Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?
"the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases" Any cheap tweak to make them stable if not otherwise is worth it. That will help them transit low end energy through the floor more effectively and can only help with impact/dynamics. Concrete foundations/floors or similar heavy rigid flooring will inhibit energy transmitted through the floor that an end user may sense and help perceive more impact/dynamics. I've been relating to FOster_9 in emails that I have both OHMs on a solid concrete foundation/floor (lightly carpeted to help filter high frequency reflections) and that produces a most controlled bass still with plenty of impact and dynamics at realistic listening levels, and all off of a mere 120w/ch (but fairly high current) amp. |
So true Mapman, things aren't very pretty at all under the cans. But I sure do love the music they make. And that is what is important! I do love the design, and I love the industrial look of those cans! I was doing some testing on the Super-2/2000 upgrades, they are a very nice upgrade over the original drivers. I don't know how they compare to the last series as I don't have anything to compare them too directly at the moment. I have enjoyed reading through this thread. Enjoy your music! Tim |
Mapman: I did remove the subs from the signal chain briefly last month. I am sure the bass output from the 2000s is respectable, but I absolutely love my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs. I missed them enough that I put them back in soon after. I'll live with the longer break-in time that results. My amp is a solid state Odyssey Audio HT3 with cap upgrade (150w X 3). Odysseyaudio.com. There is also an Oddyseey Audio circle over at that audio circle web site. IMHO, it's a heck of an amp for the money. If I could afford it, I would look at either a Butler or a Moscode, but an amp upgrade is far down on the list. Preamp is a C-J PV-11 w/phono. The Sound Anchor stands are cheap for well-healed audiophiles, but for me, the $300 or so cost is affordable, but not an impulse buy. One of the reasons I like the Vandy subs so much (and there are numerous reasons) is that they do provide a visceral, feel-it-in-your-gut kind of bass, even with my carpeted concrete floor. In all honesty, and I know this sounds a bit silly, if the Walsh 2000s didn't blend well with the Vandy subs (they do), I would return the Ohms rather than give up the 2Wqs. |
I've only measured using my ears as opposed to a sound pressure meter, but when I play a test tone record through the OHMs in their respective rooms, I hear a very balanced level all the way down to 20hz (on the 5s, the 2s/100s may not go down into the 20hz range). And when I listen the overall timbre including bass levels is in line with what I hear at most good sounding live concerts, at live-like SPLs. My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors. And in those cases, the sub had better be able to blend in smoothly down to 20 hz or so (for organ music, etc., most recordings have nothing that low) or else the overall timbre and clarity can suffer. I think this is the case with most any speaker if one goes bass crazy, the bass ends up masking the midrange, which is where most of the unique magic of the OHMs resides. I do not set my 5s to maximum bass levels in my biggest room where they reside. I find when I do, the overall clarity of the midrange in particular gets buried and things to not sound as good or natural overall to me. Not sure if that would be any different were it a sub putting out that extra low end rather than the 5s. |
Correction, I said: "My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors." I meant to say: My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the smaller OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors." |
Mapman - Your points are well taken. The cubic footage of my basement is within, but near the top, of the cubic foot range Ohm specifies for the 2000s. Thus, the subs should help the 2000s by lowering their output below 80Hz. Also, I can't stress this enough, the 2Wqs are not typical subwoofers. I've heard plenty of low and mid-priced subs over the years, and none of them did what the 2Wqs do. Namely, they reproduce not just bass energy, but true timbre. They are tight, fast and clean in the extreme. The unusual crossover scheme allows a better blend than any sub I have heard. Plus, they are designed specifically for corner placement, and work quite well in my room. If you have never heard these subs, you should try to. They simply do not make themselves known unless you unplug them. Then you hear their absence. There is no boominess or constant rumble, and I swear all of the bass sounds like it is coming from the Ohms (and previously the Vandy 1Cs), and not the 2Wqs. Placing a hand on the cabinet during loud bass passages will reveal a very solid cabinet (90 lbs.) that does not vibrate in tune to the music. A lot of it has to do with the crossover design, which is a first order type (pretty unusual these days) and simple, in-line filter for the amp. Also, using three small drivers instead of one large one could be a factor. You can read about them on the Vandy site - Vandersteen.com. Also, Richard Hardesty had a similar view of these subs. IMHO, they are one of the most underrated high-value products in HiFi today. Sure, if you drop big bucks on the JL, Thiel or other high-end sub you could get similar results, but these list for about $1400, and I bought mine used for considerably less hear on the 'gon. For all of these reasons, the 2Wqs stay. The only area where there is any discontinuity between the Walsh 2000s and the 2Wqs is in macro dynamics. The 2Wqs have noticeably more dynamic impact in their range than the 2000s do in the range above that. That is why I made the comments about the dynamics of the 2000s in an earlier post. I could live with the system as is, but I am hoping the dynamics of the 2000s will improve with break-in. I have a third sub (nutty, right?) for LFE and redirected bass from the center and surround channels. It's an old Definitive Technology PF15. It is everything the 2Wqs are not (and that's no compliment). But with the help of a Paradigm X30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP (parametric digital EQ), it works well enough for film soundtracks. It is out of the loop for 2-channel listening. |
Bondmanp, I agree with the application of a sub in your case with your OHMS, room size and sub. Using the sub allows to to bump up the SPLs in the range they are covering, right, compared to your OHMs, which cannot, right? WIth a good sub blended in correctly that will give you more control of bass levels and low end dynamics accordingly than with speakers alone, be they OHMs or others. I use an early 90's vintage M&K sub with my Triangle monitors in my second system. Depending on how I adjust the sub, that system can have more or less low end impact and dynamics than any of my other speakers without a sub. Its nice having that flexibility. Until I got the 100s and 5s, that system was my reference sound overall in my house. Since getting the OHMs, the 5's are, and I tend to adjust the speaker configurations in my other rooms to what I hear with the 5s. The M&K runs up to about 60-70 Hz with my Triangle monitors in that system and the M&K breaks no sweat doing its part. I bought it in a audio shop for audio use and it really does sound quite fine, though it only goes down to 30 hz or so. My OHM 5s go down to 20hz or so smoothly I would say. I was thinking of trying the M&K V1-B with the 5s just for fun, but when I revisited the subs specs, it did not make any sense to use it there. My 5s do have two bass level adjustments and though my room is a decent size within ghte range OHM specs for 5s, the highest bass levels possible are not needed. The midrange and overall detail and smoothness suffers a tad if I do. |
BTW, regarding OHMs and room size, for larger rooms, I think a very cost effective strategy could be to actually undersize the OHMs in lieu of matching size exactly ( do NOT get OHMs that are too big for a room, that could be a dead end) and then get a decent sub to fill in the low end that you will give up. All the OHMs from smallest to largest sound mostly the same except for low end extension is better on larger models. I can hear that when comparing my 100s and 5s in the same room on the same system. An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many. |
Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange? You know, laws of physics, yadda yadda. BTW, I was floored by my Walsh 2000s twice in the last week. Once was while listening to a CD of John Williams Baroque guitar solos. The reproduction of the timbre of the acoustic guitar was mind-blowingly real. So much so that, when I went to a record show last Sunday, I searched for guitar works (only found one Spanish guitar LP, though). Another time was listening to a couple of Gershwin pieces on CD - Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (a Bernstein recording, IIRC). I know they're two well-worn works, but on my system with the Walsh 2000s, they really clicked. The dynamics were better (still not perfect), but being able to follow each musical line was thrilling - all without any congestion during the numerous crescendos. This CD was a real carnival ride! |
"Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange?" Hmm, not sure, particularly when it comes to Walsh drivers. With the Walsh drivers, I believe there is more surface area with larger drivers which you would think would have an effect. I'd have to a/b both my Walshes in the smaller room again and listen more carefully perhaps. I did not hear a clear advantage with the 5s in the smaller room prior, but perhaps I was not listening for that. I would say the mids are just a touch more dynamic perhaps with my 5s in the large room compared to 100s in the smaller, but that could easily just be an artifact of room acoustics more so than the drivers. |
And some contrary views by Ted Jordan "It would seem at first logical to design loudspeaker systems to have the widest possible angle of distribution, in fact the omni-directional design would seem ideal - actually this is quite untrue. It is now generally recognised that omni-directional systems have never been popular, although the reasons have not been appreciated, and these are: A random radiation of sound in all directions results in an excessive ratio of reflected to direct sound and the subjective quality tends to be thin and very dependent upon room acoustics. It is not possible for an omni-directional system to provide satisfactory stereophonic performance." |
I read that Ted Jordan designs conventional directional dynamic drivers. I cannot speak for use of those in an omni speaker system, ala Dueval or Morrison. THe omnis I've heard and liked (OHM and mbl) design and build drivers that are omni as opposed to using conventional drivers in an omni speaker design. |
Cdc - Have you ever heard an Ohm Walsh design? I don't say this to be nasty, I am just curious. If so, what did you think? If not, you should try to find someone near you with a pair that you can hear. Before I started my trial of the Ohm walsh 2000s, I would have probably agreed with Ted Jordan's premise. I have a difficult room, acoustically, and I expected I would end up with very directional dynamic speakers, e.g., a D'Appolito type design. This would minimize the room effects of my low ceiling and assymetrical room layout. With a 4-month in-home trial, and many positive remarks on this web site, I figured it was worthwhile to try out the Ohms. It may be that I am hearing a large amount of reflected sound, but it could be argued that many conventional dynamic loudspeakers have a very wide dispersion pattern, resulting in a large (if not as large) ratio of reflected to direct sound. Jordan might also consider that an audience at a live performance in real space, as well as any microphones employed in that space, will also hear a large amount of reflected sound. Rarely does every instrument in an orchestra beam direct sound right at each audience member's head. I can't determine why, but I would not describe the sound of the Ohm Walsh speakers as in any way "thin". That's not to say that I have never heard speakers, some of which were designed for a more omni-type dispersion pattern, that sounded thin or "phasey". But the Ohm Walsh speakers in my room do a surprisingly good job of image definition and stability. Better, in fact, than the dynamic speaker design they are being auditioned to replace. As for dependence on room acoustics, I think that applies to almost any speaker design outside of headphones. Of course, YMMV. |
I happen to think that the little Jordan driver is a fantastic device, but his subjective take on omnis can be summarily dismissed. I say this because anyone who groups all omnis as "thin" (or, for that matter, anything else)sounding is grouping Ohm with MBL and many other dissimilar sounding speakers. Other than a certain shared imaging quality, anyone attempting to paint all omnis with a common brush is just being silly. Marty |
Also, just for the record, OHMs do not have a true omni sound radiation pattern, like mbl for example. They are physically damped/attentuated with acoustic sound absorbing material inside the can in the wall facing directions. That addresses Mr. Jordan's concern to some extent and is done to enable them to work well closer to walls than true omnis like mbl which is a practical consideration for many. |
Bondmanp, not the Ohms, but I've heard Duevel's. I just remember the actual sound quality, IMHO, to be inferior to regular speakers like Epos, etc. It's been a while, but while the dimensionality was vague, it was far more natural and realistic than a box design. I hope to hear the Ohms at home when I have a suitable comparison. Should be interesting comparing a single driver "headphone for your ears" (also goes for some Audio Physic designs) vs. omni. I like the statement that you know a speaker working correctly when it is doing the soundstaging correct |
CDC, If you listen to the OHMs or mbls, the soundstage will sound way different from typical directional box designs most likely. You may have to give your ears a chance to adapt to the different presentation compared to the more directional designs. Ears that are trained to listen to more directional designs generally take some time to adapt to the omni presentation based on my experience. It took me a couple of weeks to tune in to my OHM 100S3s (Super Walsh 2s) even after having owned original Walsh 2s for years. The two are mostly similar in appearance except the newer 100S3s use a newer flavor of the OHM CLS driver with a different tweeter that delivers better soundstage, imaging, focus and clarity, and tonal balance top to bottom. I have owned various other speaker designs including large Maggie planars concurrently with OHMs over the years. Omnis are a different beast to digest all together from any of those. Once your ears adjust, I find you will hear more similarities in the imaging/soundstage of the OHMs compared to other modern designs that also do imaging and soundstage very well, though omnis will always retain a fairly unique presentation from other designs I believe. |
Mapman, I DID like the soundstaging of the Duevel's. I was referring the the quality of the drivers, not the spatial effects. Thinking out loud: Single driver: I would describe the soundstaging as transporting you to the event. When in the sweet spot, it's like your are there. Omni's more bring the event to your room. This is good as one dealer commented, a quality of a good stereo is that it can be enjoyed by everyone, no matter where they sit. Bad as the omni concept could be basically flawed because, unless the recording is done in an anechoic chamber, it already brings it own spatialilty to the recording and omni's just add room reverb to what is always on the recording, confusing the issue. Actually IMHO neither single driver or omni is the best. The best concept is the waveguide. His prices are pretty reasonable too. Even polar response = equal power response and may be one reason why B&W sound good, despite all their other faults. Sounds like Ohm does the same thing by dampening the side which faces the front wall. |
CDC, Who's to say what the best concept is? There are many different designs out there with various strengths and weaknesses . No one design works best always for everyone. Personally, new designs that think out of the box and attempt to make top notch sound affordable to more people and designs with a focus on doing whatever it is they do best are the ones that generally catch my interest. |
CDC, The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor. Quads do not sound very much like Soundlabs, yet both are electrostats. Vandy's model 2 doesn't sound like any Thiel that I've heard, yet both trumpet the exclusive use of 1st order x-overs. Ohm and MBL couldn't sound more dissimilar if they tried, yet both are omnis. Whichever design approach is employed, octave to octave balance can vary all over the board and this alone will be very, very audible. Re: Jordan's specific comments. Ironically, his observations were almost surely based on on-axis frequency response measurements to the exclusion of power response measurements. In most environments, omnipolar speakers will sound relatively "thinner" (more treble energy for a given amount of mid and bass) than direct radiators, if you measure for flat on-axis response. On-axis measurements don't capture all of the reflected energy so the omnis are providing more treble energy than the on-axis measurement reflects (sorry for the pun). Of course, as Jordan notes, some of this will be room dependant. OTOH, if you measure for flat power response, the omnis are likely to show a better correlation between measured data and what you actually hear. They will not sound "thin" unless they measure "thin". My observations on this matter are based on my own experience using both on-axis and power measurements in my room with speakers using just about every radiation patern you can think of. I'd add that this point doesn't validate the use of power response, it merely points out that different designs tend to perform best on different tests. My main point here is that using any FR test measurement to make a point like Jordan's is deceiving. No single test that I've ever seen is particularly reliable in predicting the way a speaker will sound in a given listening room. And the test you choose will tend to either validate or diminish the performance of one design vs. another, irrespective of the way that said speaker actually sounds. I'm pretty sure that Ted Jordan knows this all too well. His comments should not be taken for an attempt to educate, but rather should be understood as an attempt to market his product. More power to him - and you could do worse than buying one of the better single driver Jordan based loudspeakers, like Carolina Audio. Marty |
"But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?" I find directional speakers in general to be an unnatural way to reproduce sound naturally. Some designs do it very well, but to me sound in the real world is largely not directional in nature (save perhaps at a live amplified concert event of some sort). Having said that, in lieu of having studied waveguide theory in detail, my gut feel regarding waveguides is that they may be a useful approach if done correctly, but as was pointed out the key would be in the execution, which I could only judge were I to hear it. Theory alone seldom describes real world phenomena completely, especially in nit picky areas like hi fidelity audio. |
Cdc: FWIW, I am upgrading to Ohm Walsh 2000s from Vandersteen 1Cs. In my room, with my gear, the 1Cs actually produced a different, but similarly 3-D soundstage as the Ohms. I was surprised by this, to say the least. I have noted above that the 1Cs actually extended into the room more than the Ohms. The 1C is a 2-way design with a minimal baffle, and open top plate. So, technically, it is not a basic dynamic "monkey coffin" design. I will repeat that the Walsh 2000s do a better job of localizing performers and maintaining a stable image than the Vandys did. If I keep the Ohms, it won't be because of an improved soundstage over the Vandys; it will be because they offer better imaging, almost no congestion at peak levels, amazing truth in timbre, and good low-level detail retrieval. IOW, the Ohm Walsh's are anything but a one-trick pony, which is how I think many people think of them until they hear them. The more I think about this, the more credit I give to the Ohm's design, which is as close to a single-driver design as possible, with a super-tweeter that comes in at about 8kHz, IIRC. Note that even the MBL, and, I think, the Duevels, use more standard crossover points in a multi-driver configuration. That said, I have never heard a single driver design that I could live with. These were mostly at shows, but I found they sounded "peaky" in the upper mids and lower treble - exactly the range that I find very smooth on the Ohm Walsh 2000s. Although the bass reproduction was also dissappointing on these single-driver designs, I could, and do, live with subwoofers. Since my hearing is very sensitive in the upper-mid/lower-treble range, the Ohms provide a very enjoyable listening experience for me. They are not rolled off in this range, but I think they just lack the roughness and distortions that all but the most expensive crossovers seem to exhibit. YMMV, of course. |
I took a chance and ordered a pair of the micro talls back in September. I wish I'd discovered Ohm in the 70's. The micro talls are the most revealing, room filling, addictive speakers I've ever owned. These speakers make me want to re-listen to all the music I have, and I've never had the urge to do that with any other speakers I've heard or owned. I've had a Carver audio component in the past with the Sonic Holography feature, and the Ohms give the same 3-D presentation without being stuck in a "sweet spot". Sometimes when I'm listening with my eyes closed, I feel like I'm listening with my headphones. I can't recomend ohm speakers enough. For anyone looking for a new set of speakers, you'd be foolish not to try the 120 day home trial with a money back guarantee. The only way Ohm will ever get these speakers back is if I choose to upgrade, or they come and pry them from my cold, dead fingers |
The most remarkable audio illusion I experienced with the Ohms was when I was listening to environmental CD of breaking surf with the sound of seagulls, with eyes closed the room disappeared, it sounded as if I was really there on the beach. If salt air and a breeze were added I think someone could be fooled if they did not know better. |
CDC, Regarding omnis and added reverb. You could look at this another way: Every speaker is an omni. For signals below 150hz or so. So called "Omnis" merely continue this radiation pattern throughout the audible frequency range. From this viewpoint, your question should read: "What happens to the intended reverb on a recording when you effectively remove that intended reverb by restricting the radiation pattern above 150 hz?" It is your phrasing that begs the question. There is no "default" reproduction dispersion pattern - unless you believe that the recording was intended for replay in a specific environment. That's because every room impacts the response of every speaker system differently, with a single commonality: There is - generally speaking - an increasingly destructive impact as frequency drops into the bass range, where all speakers provide omnipolar dispersion. Bummer. As to my opinion of "waveguides", the phrase is used in many ways, so it's hard to respond. I assume that you mean a (truncated) horn, as this is IME the most common usage. My (rather limited) experience here is pretty similar to that for other designs. Zingalis - which I own - sound different from SAP and Avantegarde, the two other horn systems with which I'm rather familiar. OTOH, the later two are full blown horns, rather than truncated "waveguides" so we may not be talking strictly apples to apples here. Like the broad similarities in imaging between omni designs, I would note that different horn/waveguide designs can share the ability to mitigate damage from difficult rooms or difficult positioning in better rooms. The effect of this (obviously) varies from room to room. In a well designed room, it may prove either beneficial or disadvantageous - or both, varying with your program choices. Beyond that, I'd say that these designs vary as widely in overall tonality as most other designs. If your room presents issues, then find a speaker with appropriate restrictions to dispersion. This might mean a waveguide/horn or maybe a planar design with little output to the sides. Just recognize that this doesn't mean that such a design will be superior in a different environment. Horses for courses, you could say. And, either way, you have to then find an example that works for you tonally. Again IMO and IME. Marty |
Joefish, I've always been something of a "soundstage addict," myself. I even owned in the 1980's (and still have in a box somewhere) a Carver Sonic Hologram Generator. The theory was the the C-9 injected a certain amount of out-of-phase info into the output signal, so as to "cancel interaural crosstalk..." precisely, as you say, to create a "headphone" experience through speaker systems. As I remember, the C-9 had only two control buttons, each with a Hi/Low toggle: "Injection Ratio" controlled the intensity of the effect. "Listening Window" controlled the size of the "sweet spot." The pleasantness or unpleasantness of the C-9 depended heavily on the source material. Some material could sound artificially echoey and weird. Tracks that had voices or instruments panned totally to the left or right channel (think some Beatles tunes, for example) tended to really show off the effect: you'd hear sounds coming from way, way beyond the outer, physical boundaries of the speakers. It was not unlike what you get from the SRS processing in some boom boxes today. In my setup, the Ohm "holography" is more subtle. It has more to do with retrieval of a sense of ambience, if that makes any sense. And some sounds/ instruments will fill the listening space in a very convincing and pleasing way. John Strohbeen once said to me that the CLS driver's soundstaging characteristics tended to shine on two very different kinds of recordings: purist, live recordings with minimal miking, and heavily processed studio tracks where the engineer has deliberately manipulated phase artifacts to give the illusion of spaciousness. |
Rebbi, Thanks for your imput. I tend to agree that the carver sonic holography could be either wonderful or horrible depending on the character of the recordings. I had wanted to do the sonic holography again, but the $5000.00 price tag on their ultimate reciever killed that idea right away. I followed all your threads, and have taken your suggestions on some of the best demo recordings to check out. Brothers in Arms and Steely Dan Gaucho left me pretty amazed. One of the newer recordings that you might want to check out is the new black eye peas "the end" which has some jaw dropping effects, and is a great demo when you want to show people what your speakers can do. Also, anything by Sade, I know that you mentioned Promise, but her later stuff has a lot more bass and bottom end in general, and are a real treat to listen to. I'm blissfully happy with my micro talls, as I had Acoustic Research speakers in the past (I worked for them in the 70's) and also had experience with many other brands. The micro talls blow them all away. I'll never go back to conventional box speakers again. After reading your comments about your 100's, it makes me want to upgrade, but I'll have to wait for more $$$ to come in before I take the plunge. Take care and Merry Christmas!!! |
I still have my Carver pre-amp with sonic holography around as a spare. Agree about the ups and downs with sonic holography. I bought the Carverand used it primarily with Magneplanars back in the eighties. The Walsh 2s I also owned never seemed to benefit, nor the newer OHMs that I tried it with a while back just to see (hear). The down that often ruined SH for me (other than the small sweet spot) was that I noticed it almost always tended to degrade the authority in the low end as a side effect of opening things up. |
My wife hid the Walsh 5000s that I had ordered from John in early November. I assumed that I wouldn't recieve them until after the New Year since Ohm shuts down for a two week holiday at the end of December. Anyway, it was a nice surprise to get them on Christmas day. Of course I had to postpone setting them up until after entertaining family and neighbors. I will give a full review after a few days of listening and utilizing a wide variety of genres. Let me just say that the news is good, very good. The Walsh 5000s sound fluid, dimensional and very dynamic fresh out of the box (unlike the Walsh 5 Series 3 which were tight-arse out of the box and needed several hard hours of breakin). There are two areas where the improvements/refinements are very obvious. I am very very pleased with what I am hearing but will wait before providing further details. Merry Christmas all! |
Mamboni, where in the world did your wife hide those big things? That would be a rather nice surprise! Looking forward to reading about your impressions. I am going to talk to John once their end-of-year shutdown is over about getting the 3000 series drivers for my Walsh 3's. I had been listening to the 2000 series drivers mounted to one of my friend's Walsh 2's, very nice indeed. Now that I have a very nice set of 3XO cabinets, the 2000's will be going back to John for the 3000's. I have to say the newer drivers are a very nice upgrade from the original drivers! Much smoother and not so "peaky" in the treble region. Bass is a bit tighter and deeper. A high recomendation if you have an older pair of Walsh's that haven't been back to Ohm for a tune-up. Would love to have a pair of 5000's someday, but the 3000 should fit my listening room very well. Enjoy your music, and Happy Holidays to all! Tim |
After I posted that, I got to thinking that you probably only got the driver upgrade. Those are still some pretty decent-sized packages! Again, what a nice surprise! Did you get new grills or will your older ones fit? I am really looking forward to the 3000's, based on what I had heard with the 2000's in my room, the 3000 should be even better yet! I tried the 2000's on top of my 3XO cabinets, but the top driver board that comes with the 2000 upgrade wasn't quite big enough to work properly. I could have made a new top board, but in the end I just thought it would be best to just go for the 3000's. Hopefully that will be just a drop-in replacement versus the OW2/2000 new driver board. My initial plan was to have my own pair of OW2's, but one of them got destroyed by UPS(Oops), so most of my testing/listening was done with a friend's pair of old 2's. Glad he was able to do without them for awhile. Am thinking about maybe getting a pair of micro-talls at a later time for my rear surrounds. Will see. Enjoy those new 5000's! Tim |
Congrats, Mamboni! Enjoy the 5000 drivers. Frazeurl: FWIW, one of the reasons I went with the Ohm Walsh speakers is that the entire Walsh series is designed to have very similar sound, just scaled for different cubic-footage listening rooms. Of course, I would expect peak output level and bass extension to increase with size, but otherwise, the entire X000 series is supposed to be pretty similar. I have a question for Ohm Walsh owners: I am going to write John about this, but lately (about 2.5 months into 4 month trial period), I am noticing a bid of forwardness in the low-to-mid midrange, I would guess about 300-400Hz. It shows up on many, but not all, recordings. It is especially noticeable on piano and horn content. Some notes in this range project out in amplitude above the rest, sounding forced, strained, and a bit distorted. Is this another temporary break-in stage? My 2000s have seasoned dramatically over the 2.5 months I have had them. Some treble sharpness and upper-mid glare have smoothed out very nicely, and macro-dynamic range has improved a bit, too. However, I am still hoping the dynamic punch will get better still. But this issue in the lower-mids is quite disturbing, lending the 2000s a forced sound that is not very natural. My big fear is that it is cabinet-related - a resonance issue. However, I don't recall this being a problem until the last week or two, so that implies it is a break-in issue. As long as it is temporary, like the upper-mid sharpness that came and went in a couple of weeks, I should be okay with the 2000s. This issue is unfortunate, as in other aspects, these speakers are incredible. I appreciate any thoughts you guys might have. |
Bondmanp, interesting as I had a bit of the same issue as well, it seemed more like a small midbass hump. It didn't seem to matter where I positioned the speakers, further away from the wall, closer, whatever, it seemed to stay there. It really wasn't very irritating, but there nonetheless. This was with 2000 series drivers in an OW2 cabinet, which I might add was not in the best of shape either. I kept with it though, had them running for the better part of 3 months and it did smooth out some. I found it did not take long for the treble to break-in if at all, it seemed very smooth and detailed right form the get-go. The bass/midrange was a little more problematic. The last time I listened to the 2000 series drivers they were a bit better in the midbass. Unfortunately, my OW2's were borrowed and I had to return them, so my testing was cut a bit short. I have since found some really nice OW3XO cabinets that I have talked to John about in trading my 2000 series drivers in for 3000's. I am going to put that in motion when they get back from the Holiday shutdown. I do think it is a break-in thing though, as I felt like mine were beginning to smooth out as time went by. I did do one interesting little thing with my 2000 drivers before I boxed them up. Once I didn't have any OW2 cabinets, I placed the driver cans on top of a couple of plastic milk-crates just to store them so the driver surrounds wouldn't be touching anything until I had time to pack them up right(They come packed on a wooden board that is cut out from the factory). I thought hmmm, wonder what these things would sound like without the cabinet. So I put 2 milk crates on top of each other for both left and right speakers, and kind of set the 2000 drivers and their mounting boards across the opening of the crate. Fired them up and listened to them for quite awhile. There was no real bass below about 60-70 Hz or so, but man, that midrange and sweet treble was to die for. These things were just floating the nicest image in my room, almost better than with the OW2 cabinets. If I would have had the time, I actually thought about dragging my Velodyne subs out and trying them together just for the fun of it. It was an interesting little listen, I wasn't looking to really take anything in particular away from my experiment, but what I did come away with is that John really knows how to voice a speaker and to make some very basic drivers sound really great together! It was like listening to a small monitor yet with all the wonderful goodness that an Ohm Walsh brings to the table, minus the bass of course. I don't know that my description does it justice really, but I have to say it was fun. Again, my admiration for what John and crew do is pretty high up on my ladder. Needless to say, I can't wait for John to get back from vacation(sorry John and company)and get the ball rolling for the 3000's. Enjoy your music, and of course those Ohm's! Tim |
Tim / Frazeur1 - Thanks. That's a huge relief to hear. As it happens, I listened to a classical disc last night, a CD version of an old RCA Red Seal: Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No.2; Beethoven: Piano Concerto No.5 "Emperor", with Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and Van Cliburn on piano. The Beethoven sounded so-so, with some of the thickness I had described above. The Rachmaninoff, however, sounded much better, with much less of the lower-midrange push that was bothering me. I know I was really enjoying this piece, since I cursed everytime I had to pause it due to telephone calls (some of which I just let go to my answering machine). This is the second time that another Ohm Walsh owner has had the identical break-in experience as what I am experiencing. Really amazing, IMO. I will continue to run the 2000s in and keep you all posted. |
Bondmanp, I forgot another thing that I tried in regards to the mid-bass hump, in the OW2 cabinet, there is a layer/blanket of acoustic dampening material or whatever it is, and I was able to actually move mine around, basically up or down at various levels within my cabinet. It made small differences, nothing earth shattering. I am not sure how the newer cabinets are filled, I had thought they were pretty much stuffed to the gills with the stuff. If you continue to be put off by this mid-bass issue, I strongly encourage you to not only give it some more time, but also talk with John about it when convenient. He might have some suggestions that you can try with regards to positioning and maybe even some of the fibre fill in the cabinet or the port. I think too, it is or can be difficult to diagnose these kind of problems as there are so many things that it could be-or not be for that matter. I find most of my displeasure usually comes from the recordings themselves, not the gear. But we all have certain references that we go by, and it is your ears that you have to satisfy! Don't give up on them yet! I really think that John is very willing to go the extra mile to make sure his customers are happy with their purchase. Hopefully your 2000's will work out well for you. Enjoy! Tim |
Bond, One other thought: I've measured the in-room response of my Ohms and they are actually very neutral relative to many of the other high end speakers that I've owned. They are neither elevated nor underdamped through the upper bass, which may cause them to sound "leaner" than some other speakers. Similarly, they are not "goosed" through the presence region, which can cause them to sound a bit more recessed or less dynamic than many other high end designs. If your previous speakers had both of these characteristics, you might perceive the change of tonal balance in the Ohms as "mid-range forward". Just a thought. Marty |
Probably break-in. Newer 1000 series wit different drivers could break in differently than the prior incarnations. Something I have found worth keeping in mind is ICs used make a huge difference in tonal balance, impact, attack and most other sonic attributes as well. From my experience, I'm recommending the DNM Reson ICs for use with the OHMs. They are all business only and sound absolutely fantastic, dare I say near perfect in every way. |
Frazeur1, Martykl, Mapman: All good thoughts. I am not the kind of guy who opens up gear or speakers (except maybe to change a tube), so whatever is inside the cabinets of the 2000s will stay there. Also, it is not really a mid-bass hump; it's much higher up than that, perhaps in the lower mids, 300-400Hz. And remember this is a newer phenomenon, only a few weeks old. That's why I think it is a break-in issue. Listened last night to a CD of Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique. There was very little of the aberation I was hearing in this range. Jury is still out. I agree that a speaker that resolves this well will benefit from improvements in ancillary items like cabling, as well as electronics. Lean times are going to keep me from trying these things for at least a few months. And when I do have the cash, first priority are those spiked bases from Sound Anchors. |
