Not saying that it's good or bad but not all cabinets are inert.
Is is there an audible issue with the sound of the music?
Is is there an audible issue with the sound of the music?
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
| Post removed |
Been swamped this past week and really haven't had a chance to break the Ohms in anymore. Currently in an extended listening session with them and wondering about cabinet resonance. As I move the speakers around to get the best imaging as am noticing that the cabinet has a lot sound resonating in the cabinet. I can't imagine this being any good for the sound. I am wondering about thoughts on treating it with some sort of dampening material. |
Not all omnis are created equal, but "better" and "worse" is always going to be in the ear of the beholder. Omnidirectional response can be achieved in several different ways, each of which has its own particular "flavor", heard varyingly as pluses and/or minuses by each listener. The multi-material, full-range Walsh design (one variety of which is still being manufactured by Dick Harter) has limited max output. The MBL can safely deliver crushing SPLs. Score one for MBL (if you listen loud). However, the bass response of the MBL isn't as tight and defined as the Walsh. Score this one the other way (unless you prefer the bass "bloom" of the MBL). This stuff is always a matter of trade-offs plus personal sate. The Ohms aren't omnis above 7khz, IIRC, so that's a cheat - if you care about "design purity".. Bose gets very wide treble dispersion in some models by angling tweeters back against the wall. The Duevel, Robertson (sic?) and Mirage models use a similar idea (fire the tweeter upwards against a deflector) to get 360 degree treble. Gallo uses a tweeter with native 180 degree dispersion in the treble, but that only kicks in above 2khz, where dispersion at the top of the mid/woofer's pass and has already narrowed. Which design is overall "best" and why? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you played em all for ten different 'Goners, you'd get ten different answers. |
frazeur1 - Thanks. Good points, all, and I concur. It's like sausage. Who cares what it looks like being made when the results are so pleasing! Mapman - The only other omnis I've heard are the MBLs (extraordinary). I did hear those new electrostatic panel omnis at a show, and was not impressed. I later was told that they were damaged prior to arrival at the show. Near me, VPI has a large suburban colonial home in which the entire main floor is dedicated to audio system demonstrations. One of the speakers Mr. Weisberg has there is a dual pair of the big original Ohm (F's or A's) that have been restored (and modified?), and placed one atop the other, with the upper pair inverted and held in place with a wooden frame. The one time I was there, KEF was co-hosting an event, so the Ohms were just on static displpay (I don't think there were any closets large enough for them, and I doubt anyone wanted to haul them to the basement). Oh, well. Maybe next time. I've been told by people who have heard these beasts that they might be one of the best loudspeaker systems of all time, regardless of price. |
Hmm my recollection of Dueval is nothing like ohm. Dueval drivers are mounted in cabinet and fire upward towards at an acoustical dispersion component which disperses the sound omnidirectionally. Ohm walsh drivers face down ward into the cabinet which is either ported or sealed. The driver is completely above the cabinet and the sound radiates omnidirectionally from the outer edge of the rear of the driver. Just like original wider range Walsh drivers or the also limited range ddd driver used in German physics. I've never heard Dueval or original ohm a or Fs. So cannot comment on how things sound similar or different. |
On a hysterical note, the original Ohm cones used aluminum. The center third of a 'F' was mated to a titanium top with a paper lower. The 'A's were 3/4's +/- alum. on the bottom with a titanium top. The cones had (and have to have) a rigid enough material for the physics to work properly. The new Ohms are more like a Duvell, and they 'cheat' with a tweeter....MNotSoHO.... But they do work...*S* |
Bondman, while one never seems to get really good details on the drivers even when talking to John himself, I think that at least with my early 2000 drivers, the main drive unit was an "aluminum coated" driver. So certainly a bit of difference from the typical aluminum formed drivers that you see in other speaker designs. Mine appeared to be an almost exact duplicate of one of Dayton's drivers at the time. My tweeters were indeed a silk soft dome variety, very smooth, yet detailed. I could not see my 3000 series drivers, but believe they were similar to the 2000 units, but that has been awhile, when the "Thousand" series first came out, and we know John makes little updates and improvements along the way. Generally with regard to aluminum drivers, tweeters or otherwise, I find it isn't so much the driver itself, but the way it is implemented, the crossovers etc. that really matter to the "sound". |
BTW I would say JS’s design decision to punt on the coherent source Walsh driver above 7khz or so was a sound one. Just take a look at the Interactive Frequency Chart http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm Some but not much happens above 7khz or so musically. That is not a bad tradeoff for a design that I have found to be most robust and durable as well as great sounding and practical for many. Most conventional 2 way speakers have cross over much lower which if not done really well messes with the sound and coherency of a lot of elements of the music including vocals in particular. Over the years I find I am seldom a fan of any but the best 3-way speaker designs out there when I hear them. Its those darn multiple crossovers in the business area of the music that is mostly the culprit I think. |
Not to rehash old news but a Walsh driver is a bending wave based driver (look up speaker types and bending wave speakers on Wiki) . Bending wave drivers was Lincoln Walsh's concept and innovation. Ohm was teh company that produced the first commercial implementation of a very wide range Walsh driver. It was bleeding edge sound wise but a fragile design that blew out not quite as often as a fuse perhaps if not very careful. It turned out to not be commercially viable as a result. John Strohbeen's later Walsh brand "CLS" driver solved tat problem but sacrificed the "Walsh" driver producing sound above 7khz or so to make the product more durable. So it is based on Walsh's principles but a totally different design that is more commercially viable. Waves bend essentially when passing through any medium with variable density. Like Bond said, the unique technology is interesting but its the results that has spoken for itself now for over 30 years. |
I use 3 12X12 sound panels on sidewalls at primary reflection points based on where I listen from most often. May try some on ceiling at some point but have not felt the need. My advice with OHms specifically is treat only as needed. Start minimally and experiment from there. Primary reflection points on walls and ceiling based on your most common listening position are always the place to start to get maximum effect per panel. I also have double sliding glass door with vertical blinds behind my big F5s. I listen with blinds both open and shut and does not matter much to me. YMMV. With omnis, you want to use the room to best effect. With more directional speakers the tendency is to fight the room acoustics which often leads to extensive treatments. A lot depends on the room, how lively it is in general and the details which contribute to that or not. My assessment is that out of the box, teh OHMs are designed to fit into most typical modern drywalled/carpeted/finished rooms with minimal or even no treatments needed but its up to the individual to tweak from there if needed. Room acoustics are always a factor, no matter what speakers but may play less of a role, either positive or negative, in general with more directional speakers like those with waveguides,, horns, more directional tweeters like ribbons, etc. |
acurus - Thanks for the pics. Most of us Ohm owners have never seen the drivers that give us so much pleasure. I have to admit, the driver looks fairly conventional compared with the original Ohm Walsh drivers. But who cares? The end results speak for themselves. I am curious about two things, though. The rumors are that some of the x000 drivers, including the 2000, is an aluminum driver. The only reason I'd want to know is because aluminum drivers have never been my cup of tea. If the 2000 cone is indeed aluminum, it would be yet another feather in John Strohbeen's cap. That he could get sound like that out of aluminum would be impressive. Similarly, I'd love to see the tweeter, which, I believe, is a soft dome type. Again, I am curious, as I prefer soft domes to metal domes, in general. |
blueranger: I had put up quite a few foam panels on the back-wall, and at the first reflection points on the ceiling and side-walls. I felt things sounded too dead, so I removed some, and noticed an improvement in dynamic impact and a wider soundstage. Also, I tried covering my 60" plasma set with a thick comforter, and didn't feel there was any improvement. In short, I guess there is not much point to an omni-style speaker if you're room is treated so that all the indirect-radiating sound is absorbed and not reflected. And remember; these speakers are voiced with the reflected, indirect-radiating sound taken into account. I want very badly to try some diffusers instead of absorbers to the sides and behind the speakers. Sadly, diffusers are a bit pricier than absorbers. But I may try some ebay specials if they aren't too heavy (I suck at things like mounting heavy objects on my drywall-over-stud walls). |
Here are some shots I took of the new Walsh driver before I installed it in my Ohm 2000s: Driver: http://imgur.com/ZifshlN Cabinet Minus Acoustic Filling: http://imgur.com/ynVYcEm In terms of sound quality it is all back to square one again. Since I have new drivers to break in. It will be a few days before I really give them a critical listen. |
I have a question about Walsh speakers and acoustic treatments. I have a 5000 and have 2 panels right behind them and on ceiling 5 feet out from them. Are Walshes better with no acoustic treatments behind them? My room is 20x12 with 8 foot ceiling. I have them on the long wall Thanks for any help. I have researched Internet and not found any answer . Thanks. Mike |
Sounds like the Subdudes are doing their thing. Results are similar using similar function isolating stands with my conventional dynamic monitor speakers so the benefits of isolation when called for are not unique to OHMs. |
Sorry to not get back to the thread quicker on the changes with the updates. Things have been hectic, but I will say that the height is better the speakers speakers on the Subdudes. Bass is definitely different as it is far more dipole and airy and not as cone like of a sound. I did get the new drivers for my speakers yesterday as one arrived dented. I took apart the left speaker and I will take pictures of the driver and the inside of the cabinet tonight for the sake of sharing knowledge of this speakers. |
avsjerry, I don't think the "pillow" procedure will be applied unless she finds out how much I have spent on audio gear lately...just saying. My temporary solution is to just unplug the TV RCA cable when I want to listen to music seriously. I wish the fix was more elegant and convenient, but having limited room (I live in a small house) means only one stereo system. The Ohms do provide nice sound for movies. |
t8kc...A 'permanent fix', if left to the spouse, might be a pillow applied late one night. ;) Or some sort of involuntary therapy.... You might try a common ground. TV's aren't known for being all that 'clean' when it comes to being 'sanitary' in their audio. I've some residual low level hum, but it's attached to a smaller system that compensates for the awful drivers that are installed into flat screens.... And sound bars? Don't get me started... |
Ok so far fiddle with toe in vs toe out. Prior I had them toed out about 1 inch. I then tried 1 inch toed in and that did some added rear ambient energy but 2 inch seems to enhanced that effect and made everything sound a bit bigger not just in the rear but the fronts. Definitely a duller upper range but after I fiddle with the iOS platforms I can run Dirac and it can compensate for the recessed highs. More incoming... |
Bondmap, Thanks for the link. I too am a satisfied Sound Anchor customer. :) Mapman, I will definitely report back this evening. Really glad you mentioned the Subdudes because funny enough I have really been wanting to try experimenting with raising the Ohms up a big since I a tall guy and have a fairly high listening chair and oh jee I just happen to have two of them sitting in a closet within 5 ft of my listening room. So that will kill two birds with one stone. |
Let us know how the subdudes work out. Should take things up a few levels still I suspect. They did for me. Exact same true with Isoacoustics brand isolating stands I use with small monitors in another similar room. I’ve used those with my Triangle monitors and just this week with an old Pair of Boston Acoustics A40 series ii speakers I bought 30 years ago and just refoamed this week. Wow! An audiophile could pick up a pair of those for $50 or less at a thrift store, fix them up with a $20 kit, and be nicely set in many smaller to medium size rooms. Not OHMS but they really sound good these days with modern high quality gear driving them. You definitely have to spend 10X as much or more to do better with new stuff. I'd like to be able to hear the Isotar soft dome tweeters in my Dynaudios used in teh OHMs. Would probably up the cost even more though. |
I will also be posting on here a full review at some point and sending it off to Ohm to use as they want. I will say that I can't believe more people don't own these speakers. Once some time has been spent setting them up they offer a good hybrid of what dynamic cones due best with what planars can do. With the gear in my system I also don't feel like I am losing resolution compared to the 3.6s. I know I have lost some air or delicacy compared to the ribbon in the Magnepans, but I don't think I have lost resolution and I have gained musicality and dynamics. The music so far has been far more engaging. |
Thanks for the advice Mapman! I in fact do have the speakers on a suspended floor and I do feel it vibrate along with the walls and pretty much everything if I have music like Lorde and Interstellar playing! Even better though is I actually have some old sub dudes sitting around which would actually give me some more physical height out of the speakers and address the problem you are suggesting. Sounds like a fun evening of music is ahead with a couple of experiments and probably a remeasuring using Dirac when I am done. |
accurus I love the rigorous examination you are giving the OHMS! It helps confirm a lot of what I have been saying over the years. I feel like with the right size OHMs for a room, a good quality source, and the right amplification to drive them to their max (which many average OHM owners may not have and not know or care what they are missing) you are basically just hearing the recording the way it should sound in your room. So the recording is pretty much everything. The best sound the best and the poor ones lag way behind but are mostly all still listenable once you realize it is what it is and enjoy it or not for reasons other than absolute sound quality. Its like having a good HDTV. Huge range of picture quality possible depending on teh source. One other thing I would mention is that I have found OHMS or any speakers for that matter that sit on upper level suspended plywood floors found in most modern homes may benefit from placement on isolating platforms or stands. Stands that couple to the floor will sound way different than those that isolate. I have my OHM 100s in Walsh 2 cabinets on Auralex Sub dude platforms when used on my nicely finished second level with plywood flooring. When I run them on the first floor (house foundation level) the stands are not needed. In general I find you do not want any speakers interacting with lively floors. It muddies the bass and obscures detail. |
Thanks for the response bondmanp. I would say my experience so far with the Ohms is that my image stability in terms of voice height is very consistent at about 4 to 5 feet high regardless of the recording. The changes is the image height and I think it has to do also with how pressured the room gets. The louder I crank of the speaker the bigger the sound tends to get, maybe 10-20% larger soundstage. Additionally as you point out height definitely can vary with recording. Play the Interstellar soundtrack last night by the wind noise was can height, but by the end of the track with the orchestra in full force the height was nearly hitting my 8 foot ceilings. As for toe-in and Dirac so far I have only tried them toe'ed out which seems to add more image height but I will try them toe'ed in. Dirac also was a great difference in my room. I can turn Dirac on and off instantly with my setup and the difference has been improved control and extension (probably due to Dirac killing a 15db bump between 40 and 60 hz) and a much smoother and focused mids and highs. Also the holographic surround effect has been tuned now to be more precise and realistic. As for what speakers in their price range could beat the Ohms I would honestly say not many from my listening experience. As I said in another post compared to my 3.6s which are renowned for being a top tier speaker the Ohms excel in numerous places. One could look at the Magnepan 1.7i's or .7s but in terms of dynamics the Magnepans would quickly be put in their place and the Ohms definitely have a less veiled and open sound to them compared to the Magnepans. Which is odd since that is one of the hallmarks of Magnepans. But the Ohms just have this open unrestrained sound to them that is easy to forget when listening to them, but you quickly remember when comparing them to other speakers. One interesting this is that people talk about Magnepans having an airy sound which they do when it comes to the texture of the sound (especially on ribbon models). However the Ohms excel at having sound literally sounding like it is coming out of nowhere. It sounds not airy in texture, but as if the sound placement is just coming out of nowhere and it is a somewhat weird, but easily adapted to trait. The Ohms when playing some material have the ability to project a wall of sound as if the air itself is the speaker. I have never had that experience before on any system I have heard. Overall more break-in coming and I will certainly try the toe-out. After spending 4 hours moving the speakers in 6 in increments and then fine tuning I think I have place down minus the toe-in experiments. However all of this break-in work will be for not since my left driver can was damaged at the factory and I have replacement cans for both speakers coming in this Tuesday. I spoke with John the next day about the damage and site unseen he instantly offered to send out new drivers. So the break in process will start fresh on Tuesday, but I am excited to take a closer look at the cans taken off the speakers and atleast I have the placement sorted out so it will be time to pull out the tape and mark some spots on the carpet. PS: Can you send a link to the exact Sound Anchor product you are using with your Ohms? I am interested in picking some up and wanted to give them a shot. I currently use Sound Anchor stands on the Magnepan 3.6s and really enjoy the effect they had. |
Oh, as for the upper treble, I concur with your assessment. I have wondered what the 2000s would sound like with a folded ribbon tweeter, or an omni tweeter. But again, this tends to be recording-dependent, IME. I agree with mapman here. Remember, with the Ohm Walsh line, the tweets are angled inward, toward the listening position. So, toe-in will decrease direct sound from the tweeter, and toe-out increase direct sound from the tweeter; opposite of conventional baffle speakers. I have mine very slightly toed-in. |
Accurus - I would suspect room accoustics, but my Walsh 2000s do hieght extremely well. On some material, the voice sounds as if it is pressed against the low, 6' ceiling in my basement man cave. However, particularly when it comes to image placement and soundstage dimensions, I find the 2000s will reflect the information on the recording. I had an audio buddy over recently who owns some very good Mirage dipole towers. He picked the music. At the end of the demo, he remarked that he liked the Ohms, but that they don't seem to have a very large soundstage. I then put on "Wash Me Clean" by K.D. Lang, and the entire front half of the room exploded in a ginormous, holographic soundstage. His jaw dropped. Likewise for hieght. Some vocals sound as it they are coming from two feet off the floor, some higher, and some at the 6' hieght of my ceiling. IMO, one of the best characteristics of the 2000s is that they will reveal the qualities of each recording, but still make it possible to listen to and enjoy even poorly made recordings. Many typical rock recordings that I could not listen to on my old speakers are enjoyable on the Ohms. Thin, bright, congested recordings still sound that way, but they breathe a little more, and the bright, etched treble doesn't seem to dominate and crowd out the whole experience the way it can on many other speakers. I often found myself thinking, "oh, so this is what the recording engineer was thinking" for recordings that were unlistenable on my old speakers. First, I would give the break-in more time. Mine took about six or seven weeks to get most of the way there, and full break in took about six months. Mapman's tweek suggestion is also important. IMO, Ohms don't need tweeks to sound good, but they can be beneficial. To give my 2000s a solid footing on my uneven basement floor, I had a pair of cradle bases made for me by Sound Anchors (~$325/pair), with three-point adjustable spikes. They really firmed up the imaging and cleaned up the sound, subtley, but noticebly. Second, make sure you compare the sound with and without the DSP carefully. I am not sure that all room EQ programs work as well with unconventional speaker designs as they do with the conventional dynamic box speakers that they were most likely designed for. FWIW, I use the MCACC room EQ on my Pioneer AVR, but only for watching video. The signal for 2-channel listening is outside the surround sound, and DSP, loop. As for the finish, I would say that this is not the strong point of Ohm. It is adequate, but I think any major upgrades in the fit and finish would add significantly to the price, and John Strohbeen is trying to keep his speakers affordable. I would put it this way: Strictly in terms of sonics, what can you buy for under $3K that sounds as good as the 2000s? I have not heard the current Maggies, but many people, like me, don't have the space to set them up properly. In fact, the only other speaker I've heard that I would consider in this price range is the Golden Ear Triton 3. However, I think they are about to get a revision and price hike, and I have not heard them in my home, so I have no direct comparison to refer to. FWIW, my cradle bases hide most of the plinth. Enjoy your 2000s, and keep us posted if you have any further thoughts. |
Crazy enough I figure I would try Dirac out this evening. Very impressed with the bass response and I knew the speakers were digging down into subwoofer range just by listening to abusive music like Lorde. Sure enough on measuring them in Dirac the Oh,s measured a flat response down to 20hz prior to any correction being applied. This is well beyond what they were sped'ed for by Ohm. It is amazing what these speakers can do for bass. I haven't heard any speaker so effortless convey bass dynamics. |
| Post removed |
Thanks for the response Mapman. The Ohms have a nice system feeding them: Mac Mini, PS Audio Perfectwave DAC MKII, Ayre K5-XE, and Mark Levinson No. 432 amplifier. So far they are really good speakers minus the issues raised above. To my surprise they are much more musical compared to the Magnepans in my room. I find myself surprised at the ease of sound coming out of these things and love the ease at which they image vs the Magnepans. In my 13x12 room the Ohms copious amounts of bass. So far my ears give out before they do. I will get everything adjusted with Dirac once I get the basic placement of the speakers down. My only other quibble with these speakers and it is non acoustic is that the bases of the speaker are finished rather poorly compared to the great cCherry veneer work. I expect a little more from a speaker costing nearly 3k. |
Also I will say the tonality of the ohms is very dependent on the signal fed it. I've done tweaks like wires and minor wall treatments to fine tune the sound. Also had to switch amps twice since replacing my Maggie's in order to get things right. The ohms can be like like Maggie's or quad Es on steroids in many ways but there are differences. |
Not sure what can be done about image height to make more like tall planers. Dispersion pattern is much different. Two different beasts in that regard. YOu can experiment with toe out perhaps in order to get more direct exposure from the tweeter for more air and such abovev7khz or so but it is a soft dome tweeter which seldom sounds like a ribbon. Ribbons tend to have narrower dispersion patterns so not a good fit with a speaker like Ohm that goes for very wide pseudo omni sound. I have ohm 5series 3 with the 4 three way tone adjustments the uppermost of which boosts or cuts treble. I have older ears and find the 3db boost possible with that of benefit sometimes but I can easily do without it. Mileage will vary on that for each. |
Well been doing a lot of reading and finally took the plunge and purchased a set of Ohm Walsh 2000s with cherry veneer. I am a long time Magnepan owner and currently they are replacing my Magnepan 3.6s. Need to down size some stuff with a baby on the way. So far the break in process is going well with about 20 hours on them thus far. I am fiddling with positioning and by and large really enjoy their sound. There are only a couple things I am not quite getting out of them vs the 3.6s. Vertical height happens but isn't quite as big and broad on a consistent basis as the Magnepans seems recording dependent. Also there are points where instruments like cymbals are clearly coming from the tweeter in the speaker lose that in air feeling. They are lack the finesse and air of the ribbons. Overall though an extremely musical speaker and they make me rethink what a cone speaker can do in terms of producing a sound stage vs big planars. Any thoughts on placement to solve the couple of issues above? |
Roger that, Mapman! I have my 2000s on Sound Anchor craddle bases, tri-spiked into the shallow carpet-over-cement-floor in my basement Man Cave. Bass is tight, well-defined, powerful, extended and bloat-free (I crossover the 2000s to my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs @80Hz). Bases are required for stability. That cement is solid, but not flat. Basement man caves rock!!! |
There are automatic digital room correction devices available today that users swear by and I suspect can do a very complete job of adapting speaker output to rooms if done properly. One way to skin the cat fairly completely in one blow if desired. There are many other more traditional ways as well to address the problem that work well with some trial and error over time. My opinion is one of the most common and significant problems many aspiring audiophiles face are floor interactions that often muddies the bass. Muddy bass not only sounds bad but obscures other good things that may be happening. Any modern construction home with suspended plywood floors is susceptible to this I believe including mine, The solution is to use isolation devices under speakers like isolating pads or stands. Heavy rigid spiked stands or spikes under floorstanders alone do not solve the problem. its a big problem that probably effects teh majority of listeners these days. How do I know this is a problem? I use my OHMs and other speakers both in two finished basement rooms on solid concrete foundation, and same speakers one level up in two rooms with suspended plywood floors. In basement the bass with all speakers is both clean and articulate in both rooms. Upstairs teh same speakers have muddied bass that greatly impacts the sound quality. It took me many years in my house to discover this. Isolating stands (I use Isoacoustics brand under smaller monitors) and pads (I use Auralex subdudeunder my smaller Walshes upstairs) are the cheap and easy solution. In the basement, I allow the speakers to couple to the solid foundation (opposite of isolating) with no ill effects. Most modern houses and floors are built to have some give to provide earthquake resistance. Good for that but bad for sound. If you can jump up and down and things in teh room move or vibrate you have a problem. Your room essentially "rings like a bell" except at a much lower frequency. |
"Even Jim Smith (Get Better Sound) rarely mentions changing the sound coming out of the speakers, but focuses primarily on changing the room to fit the speakers. That thinking seems backwards to me, but I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer...or am I missing something important here?" Quote from t8kc- Just to pick this thought up a bit, I think what happens quite often, and even I have been guilty of said thing, is that sometimes we try to "fix" what we think are sound issues with different gear. The thinking behind this is that it will somehow fix the problem, when in reality, the issue could very well be the room itself and poor acoustics-probably more times than not. While changing tone controls etc. in effect changing the sound coming out of the speakers, rarely will the changes given by ordinary tone controls really fix issues. It might make some things more pleasing to some degree, but room acoustics tend to go far deeper than what we can fix this way. While I don't know if this is exactly what Jim's thinking is here, as I have not read any of his book, it makes sense to me. Get the room as acoustically "fixed" as possible, then work with the gear/speaker side of things. Of course this also brings up differing means of treating the room depending on the type of speaker to some degree-such as Magnepans, Omni's or front driven speakers. Even though the basics can apply to every one of these, each one also may have a slightly differing means of going the next step further. The nice thing is that in my opinion, most Ohm speakers are a bit easier to work with room-wise. I always called them a more "friendly or real-world" speaker system. While certainly benefits can be had by taking the room acoustics and setup to the utmost degree, I find they just work fairly well with minimal fuss overall. For what it is worth! |
In addition to the crossover electronics. Which should be pretty simple I think there is also what is called the "sub bass activator" circuit which is used to help extend the bass. I'm assuming the latest x000 models still use that. Js would know. It's a circuit sold as an upgrade to older models as well. I bought a pair when I refurbed my old Ohm Ls. |
Ok, it may not be a cross-over exactly, but there are some electronics attached to the input board and there is switch and some capacitors. I have a photo if anyone is interested. My TV related speaker hum ended up being a bad set of RCA cables between the cable box and the preamp. After talking to the cable TV repairman, he told me that digital cable doesn't cause any hum and that was only an issue back in the analog days. Hey, what do I know? |
I think I get what you are talking about. Some of the early versions just had a mounting board with new driver, you pulled off the old driver and just placed this new mounting board/driver directly over the existing hole and screwed it in place with four wood screws. This was my version anyway. As to the crossovers, mine were all in the can itself and did not come with any controls. So the old crossover/controls were removed and a new plain terminal block/board was mounted in place-hence the hot glue. So sounds as if some things have changed. The main thing is how they sound though, and hopefully you will enjoy them! Thanks for the response! |