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

"Kristian85 hit the mark, IMO. Perceptive and succinct."

Maybe with the observation, if I understand it correctly, that blogging openly can subject one to criticism, which is undeniable, but otherwise, I'm not sure what the mark is?

Yes, I would agree also that many often mistake different for better and it can be hard to not waver when one believes the grass might be greener elsewhere.

Kristian may be a trained listener, but I'm a trained measurer. In my listening room, the Ohm 100s are unusually flat (on-axis at the listening position) with a smooth, gently falling FR from north of 10khz down to below 150hz - where destructive room effects take over. I address those room effects with hemholtz devices and EQ'd subwoofers. Bottom line: this is an usually neutral design (same caveat: measured on axis in my space) from the upper end of the bass on up and, subjectively from the upper bass through the upper limits of my hearing (about 14khz, last I checked).

The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the omni-directional dispersion pattern. Conceptually, this should smooth off-axis response, but, in truth, I've never confirmed that. I can say with some confidence that the spacial impact (can't tell you how to measure that!) dominates the subjective impression that this design makes. The final decision will likely be subjective and have little to do with "sub optimally flat FR", unless the listener in question objects to this particular (gentle) deviation from dead neutral.

The "gushing" for Ohms upon first listening is almost certainly due to the "omni effect". MBLs (a subjectively less neutral design to my ear) get the same kind of reaction - WOW! Some love it at first, then tire of it and move on. Others stay the course. I'm just about a year and a half into my time with the Ohms and generally prefer them to several other highly regarded (and IMO fine sounding in their own right) speakers that I also own, each of which cost many times as much as the 100s.

This is the preference of my "somewhat trained" (app. three hours/day at the piano and/or guitar over the last 2 years) ear. I accord my opinion no more weight than any other (Kristian's included), but I do hold the measurements in high regard.

Marty

Kristian85,

Your nose is so far in the air you can't see in front of it. You criticize the OP for having audiophile nervosa because he found a sound he preferred to his Ohm's?? Pray tell, I'm sure that's never happened to you, right? How do you suppose one gets to be the trained listener you claim to be if they don't take the same journey the OP did? Perhaps you bypassed the whole process and just got a certificate in "learn critical listening" from University of Phoenix. Maybe the OP should continue his lessons in "learning critical listening" by buying different loudspeaker designs but direct his "anxiety" so it's more dealer-bothering than manufacture-bothering? would that be satisfactory for you?

My system and the OHMs in conjunction are pretty flat based on my ears and test recordings I have used.

There was a review in stereophile back in the 80s (still available on-line) that indicated some midrange variation with the original Walsh 5s.

A follow-up review withdrew that criticism after some tweaks by John Strohbeen.

The current drivers are 3 generations removed from the originals and flat response is one critique of the Walshes seldom seen these days.

I had original Walsh 2s and now the more recent models and drivers. The newer drivers are much more refined and copetitive with modern speaker designs than the originals from 30 years back or so.

Horses for courses. A few months ago, I listened to $20K/pair powered ATC towers that Kristian85 is "beholden" to (a larger version of the monitor that Holt loved so much). Along with a few other experienced audiophiles, I was less than impressed. Sure, they were very dynamic and played really loudly, but they lacked good soundstage rendering and image placement. Like many speakers that come from the pro-studio world, I found them a bit too analytical and not too musical. Here was a speaker at $20K that I liked less than my $4300 amp/speaker combo. IOW, this time, "different" was not "better". Of course, I am not bothered by Kristian85's preference for powered studio monitor speakers, and I hope he enjoys listening to music on them, but they are not for me, and many others I know.

I understand his observations of "different" vs. "better". I decided to try the Ohms specifically because they offered a radically different design from many of the speakers in my price range that didn't do it for me. For someone like me, who cannot afford to spend five figures on admittedly better speakers (not just different), the Ohms offer, IMHO, a fantastic value.

I had my last loudspeakers for nearly ten years, so I don't think I can be accused of having audio nervosa syndrome. I kept them as my mid-fi system slowly evolved to an entry-level high-end system. When I felt that improvements were no longer audible via my old speakers, I decided to upgrade. My intention is to continue to improve my source and amplification components (not because of audio nervosa, but because I have financial limitations) and hear how the upgrades manifest themselves in the Walsh 2000s.

For many of us, that's a large part of this hobby.

And Kristian85, if you are ever in central/Northern New Jersey, you are most welcome to stop by and listen to my Ohms, for more than 15 minutes, if you like.

The unique design of the OHMs (Walsh drivers) are what attracted me to them originally years ago based on the reputation at the time of the original OHM Fs.

In general, I look at truly innovative or different designs as a way to break barriers and perhaps accomplish something really different and perhaps better, particularly at certain price points. After all, there are many very good conventional designs that may all sound different but have more in common than not.

Of course there is innovation and then there is also snake oil...determining which is the case often requries some degree of technical acumen in addition to good ears.

I'd be happy to offer a demo of my system as well if in the Baltimore/DC metro area sometime if you contact me by mail.

Does anyone owning Ohm Walsh speakers listen primarily to classical music?
I listen to orchestral music mostly and I find the differences between speakers are often stark in the area of massed violin sheen and richness, woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring. Issues of imaging, soundstage, even, to a degree, dynamics are secondary to pleasing reproduction of the sounds of these beautiful instruments.
I would love to hear from people who share my focus.
I currently own Shahinian Hawks, which do an admirable job recreating the true sound of the orchestra, but their few small failings make me seek something a bit better and easier to drive.

Rplef,

That's a very good question.

Audiogoner Mamboni is a professional classical musician and major OHM proponent I believe.

Getting those aspects of classical music right as you decribe has been one of the driving factors that has landed me where I am currently.

massed violin sheen and richness - The best reference system I have heard to reproduce this was MAgico mini;s on very high end tube amplification and DCS digital source. Only recently with the move to tube pre-amp and high power S power amp have I been able to approach that as a reference, but currently I am in the same ballpark, though OHM and Magico presentation is much different.

woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring - the OHMs and my system in general have been champs at this for a while now. The OHMs may be the best I have heard at reproducing large massed brass orchestras in a realistic yet non-fatiguing manner.

The wide range Walsh driver is the key to reproducing these things well. Proper amplification is also key. But once you get everything tuned in, the OHMs are top notch for classical IMHO. They have the muscle to do this exceptionally well overall in addtion which smaller designs do not. Monitors, even MAgico minis will never deliver the power and range of a large scale classical recording on a realistic scale, though the timbre is quite good. OHMs can.

BTW, I supect a full/wider range Walsh driver like those found in original OHM Fs or perhaps even newer versions of those might be able to take massed strings up a level in comparison to OHMs Walshes, which use a separate supertweeter. Full range drivers with no crossover are uniquely suited for this I believe.

However, full range Walsh drivers and other more conventional full range drivers (save perhaps the largest and best) may be challenged to deliver the muscle behind performances in general that the OHM Walshes can. Off loading the top end from the Walsh driver makes the OHM Walsh design able to go louder with more ease whereas OHM Fs were notorious for being subject to damage if overdriven. Dale Harder's newer Walsh designs appear to have alleviated that to some degree using more modern design principles and materials, though they still come with warnings against being overdriven.

I'm buoyed by the reports of fairly flat in-room FR of recent Walshes. I'm certainly intrigued.

Now, if the goal of hi-fi [to the source material] is truly that, then good active speakers are far superior to any passive. Audiophiles' preference for loudspeakers with passive crossovers over actives is a matter of not being used to the *far* lower distortion of good active speakers, and unwillingness to get rid of those phallic symbols that are audiphile amplifiers.

ATC's outstanding reputation precedes them as evidenced by nothing but excellent reviews from professionals and amateur audiophile magazine reviewers alike. This is supported by the usual and erroneous criticism that ATCs aren't "musical," as if a component could have that characteristic to begin with. "Musical" means the response slowing, phase problems, sloppier bass response, and much higher general distortion of passive speakers as driven by amplifiers that have difficulty controlling the drives through passive crossovers. Some folks are used to this and therefore prefer it; you won't hardly find any top professionals who still use passive monitors to really hear what is on recordings.

Audiophiles are about 30 years out of date. Professional speaker and audio technology is so far ahead of audiophile technology it's silly; I suggest you explore Event Opals, K&H, and many others, including AVI (for a speaker system with SOTA sound that makes redundant a whole system), Emerald Physics (their speakers are at the top of the curve technologically) and the superior Linkwitz Orion system.

Passive loudspeakers are seriously outdated technology; imagine if your new cars still came with pushrods, solid rear axles, sliding pillar front suspension, and drum brakes. Passive loudspeakers with big, overbuilt amps (only necessary to overcome the detrimentals of passive crossovers) and preamps are nothing more than that.

The biggest joke in audiophilia is Audio Note and their ridiculous $100K or whatever it is two-way with the massive silver-loaded passive crossovers; as if you could ever maker a silk purse from a sow's ear. If that company wasn't so steadfastly regressive, it would have made a far supeior version of that speaker for far cheaper by making it active with dedicated amplifiers. Period. That mega-buck crossover still has an order of magnitude higher distortion than an electronic one. It would be like Ford selling a version of the Mustang with a silver-plated and diamond crusted solid rear axle and claim it is better than the stock car's solid rear axle. 20 times more expensive than independant rear suspension, and still nowhere near as good. The same goes for Wailson Audio and their way-over priced elephant coffins, and all the other purveyors of high-priced passive speakers.

One way o another, speakers (including OHMs) must be mated with amps that are well suited to diving them optimally. Optimally often infers the best case for achieving a generally (if not exactly) flat response. Same true with OHMs.

Active speaker designs see to be one way and perhaps the easiest to accomplish this. The designer does the integration for you. That's a great and perhaps the easiest approach in general for many I think, but certainly not the only way. Matching amp and speaker yourself certainly provides more flexibility and variety in end results, so it may take a while for someone to stumble (or objectively determine) what the right match is. The right match for an individual may not be the same as intended by the speaker designer, although one would expect the designer to be the most qualified to make the determination of how to meet their sound goals technically by integrating amp and speaker..

I'd tend to agree that active designs address some real issues with a great solution. OTOH, there are some pretty crappy active speakers out there, too. Stop into any place that sells pro audio gear and you'll hear tremendous variation between the various brands of active monitors they sell.

There are also issues that may be far more important than distortion and/or compression caused by passive x-overs, depending on the installation. I'd always hesitate to endorse a single design approach because listener priorities and room considerations vary so much. That said, I'd still prefer to see my x-overs ahead of the power amp whenever possible, I'm just not willing (at this time) to trade away all other considerations to achieve that goal.

Marty

Kristian makes some good points - but the pro worlds and civilian worlds are very different. I listen to studio monitors all day long, and I'd never want a pair at home. I've heard every kind of passive and active monitor in studios all around NYC, but my living room is not a control room or mastering lab.

I've had my Ohm's since '04, I immediately knew they were great when I heard them, and I've had no reason to replace them. I love active monitors, and rely on them, but at home I don't want my head in vice, and my wife would kill me if I started installing room treatments. The Ohms are the best balance of neutrality and user friendliness that I can live with.

I don't think passive speakers are outdated - especially considering that there are many more passive designs to try than active - the only active monitors that I've heard are all cone 'n dome. When Ohm makes active speakers, I'll sell my amp...

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Grant, I believe that a major reason for that is that the mic + equalizer/analyzer, unless it is very sophisticated, doesn't discriminate between direct (early arriving) sound, and reflected (later arriving) sound, while our ears do.

Which would seem to say that unless the room is an anechoic chamber, a setup that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position is wrong "a priori."

Best regards,
-- Al

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Good hearing does not have a flat response.
http://www.engr.uky.edu/~donohue/audio/fsear.html

By *set up* are you referring specifically to the EQ I used, or by *set up* are you including any system that measures flat at the listening position?

Any system, unless the measurement equipment is extremely sophisticated and has response characteristics in the time domain that closely correspond to those of our hearing mechanisms.

In other words, a system that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position, based on test tones, will give equal weight to sound that arrives via the direct path from speakers to listening position, and sound that arrives via reflected paths from walls and furniture.

But our ears don't work that way -- consider the Haas Effect, for example, which describes the fact that, within certain limits, our hearing mechanisms give greater emphasis to early arriving sounds than to later arriving sounds (which are presumably reflections).

And adding to that is the fact that even in the frequency domain the directional characteristics of our ears are unlikely to match those of the measuring microphone. So the microphone will "hear" reflections from side walls, for example, differently than our ears will.

Best regards,
-- Al

Its true our ears are sensitive detectors of sound.

Try the old test of listening normally and with hands cupped behind the ears to see how much difference can be heard in response to a small change.

Re flat frequency response at the listening position.

Every time I've heard cones in boxes that promised something like FFR +/- 2db a 2 meters for example, they were just bright as hell, and even more so if they had a strong off axis response.

That experience causes me to wonder what the frequency response of an omni would be on axis in a space with out boundaries to reinforce the on axis FR.

I suspect that proper set up in a room is what makes or breaks omni's and that properly situated the FFR is the sum of the on axis, 360 degree off axis, and room reinforcement, to a much larger degree than cones in boxes.

I think FFR with an omni might be fine - but not so much with cones in boxes (or maybe electrostatics and panels, not just so much so.)

Does this make any sense?

Al, what you describe seems to me to be an argument against the goal of a system that measures flat in-room since the measuring is inaccurate, unless there's some measurement device that avoids or compensates for reflected sound.

Yes, exactly, although I wouldn't say "avoids." I would say the measurements, and the analysis of the measurements, need to take into account arrival time as well as frequency domain characteristics. Some computer programs will do that, to an approximation that apparently can sometimes be useful (I haven't used any of them myself).

I just listen and go with what pleases me.

You're doing the right thing!

Best regards,
-- Al

This is a very hot debate and I'm not sure I have much to contribute except that I've owned both passive and active loudspeakers (Emerald Physics 2.3s)and a long list of internet available speakers (Axiom 80's, OHM Micro Talls, MMG's, SVS, Ascend Acoustics, Magnestand MMGs, well, you get the idea. Since this thread is in regard to OHM's, let me just say I enjoyed the Micro OHM's more than any of the other OHM speakers I tried. (100s and Micro Talls) This is the little speaker that could. It totally disappeared in my room and was much more "immediate" in "feeling" than the other OHM speakers which I felt projected an image too far away for my tastes (though this little speaker is dynamically limited). The micro OHM had a "perspective" of the front or second row of a concert hall while the other OHMs seem to place the listener too far back for me. This worked fine for movies, however, as "background" became what it should be "background". For music, however, I found the "OHM" sound to be a bit "removed" given it's image projection. I know this is a "taste" thing and has nothing to do with "accuracy". I think it just depends on where you like to "sit" at a concert. I must also add I've NOT heard the latest incarnations of the upper end OHMs so maybe this has changed. This is a remarkable speaker and I wish in no way to diminish it's contribution to accurate sound reproduction but I do think "where you like to sit at a music event or movie theater" is relevent to a choice of a reproducing loudspeaker.

Tvad, do you happen to remember I think Stereophile or one of the hi-fi rags a number of years ago offering a pair of little leather flaps or cups you hung off of your ears? I need to Google that. I found it kind of funny at the time.

This is all interesting reading though. Many interesting points being brought up. Must be why there are so many different types and companies that make speakers, we all have ears, but listen in differing ways. I just say enjoy whatever floats your boat! I know I do enjoy my Ohm's very much, and also, when I had ATC Active 20's, I enjoyed them as well. It takes all types! Enjoy the tunes! Tim

Rpfef: FWIW, I listen to some classical, but not a majority of the time. My impressions wih both small and larger scale classical is that the Ohms do this well. The strings are not the sweetest or most liquid I have heard, but neither are they etched, brittle or overly dry. The best part is that the character of strings (and everything else) that the Ohms have does not deteriorate as the SPLs increase. There is no sense of compression or pinched sound on loud passages (provided the recording is decent). Now, I do not run my Ohms full range. I do have subs, and the Ohms see a first order roll off below 80Hz. But in the critical upper midrange for strings, the Ohms simply blow my Vandy 1Cs out of the water.

Kristian85: I don't mean to rag on ATC. Far be it from me to denigrate a loudspeaker that J. Gordon Holt loved so much. That said, regardless of the technical measurements the ATCs I heard might produce, I simply did not care for the sound.

Also, note that some of the finest mastering studios in the world use passive loudspeakers like the B&W 802D and the KEF 207.2. These expensive speakers do detail and dynamics like the ATC, but also have other audiophile capabilities that I did not hear when I listened to the ATCs.

Zkzpb8 said it best - studio monitors have different design goals than most home hifi speakers. Home audio tries to reproduce the original performance in a home environment (which is usually far from perfect). A studio monitor is designed to let the professional hear, in his controlled environment, every minute detail so that any problems in a mix will be heard and then corrected. Soundstage, bloom, image placement and other audiophile focuses are simply not that important in the studio context. This, in fact, was exactly what I said when I heard the ATCs. They were ruthlessly revealling. If you like that kind of presentation, fine, but I don't. Now, with my Ohms, as I mentioned in my review, there is a pretty well-balanced combination of detail retreival with an absence of harshness and etch. I much prefer the Ohm's balance to the ATCs I heard.

As for the merits of powered speakers, sure, there are definite advantages. However, most audiophile powered loudspeakers are beyond my reach financially (especially those suited to my large-ish listening space). Note that the Ohm Walsh drivers run full range up to about 8kHz, and then, I believe, naturally roll off. The tweeter that comes in above 8kHz is, I think, only passively attenuated at lower frequencies. Is there any distortion in this design? I dunno, but I don't hear any. But then, I am not a trained listener.

Another thing to consider is the reason that most loudspeaker manufacturers do not offer powered loudspeakers. In the world of subjective audiophiles, amplifiers sound different. Besides the logistical issues of solid state vs. tubes vs. Class D amps, most audiophiles prefer to use their own preferred amplifiers. Does that involve a compromise in performance? Perhaps. But it also means that consumers can go for the sound they like, and put a system together that they find pleasing. But think of it this way: If I run a speaker manufacturer, do I want to eliminate from my potential customer base any audiophile who prefers, say, tube amps, by building only solid state-powered loudspeakers?

I am getting the impression that Kristian85 is an objectivist. That isn't a criticism, but it does place into context his concern for flat response, low distortion, etc. I will paraphrase Einstein here: Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that can be measured matters.

Bottom line, I know what I like. Other audiophiles that I hang out with in my local audiophile society had similar impressions with the ATC. As for my Ohms, I had a few audiophile buddies over to listen. Most agreed that the Ohm Walsh 2000s sounded pretty good overall. Some were bothered by a gentle roll-off in the highs, but this was due, I believe, to my set up of the speakers, and I like the balance where it is, for the most part.

Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are.

It could have to do with tonal balance in a particular room. WHen the supertweeter is more predominant, I have noticed soundstage tends to be smaller. Perhaps things also become more forward?

OHM Walshes in general are not for those that prefer a more forward presentation. Not much goes on in front of the speakers in general I have found. Same true of mbl omnis I have heard. THis may be a general trait of omnis but I am not certain.

Almarg is correct; shoving a highly resolving system's signal through the electronic nightmare that was an Audio Control 101 to achieve flat response at the listening seat is an error. It would also ruin the sound due to the sheer amount of electronics, though they worked fine for mid/lo-fi systems. I sold those things 20 years ago from a store 4 blocks from the Lynnwood, WA factory, and sold LOTS of their excellent car gear, electronic crossovers and EQs alike.

In-room response is absolutely desirable. What I cannot abide are speakers with messy FR and dispersion curves as that can only worsen in-room FR.

For a simple test done by a fine Brit manufacturer showing the superiority of active vs. passive crossovers, see http://avihifi.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html . Of course, that is just one aspect; the amplifiers needed to drive drivers directly don't need a lot of current, so are far cheaper, smaller, and easier to make.

Martykl, there is never anything to be traded away by using electronic crossovers. I don't know why you think that. There are only strong advantages. There is no credible debate over the statement that it is always desirable to reduce speaker distortion. Passive crossovers produce several hundreds of times more distortion than a good electronic crossover. It is *always* desirable to remove that distortion from the signal.

The more important factors are speaker-room interaction, which affect the signal endlessly more than getting a new amplifier, new cables, etc., and general speaker quality--as in a better active speaker!

"What I cannot abide are speakers with messy FR and dispersion curves as that can only worsen in-room FR.

I can say with confidence that that the OHMs should rate very well in this aspect.

Tvad, it's difficult, and requires more sophisticated measuring techniques involving measurements from many places in the room. See Lyngdorf's website for how they recommend doing it with their digital room correction system. Which is difficult in and of itself.

It is indeed impossible to get accurate results out of Radio Shack gear. Plus, I'm not beholden to the artifices of pin-sharp imaging and stereoscopy, which don't exist anywhere in real life to the extent it can on some systems. It's why I don't really bother with room correction or damping; I optimize speaker positioning and go directly to enjoying music. I'm far less interested in tweaking about than I used to--I'm a red giant in astronomical terms, at the end of my long audiophile life.

Kristian,

Of course there is a trade-away, although it may not be the direct result of the active design vs a passive design. The real world trade away is whatever particular characteristic you find compelling in a particular passive speaker that you can't find in any active speaker. In the case of Ohms, I am unaware of any active omnidirectionals. Similarly, some may prefer the specific tonal qualities of the "fill in the blank" and can't find an active equivalent. IOW, I suspect that, if I had to choose between equally well executed passive and active versions of the same speaker design, I'd generally choose the active version. In the real world, this is rarely the choice.

Bottom line: don't fall so in love with your theory regarding the superiority of active designs. They have their advantages, but I doubt that you really believe that every active design is superior to every passive design. The little NHT active sub/sat system is a great value that undoubtedly offers very low distortion within its operational limits (and at its price point), but there are definitely passive designs, even with the attendant higher distortion, that I clearly prefer. I suspect that you'd agree (who knows, maybe not?) Minimizing x-over impact is NOT the only game here. To your priorities, it may trump all other considerations. To mine, it does not. Note, I DO actively cross to subwoofers, so I get your main point here and, to a more limited degree than you , share this priority.

Newbee, don't confuse published "flat response" (which is usually measured anechoically) with flat in-room response. The former will, just as you note, almost always sound too bright. Truly flat in-room is also usually a touch bright for my taste. I actually prefer the gently falling in-room response of my Ohms (and my Verity P/E, for that matter) to really flat in-room response.

As to direct FR vs power response, I have limited experience with the latter, but I do find that the former - if executed carefully - conforms pretty closely with what I hear. However, the point is conceded, simple on-axis FR isn't the entire story either. I'd also note that I never said it was. I merely mentioned that, as caveated in my OP - IN MY ROOM, MEASURED DIRECTLY ON-AXIS - the dispositive factor in evaluating Ohm 100s is unlikely to be "sub optimally flat FR" per Kristian's OP, but rather the perceived impact of the omnipolar dispersion.

Indeed, my main point was/is that FR, compression, distortion, etc - whatever your measurable - isn't the only factor. Speaker evaluation will always have a subjective component. There are also some pretty good tools (i.e. room wizard) to help with the objective side. As Kristian points out, distorion meausrement are another good objective tool. Hopefully, each contributes to any informed overall evaluation of any given speaker system.

Marty

Tvad said, "I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options."

So you did EQ to flat and it does not sound good, I would agree with that statement. Then you said "the oppurtunity to A/B the options"

What are the options? If you do not want a flat response, what do you want?

Bob

Tvad said, "How do you measure your room to determine if you have a flat response? I am interested to learn from your experience."

Try REW at the Home Theater Shack. It is free. A Radio Shack SPL meter can be used for 20 to 2000hz, or you can go full range with a clibrated mic. The meter is around $40 or a calibrated mic around $100. Then it is the free progam and a laptop.

Bob

Bob,

If you do not want flat, what do you want?

Output gently falling as frequency increases from app 100hz to 8 or 10khz, flat above that. Flat to gently rising below 100hz to the lowest limit of system response (app. 25hz in my case). Tricky to achieve without multiple and/or EQ'd subs.

Simply a personal preference. We're talking a couple a three db spread over just over 6 octaves (with something vaguely like a 2 db offset rising in the bottom 2 1/2 octaves) for the most "natural" sound in my room (and, actually, the other two rooms that I've measured extensively) to my ears. All of the listening rooms I've measured strike me as just a touch bright when response is perfectly flat - so I chalk this up to personal preference.

Marty

I'm at a loss on what is really meant by a flat room. For instance, if the room is flat (at the listening position) according to a mike/meter in witch the mike has been calibrated to be flat, then to the human ear the room will not sound flat, because human hearing is 'not' flat. Now if the mike is calibrated in such a was as to match the way human ear hears, then the room should truly sound flat. Or am I missing something?

Line -- That was a good reference you provided earlier. However what I think you are overlooking is that if the room is truly "flat," in whatever way that is best defined (taking into account both frequency response and arrival times), and the rest of the audio system is flat, and the recording process was flat, and the playback volume is realistic, then our non-flat ears will hear the sound in the same non-flat manner as they would have at the original event.

Which essentially is the goal.

Best regards,
-- Al

Al--I see. What I thing comes much closer to reaching that goal is to listen to binaurally recorded music with headphones. I wish there was a large selection of such recordings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRih10xLhD8&feature=related.

Yes, I did the measurement thing years ago out of curiosity, and I also had an Audio Control auto EQ unit at one point. These days, I have no interest and just trust my ears.

I can add that increasing treble levels on Walsh 5s using the on-board adjustments do make the sound a tad more forward than otherwise based on my experience listening with different levels set on the Walsh 5 drivers.

A Walsh that sounds forward is probably having somewhat more of the overall sound being produced by the super tweeter rather than the Walsh driver, which, like most omnis I believe, is naturally laid back as a result of more sound being emitted towards the rear than most box designs.

Line -- Yes, I have two or three binaural recordings from the 1980's, and they are indeed awesome! Too bad that a lot more recordings aren't done that way.

I think though that the subjective results they provide will vary significantly from listener to listener. What the listener hears essentially depends on the physical and acoustical characteristics of the ears on the dummy head that was used in the recording process, which will deviate to different degrees from the hearing characteristics of different listeners.

Best regards,
-- Al

mapman, I agree! Ohm was way ahead of their time. I have been following them since the 70's as a teenager. They developed surround before it was even developed. I owned bose 901's too and there is no comparison. Having planars, electrostats and srslabs klayman signature now discontinued, what makes the ohm's unique is that it creates a combination of all those unique designs in one design. I look at loudspeakers like instruments. Ohm surround sound is the ultimate affordable high end home theater loudspeakers. I was using my 4xo as main, 2xo rears and pro 200 as center and it blends well with NAD or carver/sunfire amp/processor or receiver which I use and it's magic when you use DAKIOM feedback stablizers and sound processors like carver holography or srslabs,bbe or behringer processors. I haven't tried tubes yet. I use my tubes for my bookshelfs! I like the clean sound of tubes. Until I bought inexpensive tube amps, now I understand why many audiophiles spent $$ on tube amps. It's really worth it for the hobby. Until I heard planars and electrostats, I didn't know any other sound. Until I heard ohm's I didn't know true omni and combination electrostat/planar and dynamic all rolled into one! ohm inspired the more expensive german designs such as german physiks, duevel and mbl omni directional designs, especially german physiks which uses the walsh concepts. I'd like to hear those ultra high end designs.
ohm do not stay posted on ebay and audiogon for very long because every ohm fan will jump to buy or bid on them not like other speakers

Here's a review of Blue Circle's speaker that uses a Walsh driver. Interesting to read the reviewer's impressions of mid range resolution and soundstage. BC made a good decision to enlist Ohm...

http://www.soundstage.com/equipment/bluecircle_bm2.htm