!
Sounds like you're on the right track. Getting a solid foundation to sit on is of course important for clean bass. I suspect also settings for best integration with the sub might change over time as the OHMs break in and as you refine the exact location of the speaks in the room. |
NIce, glad you're starting to break them in - LIke Mapman said, looks like you'll be tweaking for a little while, as they settle. Have fun... |
Wow, cool, have fun, and keep us posted.
Yes, Ohm's customer service is excellent. John will do whatever it takes to make you happy. |
OK - day two. I didn't have the strength last night to fiddle with the subs or move the Vandys out of the way. I did toe-in the 2000s just a smidge, maybe 1/2" from parallel.
I watched a few tracks from The Best of Sessions at 54th Street (DVD - PCM stereo audio). This of course went through my cheap Sony DVD player and Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 prepro into the C-J preamp. I am very familiar with this DVD, and the extra detail from the Ohms vs. my Vandys was very impressive. Imaging was not as good as with CD, but that's likely due to the prepro. Some of the tracks, especially the Ani DiFranco cut "32 Flavors" gave me chills up my spine. Very engaging. Very encouraging!
I also played two CDs I just bought (never heard on my system with the Vandys, so can't compare). The first, "Sweet Heart Dealer" by Scarling, sounded terrible. Very digital, thin and bass-shy. I am guessing it's just the way this CD was produced. I did play a cut from Quicksand - "Thorn in My Side" that I know for sure is poorly produced, and while listenable, the 2000s did not make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
Next up was another new purchase, "Begin to Hope" by Regina Spektor. All I can say is, based on what I heard on my not-yet-burned-in, improperly positioned 2000s with improperly set subwoofers, is, if you own Walsh speakers, BUY THIS DISC! It just clicked. Great timbre, huge soundstage, excellent detail retrieval, superb imaging. I was emotionally engaged through most of the disc, and there was that sweetness to the sound that was very appealling.
So, two discs, the same signal chain, and two very different results. I suppose that this is what is meant by good systems providing garbage-in, garbage-out. My Vandys, by comparison, seemed to homogenize music more, so nothing sounded really great, but nothing sounded really bad.
Two very significant observations:
1. I frequently nod off when listening to music in the evening. Not eye-blinks, but deep sleep disturbed only by my choking on my own saliva. This did not happen last night. Although I began to doze off a few times, the music startled me into an alert state almost immediately. This is a very good sign.
2. Typically, when I sit down to listen to music, I experience fatigue soon, and switch to a movie (I have a combo 2-channel/HT surround system). This did not happen last night. When the two CDs were finished, I did watch the DVD, but it was a music program in 2-channel stereo. Another very good sign. (I may have to cut back on my NetFlix subscription!)
Further updates to follow. |
