Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

I'd like to see some unbiased reviews of D-Sonic M3 versus M2 to find out what the difference really is.

I don't know. D-Sonic gives very little info. But I do trust and believe the company if they think M3 series is an improvement over M2.

Tobeornottobe,

I am also interested in Class D now that I have a new pair of Ohms. What's the difference between the M2 Series and M3? When you go to D-Sonic's landing page, it features their M2 series but clicking anywhere on the page, you then see some info on the M3 series. All it says on that page: "The M3 Series offers improved Class D technology". Not much help there...

Good news. Looks like D-Sonic has upgraded their amp lines to new M3 models.

Bondman, that is weird, but your ears are the judge here. Serious clipping isn't subtle in my experience. They'd know. Though I do wonder if something was wrong with that amp.

You're on to something with class D amps. My tech was showing me some pro-audio OEM units he makes out of standardized modules: cool, clean, insane power, and TINY! I think we'll be seeing a lot of these amps in some shape and form in the future.

Jwc2012: To answer your post, I have an Odyssey Stratos HT3 w/ cap upgrade. Not sure of the headroom, but I was very surprised to hear it clip. I thought it was room accoustics until I borrowed a pair of Class D 500 watt mono blocks, and the issues pretty much dissappeared. I do listen loud, but not crazy loud, I would guess 80-90 dB is not unusual. But, my room is 2800 c.f., and fairly "dead". Perhaps there is an issue with the amp. While still under warrenty, I did have to have a leaky cap replaced. However, this 65 lb. beast costs a fortune to ship, and I really preferred the overall sonic results I got with those Class D amps, so I would want to upgrade anyway. I will move the Odyssey to power the center and surrounds in my combo stereo/HT rig once I upgrade to a more powerful amp. I know this sounds a bit weird, but I am trusting my ears on this one.

Finsup, keep us posted on how your 5000s burn in. Any comparisons to prior OW generations and other versions/models welcome too.

Yes, danceability--for lack of another term--is usually an underrated quality. I think Ohm Walshes sound like real people hear in real acoustic spaces (in a good way, not the way MY now noticeably aging ears hear in my living room). (;-) I think you could describe the sound as organic, as distinct from ananlytical.

JC

Aww . . . you guys have put a big smile on my face. Happy belated fathers' day!

Dancability factor is a very useful speaker metric that is often overlooked.....:^)

Finsup nice story about dancing with your son. A few weeks ago my 20 year old daughter had a few girlfriends over and I blasted Nick Curran and the Nitelifes "Down Boy Down" through my Ohm Walsh 3's and within seconds they were all dancing and jumping around the room, priceless!

OK guys, long time reader and sometimes contributor to this thread - but only in the way of questions. Well, about a week ago, I received a pair of 5000s.

Bummer.

Why? I had told John I did not need delivery until after the 4th but between John's ears and the shipping department, wires were crossed. I won't be able to listen to them much until after the 4th. In fact. I only hooked them up today.

Still, they are so much fun, even right out of the box. And the sweet spot? It is nearly the width of the room.

You may think I am daft but because I had other work to do and my special needs son was listening to some 70s music on his HTIB, I decided to bring him downstairs and we put on his 70s disc. And I retreated to my office.

And listened from another room. Wow, pretty good from another room.

And then.

Robert John's version of "The Lion Sleeps tonight" came on. I hurried out of the room and began dancing with my son. Ha! Next up. The " Coconut" song by Harry Nilsson came on.

Made me want to make "Midnight Margaritas" about 7 hours early.

So far, even out of the box, the speakers are great.

Back later with some more listening impressions.

When I was in the process of comparing and upgrading a pair of OW2's to the new 2000 series drivers, I did not notice a big change at all in the two different speakers sensitivities and ability to play well at lower volumes with the impact and resolution that I would get at higher levels. With my 3XO upgrade to the 3000 series drivers, it seemed different to me, and I likened it to my Magnepan MMG's, they just seemed to open up at higher volume levels, not just the bass end, but the mids and treble as well. With the older 3XO can, they seemed to play better at lower levels on up. Maybe I just have cloth ears, who knows?

The above was with an Anthem MCA 20 amplifier at 225 wpc, and also an ARC D-130 at 130 wpc in a moderate listening space. Everyone's mileage may differ, and probably will.

Enjoy your 2000 upgrade John! Keep us posted! Tim

Map and Bond, I am VERY happy to hear your low volume impressions. I ordered the upgrade to the 2000s a few days ago. I was a bit uncertain about it, in part because of this issue. You guys have helped stiffened my spine.

Bondman, your clipping problem is puzzling. It's probably buried somewhere in this now endless thread, but what's your amp and how much headroom is it supposed to have? How loud are you driving the music (peak/non-peak) when your system runs into trouble? It would be surprising to me if that much wattage would clip at non-deafening levels. Does the amp ever seem to run out of gas on non-peak volume? Could there be a problem with the amp--maybe the power supply caps?

Jwc,

I also have a pair of small Triangle Titus XS monitors. These have been acknowledged by many over the years as champions at low volume and I would agree. They convinced me that dynamic speakers could be as fast and detailed at low volumes as planars like the Maggies I had had for years, which were also low volume champs. I had the original Walsh 2s also still at the same time, and in comparisons of the Walsh 2s against the Maggies and Triangles at low to moderate volumes, the Walsh 2s left something to be desired.

The newer OHM Walshes at lower volume are pretty much the darn equal of the Triangles at lower volumes I would say, although of course the overall way the music is presented is night and day, the usual OHM/omni versus more directional design thing.

I will second Mapman's post. My 2000s sound wonderfull at lower volumes. So good, that when they are playing at moderate background levels, I will often stop to listen, even though I have things to do. And that's usually with low-res Pandora or internet radio! I did try my 2000s with an older Onkyo AVR, rated at 80 watts/channel, and even full range, the sound was surprisingly good. That said, my 150 watt/channel amp is clipping on sustained peaks in the midrange, and I am totally focused on upgrading to something much more powerful. But financially, that's about year away.

JWC,

I was not referring to clipping, though that is certainly always something to be concerned about. I was referring more to dynamic headroom, the drivers ability to pressurize the air in the room highly at higher volumes, especially at lower frequencies. The assumption is the amp is NOT clipping and not the bottleneck. Bottom line is I have never found the OHMs to be the bottleneck in achieving this, even with my current 500 w/ch Class D amps, which throw the most power and current the OHMs way of any amp I have ever used with them.

You hig the nail on the head I think regarding the way the driver operating in Walsh transmission line mode rather than pistonic helps utilize surface area better and reduce excursion magnitude. That is exactly how I think it works. Just not sure I could point to anything concrete or documented to support that theory.

2's and 2XOs are gen 1 Walshes. More recent revisions are much more refined, including at low volumes. I can vouch for that in that I actually compared my original Wash 2s to my newer 100S3 based Walsh 2 models in side by side a/b comparisons when I still had both. Night and day!!! Soon after I traded in my old Walsh 2s towards my current F5s.

Map, if the problem is clipping, that would be be amp flinching rather than the speakers. Still, the difficulty in driving Ohm Walshes--even the originals (but not the A or F)--is often exaggerated.

The great high volume performance may be due to the way the surface area of the speaker is used to radiate sound. The physical excursion of the cone material should be shorter and perhaps the effective surface area (or the efficiency of its utilization) is greater.

But the OW's ability to go loud may be the flip side of a weakness of the design--I've found that my 2s and 2XOs sound best when played quite loud and tend to lose more detail, resolution, and reproduction of spatial cues at low volume than I'd like. This is, in part, recording dependent, but I don't get the same loss of detail, etc. at lower volume with my conventional speakers. I'm hoping an upgrade to the 2000s helps to address this limitation of the early OW models. It would end an endless family battle for control over the volume knob! I'd like to hear others' impressions of later series' performance at low volume.

The reason the walsh's do so well at high volume are:

1) simple crossover design at relatively high frequency limits what the tweeter is asked to do

2) The Walsh drivers used tend to be larger than most drivers used in most speakers for comparable price. The driver in my current F5 series3 OHMs are the largest I believe and look to be about 10 inches in diameter. Back in the 70's selling stereos at Tech Hifi, 10" seemed to be the right size for most speakers capable of going loud and clear in larger rooms. 8" was good for smaller rooms. Drivers nowadays are improved and smaller to achieve similar performance to most back then I think.

3) The OHM CLS Walsh driver operation seems to lend itself very well to achieving high output levels with minimal stress or breakup compared to typical pistonic dynamic speaker operation, though why this is the case is not totally clear to me.

I have NEVER heard ANY OHM Walsh speaker flinch at any volume level. THat's a unique aspect of them all since day 1. I once set up my original Walsh 2s outside on a farmhouse porch for a party going on in a field extending 50 yards or more in front. That was the BEST I ever heard the Walsh 2s sound, literally like Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac, UB40 etc. were performing live on the porch. That off my old gorgeus and classic 80 watt/ch Tandberg TR2080 receiver.

Coot, don't overdo it on toeing out. I've found the toeing out the Ohms very slightly improves the treble further away without detracting noticeably from the soundstage or image. You can barely notice, unless looking carefully up close, that the cabinets are not perfectly squared. I suppose the relatively wide dispersion of the tweeters allows for this.

Thanks Bondman. I've never been clear on the meaning of "energizing the room." Not being much of a bass head, I have to say I've pretty happy with the low end with my original 2s and the 2XOs, especially within my listening zone (sitting all the way across the room is a different story). My room has a hardwood floor over a crawl space that seems to be conducive to bass. It is also a very live room with lots of wall space to the sides that tends. To broaden the soundstage beyond the speakers. Bookshelves and a fireplace serve to break up the rear reflections.

My vintage Sansui with 90 wpc (@ 8 ohms) handles them with no apparent difficulty. John S told me that this amp should do fine with the 2000s, which are a slightly easier load, but that the bass would be subdued in a slightly oversized room. I haven't heard trace of clipping, even if I play them loud. Old Sansuis had killer power supplies and were allegedly conservatively rated.

Thanks, Mapman. I knew this, but like I said, I like the squared-off look. I'll talk to John to see if there's any reason the cans can't be pivoted 30-degrees or so. That would take care of it for my room.

OHM Walshes by default are NOT fully omnidirectional There is a separate tweeter that is directional above 7khz or so angled inwards normally. That works to produce widest soundstage by default. I have dabbled with angling out for more direct exposure as well. Nothing wrong with that. I find when I do, soundstage narrows but tonal brightness increases in "sweet spot" due to direct tweeter exposure.

JS changes this configuration to make it more omnidirectional in some special cases, including special requests.

I like things squared up as much as possible, so when I first installed my 5000s, I set them facing straight forwards. I have been happy with the sound, but being an audiophile ("It's good but maybe it can be better."), the other day I was adjusting them to angle outwards so the label points towards the seating more.

My wife wanted to know why. If they are omnidirectional, what difference should it make? I truly did not have a good answer other than because there's a sticker - that's why. I knew my answer didn't satisfy either one of us, so what should I have said?

"I thought that I had read somewhere that the driver materials or something was different between the 1000/2000 series and the 3000/4000 series. "

That's possible but do not know. John Strohbeen would.

I do recall reading Walsh drivers in latest X000 series are of different materials than in past, I think.

thanks

I thought that I had read somewhere that the driver materials or something was different between the 1000/2000 series and the 3000/4000 series.

Just curious, it would not persaude me from buying one over the other.

In fact I have two 3000s and a center channel in Sapele on order. Talking with John I didn't think to ask and I didn't want to bother him with a call back (I had talked with him several times as it was and a couple of emails too).

Thanks for all the info in this thread. It was very useful

Mapman is spot-on. I do own a pair of MWTs, the previous version to the current one, and the sonics are quite similar to my 2000s. My Walsh center channel speaker is perfect match to my 2000s.

"Besides size how do the Ohm Walsh 2000 and 3000 series differ?"

Size of the speaker/enclosure, size of the Walsh driver, and size of the room that the speaker is capable of producing full range sound in accordingly.

Larger rooms generally require larger speakers to achieve similar good results, especially in the lowest frequency range. All Walsh models in the line are designed to sound equally good in rooms of various sizes. No need to buy larger more expensive models if a smaller one fits the bill. That's a fairly unique aspect of the OHM Walsh line.

Besides size how do the Ohm Walsh 2000 and 3000 series differ?

Thanks

Jwc2012: I have a pair of 2000s in a 2800 c.f. basement. Although you might be sitting nearfield (I sit 9' back), the speaker doesn't know or care where you are sitting. It is going to fill the enite space. Even with powered subs, crossed over, 1st order, at 80Hz, my 150 watt/channel amp is clipping in the midrange. So, if you are going to run the 2000 cans full range, make sure you have enough juice, and check with John at Ohm to make sure the 2000 cans will work. If I had a lot more money and a little more space, I would have gone with the 3000s. Just my $0.02.

BTW, the new OHM website is back up and looking good. Lots of interesting new info there to soak in. Pics of some current products mentioned still missing though.

3200 cu ft is just past the high end on the OHM site chart for 2000's, but that does not mean they might not fit the bill. Probably best to talk to John Strohbeen.

Thanks Map. That's very helpful.

Any thoughts on the fit between the 2000s and the 3200 cu ft room size?

Anyone else care to chime in?

"What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging. "

I had Walsh 2s before current series 3 models.

detail, resolution, and stability and precision of imaging are exactly the things that changed the most for the better.

The newer models are competitive with other modern quality speakers in these regards. The original 2s were clearly not.

I'm thinking of upgrading from my 2XOs to the current generation 2000 drivers mounted on my existing g cabinets (love the old pyramidal look, so I'm looking at the upgrade package).

Before I pull the trigger and sink the money I to this, I'd love to hear thoughts on the upgrade and any comparisons between the original 2XOs (or 2s) and the new 2000s. How do they compare? What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging.

Background info:
Room size = 16 x 35 x 8 (approx 3200 cu ft), slightly larger than recommended for the 2000s, but divided into a dining and living room areas. My listening area takes up less than half the total space, and I'm seated 12' from the back wall and 10' from the speakers.
Amp = vintage Sansui AU-D707 (same as AU-819) w/ 90 wpc (excellent sound, rarely turn volume past 9 o'clock).
Sources = Rotel 1080, Squeezebox Duet run through a SMSL dac.

Any thoughts or advice appreciated! Thanks!

"What do these OHM Walsh speakers look like with the black mesh can removed? Does anyone have a link?"

"OHM Walsh" related Google searches usually turns up some, mostly of older 1st gen models that people dissect either to try to fix or just to see what's in there. Haven't seen pics inside newer models. Can't imagine it is too different or much prettier. Plus, JS is known to customize to tailor to customers needs, so I'm sure there can be many variations.

Having the driver hidden inside the can for protection and aesthetics certainly has a lot of benefits in terms of what can be done to improve the sound cost effectively without having to worry about how it looks.

My understanding is a different tweeter was used in series 3 versus series 2. Latest X000 series uses a different Walsh driver made of different materials as well I have read, but do not recall details. SOund of newer models is advertised as "evolutionary, not revolutionary".

What do these OHM Walsh speakers look like with the black mesh can removed? Does anyone have a link?

Finally got a picture posted on my members page with speaker on granite underspikes with cradle around so speaker wont roll off

I have just recently become aware of the HHR Exotics company who also build speakers based on the Lincoln Walsh drivers. Anyone have personal experience with these?

Mapman, that coincides exactly with my personal experience with the 200 mkIIs. I drove them with 32 watts of tube power for years. On the few occasions that I experienced amplifier clipping, it was in every case very dynamic low frequency reproduction that caused it. The bad part, amps were not being pushed harder than normal and no warning. Also more likely to occur with better than average recordings. Fortuneately no damage ever done. Musically the combination was excellent.

I was re-reading a detailed technical review with detailed bench measurements of the older Walsh 200 mkII Here.

The impedance measured mostly between 8 and 25 ohms for most of the frequency range, down to 40 hz or so where the port kicks in, at which point it dropped to below 4 OHMs. That with all the rest there seems to indicate the OHMs are not as tube amp unfriendly as many conventional designs, except in the very low end bass, where tube amp unfriendly low impedences are often common as designs attempt to become more full range without achieving mammoth sized proportions. This is consistent with those here who have observed that tube amp + OHMs + subwoofer is a very good combo. If you can take the port out of play, then the OHMs become quite tube amp friendly it would seem. At least in the case of 200 MkIIs. I have not seen similar charts for newer models, but I would be very surprised if much changed for the worse in this particular department over time.

At 100 wpc, the $1,500 Wyred4Sound mini integrated would be great with the Ohm Walsh Micro Talls.

Today is my first day looking into speakers as I am coming from headphones. I came across the MWT and seems like I'll like them and they're pretty much a bargain for the performance. My problem is, I have no clue where to start and what I need in order to drive these properly. I have no idea what sounds best with what; my knowledge is all on headphones. I'm about to purchase the Matrix Audio X-Sabre DAC but I'm not sure now that I want to get into speakers and rid myself of the Audeze LCD3 and HD800. Could anyone suggest a speaker set up, all components totalling $3000? Set up is going to be for a small/medium sized bedroom; originally I was intending to get bookshelf speakers but I'm not sure.

I asked John about them and he said maybe he could use my existing drivers and a 15" to do a custom pair. I am not thrilled with the prospect of shipping my 5000s 3,000 miles to him, however. I'm afraid it's gonna be awhile before I seriously take it up with him. It's just speculation for now, but it's nice to know it can be done.

"Oh, and the sub based on the old F cabinet looks like it might be a beast!"

How can you tell? I wanted to see it but could not find a photo."

Coot, I briefly had a pair of F's. The bass out of those cabs was pretty startling. I can only imagine what they can do as a dedicated sub. Purely conjecture on my part, of course!

I remember when I ordered my WMT's, John was not thrilled with another black ash order, and he tried his best to guide me into choosing another finish. Not that he was hard-selling me, just using his gentle suggestion approach.

But it's still my favorite finish. With the lights out, they really do disappear quite nicely. Four years later and I am still amazed at how elements 'float' across the soundstage. These speakers are just uncanny- I've yet to hear anything quite like them!

I got my 5000's back a couple of weeks ago and they sound bettter than ever. Tweeter fixed and more protection. Bass is tighter also. Also toe'd them out a bit and treble more audible. Also upgraded to Bryston BP25 preamp to drive my Bryston 14BSST. A great speaker company. I look forward to each and every listening session.

Bond, that was why I said "within an amplifiers capability and not clipping" bit. Once that happens all bets are off, but I do understand what you mean, tubes are a bit more graceful when they clip, or can be, and I suppose the argument could be made that tubes even when running within their limits, still have distortion figures quite a bit higher than solid state in general, it is just a more pleasurable distortion if you will. Still I find so many claims of tube amplification sounding like "more watts than solid state" to be somewhat silly. Anyway, I should just let it slide really. No big deal.

I am sure John will do you black finish on your surrounds/rear channels too still. It is too popular to not do it. It is just good to see the website take on a major improvement after all these years!

Take care Bond and all. Enjoy the tunes. Tim

Coot, a SET would not work for the Ohms. A push-pull of high wattage (such as a McIntosh, would need about 150 wpc for the 5000) tube would be fine. My approach with inefficient speakers is to concentrate on a tube preamp with a powerful SS amp. That way one can play around with tube swapping without busting the bank (preamp tubes are relatively inexpensive), and tubes last much longer with the modest amount of amplification of the preamp. Some of the tubes are cheap, and some cost upwards of $1200/pair, like the Sophia Electric Royal Princess 300B, and with amps you might need to replace the tubes in as little as a couple of years with heavy use.

Thank you guys for your comments. I have no plans to move to tubes, just something I have not seen mentioned wrt amps for Ohms. Really a moot point as I plan on upgrading my 5000s to some form of the powered F with the 15", keeping my original cans.