Yeah, I was surprised when he told me that only the 2000 and 3000 have a new aluminum driver. All the other models use new paper drivers.
|
Hey .. nice to see this thread is still alive. Being an "Ohm boy" (LOL) I do check/lurk occasionally. Saw this on the Audiophiliac blog:
http://news.cnet.com/audiophiliac/?tag=blgs.list
Always nice to see John and his company get some press. |
Actually, I think the original OHM Fs used titanium, aluminum, and paper in their famous Walsh driver. Maybe the new 1000s are steering back in the direction of using more exotic materials in the driver again? I can't find any mention of what is used in the new drivers anywhere. The OHM site only indicates that they are new and the resulting sound is "evolutionary".
The Walsh driver operates differently than conventional dynamic drivers. I don't know if metal construction lends any particular sound in the case of a Walsh driver. |
Mapman, you're right. I should know better than to dismiss the aluminum driver in Ohm's 2000 model before hearing it, especially given the surprise I got with the Luxman receiver. I had my eyes opened this past weekend when the guy I picked up the Walsh 2's from invited me to hear his collection of vintage components. He was actually the one who suggested the pairing of the Luxman to the vintage Ohm's. His setups would not be considered ultra revealing, but damn, I could live with that kind of sound very happily and never feel the need to upgrade again. Anyway, I'm calling John Strohbeen today to move forward with the upgrade to the 2000. |
There is an Audio Research D400 mkII SS amp up for sale here now. THis is one I find very tempting to try, but it is only marginally more powerful than what I have (200 w/ch versus 120w/ch, but the first few dozen watts are Class A and it is a lot bigger and heavier I believe). |
The issue I have with the OHM 5s is largely attributable to my L shaped room. Bass levels are up to snuff with the 100.3s in the smaller room towards the front of my main listening area but drops off further back. This is the L shaped room with thin carpeted concrete foundation floors where the OHMS sit in the short end of the L firing into the long length, where most listening is done (see my system photo with the Jack Russell Terrier adornment). In the short end of the L and just in front, bass levels are good...further back they drop off. I have the Ohm 4XO cabinets with the Walsh 5Mk-2 drivers on them in a room that's 16' X 24'. The speakers are centered on the long wall and spaced 6.5' from each other (center to center). There is only about 11' of back wall though, because of the open format, I have no idea how this is affecting the bass response. Maybe it's a trade-off, bass not as good as could be but less standing wave problems. Some years ago I called OHM and asked John what amp. he would recommend that would make these speakers sing, he recommended the Sunfire Signature so i picked a used one up on Audogon and a used Legacy preamp.as well and have (on occasion) had it up to 75% gain, they handled the power without a problem. |
THE,
When you talk to John, see if you can get him to elaborate some on the new driver designs on the various new 1000 series speaks.
Use of metal foils or other new or more exotic materials in the Walsh drivers again similar to original OHM Fs or even the modern German Physiks DDD driver would be news of interest to many who perhaps are partial to other Walsh driver designs. |
Line, yes I could try the OHM 5s along the longer wall but the L shaped room is only 12' wide or so the the area where I listen.
I elected to place the OHM 5s where they are baically to keep them out of the way of the area where most activity takes place and leverage the acoustics of short section of the L shaped room to give them more room to breathe. Firing into the long section this way delivers concert like sound all the way back through the narrow portion, which is where listening and most other activity occurs in this basement level family room. It works out well in that I can chose closer or farther away listening perspective as I please. The bass levels are actually very good, just not enough to literally shake the rafters as used to be achievable with the right source music and my prior 360w/ch Carver m4.0t amp. That amp however was not a high current design and not efficient into 4 ohms, so the bass levels and overall balance suffered at more modest common listening levels. The MF A3CR is a much better fit to my listening habits overall and the sound in my system is very defined, holographic, and well balanced top to bottom
, just not the nth degree that might be possible with a monster high current amp that is also efficient into lower speaker impedances as is seemingly found with the OHM 5s at
lower frequencies. |
Line,
Also, yes the Sunfire Signature looks like a very good fit for the OHMs and can be had at a bargain price used as well. Nice move! |
John Strohbeen strikes me as a strict engineer and objectivist and when asked which amps are best to drive the Ohm Walsh 5 mentions the most powerful and high current designs. Anecdotally, he is purported to like the Carver TFM-75 (750 W/ch) which was at the time about the most powerful consumer audio amp available. He told me he likes the Crown Macro Reference (a true beast and very well reviewed at Absolute Sound years ago) which these days can be had for about $2,000. I am using the Wyred 4 Sound ST-1000 which at 550W/ch into 8 ohms and 1100W into 4 ohms drive the Walsh 5's effortlessly. There are many fine amps that will do the job right. |
Mapman, everyone else... Thanks for the encouraging words. The 2000s do enough right that I want this work out. The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage. I will continue to experiment with placement.
My speaker cables are Kimber 4TC - decent budget cables, but I'm sure not the last word in speaker cables. I will look into the DNM option, but as with the speaker bases and matching center speaker, financial constraints will put this purchase on hold. On top of that, I just dropped some coin on a locally well-liked modded DAC. I wasn't ready to upgrade my CDP, but this was an opportunity to pick it up used at a substantial savings. |
"The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage"
Hmm, I've found that more direct exposure to the directional supertweeter brightens things up if needed but also collapses the soundstage width at least somewhat. Toe-in usually means less direct exposure and a bigger/wider soundstage in my case. Room acoustics have an impact on soundstage as well, so keep on tweaking until it sounds just right.... |
Amplifier Update:
Well, the Bel Canto S300 arrived last week, and it has been sitting on top of my component cabinet waiting for the Manley Shrimp to arrive. The Shrimp arrived last Friday, and when I open the box, it turned out that the volume knob had detached from the unit. Federal Express must've given it a pretty good whack somewhere in transit. Anyway, the seller is being extremely helpful and has offered to pay for a trip to our local stereo repair shop to reattach the volume knob and also make sure that no undetected, internal damage took place along the way. Anyway, hopefully, I will have the system up and running before the end of the week and I will report back... |
Huh. I just got offered a vintage pair of Ohm F's, free of charge. For reasons of space, and the fact that as a military spouse I move very couple of years, I need to think about this before I take them.
I'll start an entirely new thread, and hopefully some of you Ohm-philes will assist me as I figure out what to do with them.
Best regards-
P |
Parasound, if you can't take them, I sure would take them and fix them up! They are classics, and getting more difficult to find. They are pretty big but they sure would be a lot of fun though! Enjoy! Tim |
Question: When does Porcupine Tree sound like Nirvana?
Answer: When heard over my system with Ohm Walsh 2000s!
;-) (details below)
Much has changed over the last few days. As I mentioned, I got a deal on a really nice DAC. Although for now the digital cable I am using is a budget model that I doubt is getting the most out of this DAC, it still has brought significant improvements to my system. I also upgraded my PS Audio Quintet with a PS Audio Jewel power cord.
Between these upgrades and more run-in time on the Ohms, my system has slightly less bass output but better bass definition and extension. This works out well, since the bass output from my CD player/DAC is now similar to the bass output level from my turntable, which is lighter on bass than my CD player without the new DAC. I can now leave my subwoofers dialed where they are, and get satisfying bass output from both sources.
My system now sounds better than it ever has. I am getting smooth, detailed sound with a wide and high soundstage, some good extension into the room, and more balanced soundstage left-to-right. Although, due to the room layout, the soundstage is still irregular, I am finally getting some extension into the room from the left channel, which lacks a full-length wall like the right wall. The highs are smooth and clean.
Listening to a new (for me) CD of PT, "Stars Die" (a double CD collection of older PT tracks) was extremely enjoyable. Holographic soundstage, deep, solid bass, clear vocals, and that spot-on timbre. Listening to the second CD of the set on Saturday was a real carnival ride!
Over the weekend, I heard a system including a decent preamp, CD player and $20,000 powered speakers. They could definitely play louder than my Ohms (although the 2000s are as loud as I could want them to be) and were very dynamic, but they didn't do a lot of things as well as the 2000s, like soundstage, overall smoothness, and fine detail retrieval. I had that s--- eating grin on my face as I listened to this system, thinking about how my $2800 speakers and $1500 amp outperformed this $20,000 powered speaker in almost every important way!
Is my system perfect? No. Will it ever be? Doubtful. I am hoping more burn-in will bring better dynamics, better transient definition and detail retrieval to the Walsh 2000s. I am also hoping that experimenting with positioning and adding bases will further improve the soundstage and imaging. But I am really enjoying the limited time I have to listen, and look forward to listening more.
Away from the Ohms, my PV-11 is acting up again, with some high frequency noises that come and go. Although the C-J folks are very nice, I can't help thinking they are selling me tubes that are not very good in the PV-11. I had purposely sent the PV-11 into C-J for a retube and checkup prior to ordering the Ohms, so that I would be good to go for the trial period. I am not going to interrupt the trial period by sending it back again. Maybe I'll look elsewhere for different tubes. I guess I should post on the preamp forum for ideas, but if any of you have suggestions, I am all ears.
|
Hey, everybody,
Well, I finally got all my new electronics set up a few days ago.
I have to say that the combination of the of the Manley Shrimp preamplifier and the Bel Canto S300 power amplifier seems to have a lot of synergy to it. The bass is tight and controlled, midrange frequencies sound very nice, and the highs are light and airy.
I'm wondering, though, if any of you have ever found that a change in your electronics caused you to reposition your speakers.
When I first hooked up the new electronics, I was struck by the increased sense of "texture" in the music, particularly on orchestral works. Violins, for example, sounded "woody" in a way that they hadn't before. And everything had a sense of "air" around it.
But something was kind of missing, and I realized it was that the soundstage that I was used to have kind of collapsed... center fill was still very good, and there was a sense of depth, but that "energized room" that you get with Ohm speakers with the right source material was missing. What fixed it was simply moving the speakers back about 6 inches or so closer to the wall. Everything sprang back into place.
I called John and asked him about this, and he said that he'd never heard of imaging being affected by a change in electronics this way. I'm curious to see what you guys have found in this regard.
In any case, I'm very, very pleased. I think that the speakers have responded very well to the change in electronics, and I'll continue to report back as I have more time to listen. |
"I'm wondering, though, if any of you have ever found that a change in your electronics caused you to reposition your speakers."
Yes, I had the same experience when changing amps and to a lesser extent digital source.
It may be a psychological thing more so than anything technical. The sound changes and a change in speaker location can help tweak it back more to what you had been used to. |
Hello gang. I've been working with my Walsh 5000's and although I thought I was on the way to getting their performance right it's turned out to be a no go. The 5000's are inefficient and need high current and high power, particularly to play them and get good bass-fill at lower volumes. As some of you know I have the McCormack DNA-500 and a VTL 2.5 preamp. The DNA-500 is high current and 500 per side at 8 hohms. I like to play my setup at low volume sometimes and enjoy the music, thus the high current amp. At low volume the bass weight and fullness is not there and it should be with a high current amp. Now, you might say, "it could be your room or it could be speaker placement issues.". But I've heard the Walsh 5000's play with bigger bass in this room and in their current position in the room. The problem is that I've only heard them play with bigger bass when I've reconfigured some interconnects or power cords within the system. (When I powered up the system and the cables and system were settling back in after a reconfiguration) In other words, while the system was settling in after cables have been moved around there have been times when I heard these speakers play with the kind of low end weight I'd expect from speakers this size. But in my experience, the sonics of a system are never stable while cables and gear are in the process of settling in. Once everything in the system settles downs after reconfiguring cables, the sonics then stabilize. This can take a day or two. During that time I've heard the 5000's move more air and play with more bass weight, but as thing settle in the low end weight decreases. This has happened several times as I've experimented with cables and configurations and has been disappointing. But what this experience revealed to me is that the speakers have the capability to produce more and bigger low end weight in this room and in their current placement. So it's not the speakers, the room, or their placement holding back the low end. The question is, what to do? Change preamplifiers, power cables, or interconnects? I find it hard to believe that this high current amplifier could be the problem. I know that amp speaker matching is always a key to performance, but it does not seem possible in this case. I'm looking for answers. |
Foster_9,
I'm at a loss. This is one for Mapman to figure out! ;-) |
Foster 9:
The DNA-500 has more than enough power and current to drive the Walsh 5000s. This must be a placement issue, I have measured (and heard) substantial differences in the bass output of my Walsh 5s in the main power band (~40-60 hz) with movement of the speaker a mere 3 inchs. You need to pick up a Radio Shack sound meter and a test CD with tones from 20 -100 Hz and run scans for different loudspeaker positions. Believe me, a mere few inch adjustment can do wonders for sorting out the bass. |
Yes, the exact placement can make a significant difference in the bass levels I have found also as Mamboni points out.
That solid brick rear wall I recall could also be working against you...not sure anything can be done about that.
Foster, you are heavily armed well beyond most at this point with that McCormack amp I would think. I doubt that is the problem.
Could something in the hookup be out of phase? |
Foster, also I do not recall if you are using any power conditioning device? If so, try running without it and see if that makes a difference in the bass impact level. |
Foster,
The other thing that comes to mind is to make sure the driver is tightly secured to the cabinet. With my F-5s, there are 4 wing nuts that must be tight to secure the driver else the bass levels suffer. These worked slightly loose after some initial playing time and I found that a tight fit is key to good bass.
How are your drivers secured to the base? Is there anything that might need tightening? |
I don't know the 5000s as I own the 100/S3. I think this is a a GREAT design,but my one issue with this speaker is that macro-dynamics aren't great - you need higher SPLs to get satisfying dynamic impact (vis a vis my other preferred high end designs). IMHO, if you like to listen at lowish SPLs, it's entirely possible that Ohms just won't be your cup of tea. I do, however, have a simple solution - just listen louder!
Marty |
Foster_9, I'm at a loss. Rebbi I know what you mean. The DNA-500 has more than enough power and current to drive the Walsh 5000s. This must be a placement issue. Mamboni (Answers) The speakers have played with better low end reinforcement in their current placecment, but after the system was on for several days and cables and equipment had settled in, the low end diminished. I've observed this several times. Foster, also I do not recall if you are using any power conditioning device? Could something in the hookup be out of phase? The other thing that comes to mind is to make sure the driver is tightly secured to the cabinet. How are your drivers secured to the base? Is there anything that might need tightening? Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers) Mapman, I don't use any power conditioning. I checked and double checked the phase and it's correct. Tightening down the drivers may be an issue; I think the drivers do need to be tightened down. I will take care of that. The drivers are secured by philips head bolts. IMHO, if you like to listen at lowish SPLs, it's entirely possible that Ohms just won't be your cup of tea. I do, however, have a simple solution - just listen louder! Martykl (Reviews | Threads | Answers) Marty, you may be right. I still think the speakers have the capability to play with good low end at lower volumes but some tweaking for optimization of the system must be the way. |
Foster9, If you are not already famililar with the theories about sound reproduction linearity at low volumes you might like to read up on the Fletcher Munson Curve. I think how they deal with the bass issue is correct, maybe not so much with the highs. Bottom line its not so much the equipment as it is your ears and how you hear sound. |
Thanks Newbee, Almarg has been saying similar. |
Yes, make sure the rivers are tight and secure, but do not overtighten. This ca make a difference in the bass primarily.
With proper amplification and setup, the OHMs should do quite well, as well as most designs at low volume. An adjustable level sub might be one way to deal with Fletcher Munson at low volumes. Being able to adjust bass levels properly only when needed is the key. At higher volumes, it may be redundant for most recordings I would think. I would think your parametric equalizer should be able to make the desired adjustments for low volumes as well? |
Foster another possibility if all else fails is to make sure the tubes in the pre-amp are good.
Do yo still have other speakers to compare to? That would help determine whether the issue was unique to the OHMs or originating elsewhere perhaps. |
Mapman, I will eventually replace the tubes. No other speakers to compare with however. Thanks |
Foster, consider when you are going to change tubes that you will have an opportunity to change the tone substantially, + or - depending on the type of and brand of tubes you can use. I'm sure you knew that, but I was just thinking about your issue with the bass and low level listening and how it might improve with careful selection. |
Good point Newbee. Tube rolling could be just what the doctor ordered! |
Rebbi,
I am wondering what further impressions/observations you may have with your new electronics over the past few weeks. |
And Foster, any news in your hunt for the perfect low end? |
Hey, Dante7 and everyone,
I'm back after Thanksgiving break.
In a word, the new electronics sound glorious! Since I changed so much at once -- both the power amp and the preamp - it's difficult to know what is due to what. But here's what I'm observing so far:
The Ohms sound more like real music than they ever have. I was listening to the opening track of Ingrid Michaelson's "Boys and Girls," and when the guitars kicked in, I had this visceral response: not, "the stereo sounds great," but "wow, there are guitars in the room!" or "it sounds like I'm in a club!" That's an experience I've never had before.
Instruments have a sense of texture and space that I've never heard before. On good orchestral recordings, violins have a "woody" quality, for example.
Good recordings also have more of a 3-dimensional quality than they did before... I don't know how to describe it right now better than that.
I am actually feeling some sympathy right now for professional audio reviewers. It's very hard to verbalize these subjective experiences and observations! What I can say pretty definitively is that the Ohms are singing on a new level with the new gear! :-) |
|
Rebbi - Glad to hear it. I know exactly what you mean about instruments sounding like the real thing. One thing the 2000s did right out of the box was this dead-on presentation of timbre. Guitars have a sound that reminds me of when I used to play (albeit badly) guitar myself. Horns are uncanny in their realism. And yes, there is a real sense of the body of stringed acoustic instruments. I was not used to this, and at first thought the cabinets were "singing". Then I began to realize that this was an authentic part of the recording. Enjoy your new gear, rebbi. Keep us posted. |
Horns and brass may be the OHMs most unique strong points.
I have heard other systems/speakers that do other things the OHMs do very well also, but they may be in a class of their own when it comes to big band music and other big ensemble recordings with lots of energy in the midrange. |
Don't forget percussion!
Regarding strong points- does anyone think they have any weak points? If so, I haven't noticed them yet |
Parasound - (Sorry this is so long.) While I am not quite 2 months into the demo/break-in period, my only lingering criticism of the Walsh 2000s is the macro-dynamic presentation. However, this seems to be improving. Initially, I missed the startling dynamic impact of my Vandersteen 1Cs, which themselves have some limits to their output levels. But, more and more, I am getting a little of that jump factor out of the 2000s.
The other thing I have not been able to get out of the 2000s, so far, is a lot of extension into the room. The Vandys, when properly set up, can throw a suprinsingly 3-D soundstage. Not much depth behind the speakers, but good width, some hieght, and plenty of fill between your seat and the speakers. The Walsh 2000s, in my room, so far, have a wider soundstage, with even more hieght, and some depth behind the speakers (a room-related issue, I think), but not much extension toward the listening position. If there is out-of-phase information in the recording, sounds can come from behind my head(!), but only on my right, where I have a solid wall.
And, only rarely, I get that upper-midrange glare from a note that stands out a bit too much. This is most likely recording-dependent, and occurs maybe 1/50th as often as it did with the Vandersteens. I think that since it is so rare and unexpected with the Ohms, it bothers me more than it did on the Vandersteens, where it was a constant on all but the finest recordings.
Please note that I am being hyper-critical here. I have never spent this much money on any piece of kit for my system, and I am still in the home-trial period. I want to make sure that I will be happy with these speakers for many years to come, perhaps forever, since I doubt I will be able able to afford another expensive speaker upgrade. I do try to just listen occasionally, but I am still in the process of picking the Ohms apart, so I may be splitting hairs. Overall, they are amazing. The lack of congestion at higher SPLs and truth-in-timbre are probably the two finest aspects of the 2000s, but they also are great at dissappearing, smoothness, detail, micro-dynamics and lack of distortion. I began looking for a speaker upgrade thinking I could not abide metal tweeters like the one in the Vandersteen 1Cs, but the Ohms have revealed that what I couldn't handle was a crossover smack in the middle of the audio band, and all the problems that even well-designed cross-overs introduce. Having said that, I have never liked the single-driver dynamic speakers I've heard, so the Ohm Walsh design makes a lot of sense for me.
Between attending audio shows and membership in my local audiophile club, I have had the opportunity to hear many different systems and speakers in many price ranges, many of them really big bucks systems. In all honesty, the only speakers still being made that I might prefer, now cost $12K (the Silverline Audio Bolero I've mentioned previously). But I haven't heard that speaker in years, and it was run off of a low-powered SET tube amp that is night-and-day different than my SS amp. I think that is high praise for a sub-$3K pair of speakers. Obviously, I am leaning towards keeping them, but will reserve final judgement until later in the trial period. |
"a lot of extension into the room"
Seem's true of OHMs and other omni's I have heard, like mbl, in general.
A less forward sound may also seem less dynamic in terms of being able to feel the music compared to forward firing dynamic speakers where most of the sonic energy is aimed at your listening position. Not the case with omnis.
The macro and micro dynamics of the OHMS definitely improve over time as they break in , I believe.
|
Thanks, Mapman. Good point about omni dispersion patterns. I am cautiously optimistic about the macro-dynamics. |
When I go to live classical concerts, I take note of the dynamics of the sound, especially the sound of say a well struck Timpani (kettle drum). In cozier halls, you can almost feel it when the timpani drums get struck. I attended a concert at Carnegie hall in NYC earlier this year where the striking of the timpanis was almost an out of body experience as the sound resonated in the hall.
I do the same with similar recordings then at home. A similar well struck, well recorded timpani should be able to knock you out of your seat at home as well. |
Bondmanp,
I get the "picking apart" thing... it's natural to do with something this expensive, plus you're acutely aware that you can still get much of your money back (except for shipping those beasties) within your test period. I'm not made of money either!
That said, I've found that the 100's have kept sounding more and more alive as they've broken in. Given that I don't get as much time to listen as I'd like, that's taken much of a year to happen, but it has happened. The Ohms have "opened up" in all sorts of ways. For what it's worth... |
Yeah, I think I had my 5s for almost a year before I was convinced they had fully opened up in terms of dynamics.
The 100S3s were acquired second hand and largely broken in it seemed when I got them.
I'd pull the trigger right away on a bigger amp for the 5s in my bigger room if I were not fully satisfied with the dynamics, but whenever I listen, I am. My approach is always if it ain't broke, don't fix it, even though I am still curious what a big monster amp ( or more likely for me a juicier Class D) might do.
I also am very big on avoiding fatigue listening. For me, most any system that is not fatiguing can be enjoyable. But my 5s were my attempt to go for broke sound wise without fatigue, and I could not be happier. That Walsh driver with all that surface area in play to produce all that gorgeous midrange which is at the core of most all great recordings.....ahhh! |
Bondmanp- your posts may be long, but when I'm done reading them, I want more. Keep 'em coming.
I think it's important to note shortcomings in the Ohm's (and all speakers, for that matter)- otherwise we become unabashed fan-boys and might as well post on the Audioholics forum. :P
I have very little criticism of the Micro Walsh Talls, although I occassionally miss the bombast that my Deftech BP2006's could impart, especially on movie soundtracks. The Ohm's just don't seem to add to the drama, but rather present what's there- for better or worse.
I've also noted that the soundstage does not move 'into the room' per se. In that sense, it's a bit like a live performance of unamplified music I guess.
I did notice some glare at about the 2 month mark of owning them. It calmed down considerably. Not sure if it's break-in so much as settling into final placement, about 5' 1" apart and 15" from the rear wall (still looks awfully close to my eye, but just right to my ear) |
Also I'd say that those cages are kinda boring to look at. I do like the look of a nice set of drivers! |
Thanks Mapman, Rebbi & Parasound. I am not putting the kind of hours on the 2000s that many would, so I guess I have a ways to go yet for break-in. Plus, since I am running them with a pair of subs, the 2000s see a 1st-order roll-off beginning at 80Hz, which is probably prolonging break-in as well.
Extremely interesting comment from Parasound on the glare at the two month mark. I am about a week away from the two month point right now. I guess I need to be patient.
I still think that, contrary to what John Strohbeen tells me, the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases. I suppose that on a flat floor the Ohms would be fine, but my cellar floor is anything but flat, and even with the shims and pads Ohm sent me, they are not totally stable.
Once I make a final decision on keeping the 2000s (which seems likely at this point), I will order the bases from Sound Anchors (they are custom made and not returnable).
I have a combo 2-channel/HT system, and have found the Walsh 2000s fine for films and TV. Right now my center and surrounds are mismatched (Vandy center, surrounds and Paradigm Atoms for the back surrounds). The timbre-matching issue aside, I have no issues with the surround sound produced by my system. Eventually, I will get the Ohm center channel speaker, and watch for some used Walsh speakers for surrounds. |
Say it isn't so! I love the cages. They remind me that I don't have 'monkey coffins' |
