I noticed during spinning class at a brand new gym yesterday that the newer Crown Class D amps were being used with Peavey (horn) speakers there. Sound was very good, much clearer and dynamic than older non Class D Crown amps in similar setup at my older gym. Amps are more commercial looking in design being for professional use mainly but I think they could do quite well in a home application for very reasonable cost. |
IF a newer amp has lots of bells and whistles and sells for a price comparable to comparable powered gear with less b+ws sold 20 years ago, I'd say there is a fairly good chance the older unit can outperform the newer since the newer unit does more things and cost does not reflect the impact of inflation on a design from 20 years ago. |
Just scored a circa 91 Denon DRA-545r stereo receiver for $20 at Goodwill and man I can't believe that it bested the zpre2+niles si245 separates. It even sounds better than my main system which is the marantz avr+b&k amp. I was just testing it using pandora in kindle fire and compared it to the three setup and it bested them both (using the ohms as the speaker). It just sounded so airy and holographic and to think that it was just a 64kbps pandora stream.
This leads me to believe that the newer avr with all the bells and whistles crammed into it are not up to par with the sound quality of the old when it comes to 2 channel music. I think I'm going to use this as my preamp along with the parasound amp as my main 2 channel system. |
John was a great reviewer with a lot of respect. It was his review about the MicroWalsh Talls that convinced me to give them a try. His viewpoint is missed in the community. |
Jwc,
the late john Potis, who ironically I found out lived right down the street from me, was a long time OHM fan. I asked him about amps for my newer OHMs a few years back via email and he responded at the time encouraging me to throw the kitchen sink at them amp-wise, including damping. He was one reviewer whose opinions and insights I learned to always take to heart! |
Thanks for the response Map.
I recall reading that John Portis at Stereophile was a big Ohm fan and adopted an Electron Kinetics amp as his reference piece, in part because (if I remember correctly) of its high current and damping that matched well with Ohm Walshes. My Sansui is supposed to deliver plenty of current, but doesn't deliver high damping specs--hence my question.
As you suggest, there are so many other factors that distinguish amplifier performance with a given set of speakers that we'll likely never conclusively settle the matter.
I know that the whole damping debate continues, and that it theoretically shouldn't matter above 100 (that's the figure I've always come across), but I'm in no position to adjudicate the claims pro and con. I don't even claim to understand the physics/electronics theory underlying the arguments about damping.
If/when I hook up the NAD and/or Adcom, I'll let you know if I hear any differences. (Bel Canto 1000 wpc amps will likely have to wait for another lifetime.)
This really is an extraordinary thread. It's turned into an Ohm's-eye view of all things audiophilic. What does this say about Ohm speakers--and about Ohm-heads? |
BlueR,
Theoretically, there is probably little if any practical sonic difference attributable between damping of 300 versus 1000. The consensus seems to be that most speaker wire electrical properties alone negate any differences once damping passes 50 or so. I moved from Carver amp <50 damping to Musical Fidelity at around 50 to current Bel Canto with damping 1000. The Bel Cantos seem to have the most controlled, dimensional and articulate sound top to bottom of any of these with the OHMs by a wide margin. There are many factors that might account for how a Class D switching amp performs versus conventional Class A or A/B. In a nutshell, the 500 w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m amps drive my large Walsh 5 effortlessly and without breaking a sweat at any volume I have attempted. They retain mostly the same sound quality at any volume, however as the volume goes up teh music becomes more full bodied, dynamic and lifelike, like blowing up a balloon. Never any sign of strain, clipping or noticeable distortion at any volume. Things just keep expanding and becoming more full bodied and lifelike as the volume goes up. Midrange is very clean and articulate. Vocals are lifelike and lyrics clearly understandable with most any decent or better quality recording. |
I looked at my Bryston 14BSST specs and it has a damping of 300. Now it has 600 watts but wondering if im getting optimum results driving the Walsh 5000's. Mapman, what difference exactly did you notice going up to an amp with a damping of 1000? |
Drake.
THere ya' go!
Enjoy!!! |
So i did buy the parasound amp and all i can say is now i understand why more power sounds even better with the ohms. The music just sounds so effortless and the bass from this 2000 driver sounds amazing that i turn off my subwoofer.
The mosfet design of the amp somehow smoothens the highs but you dont get fatigue out of it. On the other hand the niles amp sounds more forward and i feel that there is more of a realism like the raspiness and chestiness of the voice. Overall i prefer the mosfet sound better as i can listen to it all day. |
ALso I should note that the benefits of higher damping with the OHMs may be most apparent with the bass, but higher frquencies including all frequencies up to 7Khz or so handled by the vertically mounted Walsh driver part of the OHM CLS benefit with lower distortion and greater articulation and rendering of detail as well I would say. |
JWC,
Higher damping and higher power are two different beasts, though the two might go hand in hand practically in many cases.
My experience with the larger OHM 5s is that they benefit from both high damping and high power and high current as well. All may often go hand in hand practically with most amps.
Damping is needed to keep dynamic drivers under control to various extents. Some drivers are more highly damped already. Walsh drivers in particular seem to loosen up over time more so than most and benefit highly from higher amplifier damping factors. The vertical mount of a Walsh driver and the increased effects of gravity accordingly might have something to do with this.
In practice, effectiveness of amp damping factors >50 or so is questionable. However, I have found with teh larger OHMs, where low end bass levels are seldom an issue, that more damping is always a good thing in terms of lower distortion and better dynamics and speed in general, ie a lean and mean bass as opposed to a fatter less refined delivery. The amps I prefer with my larger OHM 5s have 1000 damping factor. I have used other amps with 50 or less damping factor (also less power) and can hear the difference even at modest volumes.
Smaller OHM drivers benefit somewhat less from massive power and damping than larger models, but these things are still of benefit I would say, at least up to the point where a combo of high damping and smaller driver negatively affects bass levels, though I am not sure I have experienced that myself practically, even with my smaller OHM 100 driver based speakers. I would say that with the smaller drivers, cases where users prefer less damping in the amp might become more common, depending on preference, room acoustics, and other factors. |
I have a question for the inveterate amp swappers out there. What effect, if any, does a higher damping factor have on Ohm Walsh performance?
Rather than opt for massive power increases, could one get the same/similar (or different) improvements in the drivers' sound quality through an amp with more damping? Alternatively, is higher power somehow the functional equivalent of a higher damping factor?
I've got a vintage Sansui with 90 (honest, conservatively rated) wpc, and a damping factor of 100. I'm thinking of using it as a pre-amp and running it into a NAD power amp with 125 (also honest) wpc but a damping factor of > 200. I'm not sure the difference in watts would make that much difference, and the Sansui is a much, much faster amp. I'd like to hear some opinions as to whether it would be worthwhile before I lug that NAD beast upstairs and hook it up. |
I'm reading Crown XLS amp IS Class D. Don't know much more about them though. Might be a good value + worth a try. Crown is mostly used for pro audio applications these days but home audio use should be possible. They use older Crown amps at my gym for classes + such. |
Thanks Bondmanp,Mapman.
What about those crown xls amp? Anybody use this before with ohms? I read that they getting better as well and cheaper too.
I can pickup a used parasound hca 1500 for $400 today but now i am having second thoughts...i might have to just save a bit more for the class Ds.
Got additional info on the sw2.2k regarding the bass settings. Apparently for those who dont have the external controls (micro,1k,2k,3k,4k) there is a way to tweak the bass on the ohms if you find it too boomy or not enough. You can remove the cup where the speakers are connected to and there is a switch to adjust the bass. By default it is set to middle. I adjusted mine after telling John that i was having too much bass with the ohms and he instructed me to do this.
It is a hidden setting so that you can adjust the dynamics if you ever move it to a different room in the future. Turns out that the issue with mine was due to the dynamic audessey setting where i need to adjust it to 15db so i moved it back to the mid seting. |
I am convinced that there is more to the Class D amp sound I hear with the OHMs than power and current alone accounts for.
There is a tube amp-like aspect to the amps ability to go loud without causing fatigue or overall brightness. I have read (in an article published by a gentleman from SPectron) where this might be due to unique negative feedback design advantages with switching amps that can help keep the timing delay when applying NF minimal compared to other amp designs. Its consistent with what Ralph from Atmasphere regularly cites as an advantage of no NF amps. Or in the case of switching amps, ability to apply negative feedback more efficiently. I do not understand the technical details of how this works, but what I have read there and similar accounts from other reputable sources tells me that this might be a unique positive attribute of CLass D amps.
ALso, latest generation Class D amps appear to be pushing the bar significantly higher still in terms of switching frequency possible, which enables better low pass filtering needed with switching amps and on paper at least would seem to raise the bar in terms of technical capabilities of Class D. Can things get even better? I suspect so, though CLass D amps already seem to bring a lot of unique benefit to the table IMHO. |
Drakef5: No need to apologize for a very interesting post. Welcome to the Ohm club! As for the power issue, as you can see, I recently had this answered for me with the loan of a pair of 500 watt monoblocks. Remember, I also have my 2000s crossed over to powered subs (80Hz, 1st order). My 150 watt/channel amp, the very beefy Odyssey Stratos HT3 w/cap upgrade, was actually clipping audibly in the midrange on vocals! I was surprised by this, but hearing the Ohms with massive power was an epiphany. John Strohbeen recently told me that as long as I don't go overboard with the volume control, I could upgrade to a 1500 watt/channel amp, and I am thinking of doing just that as soon as I can afford it. Mapman uses 500 watt/channel Bel Canto amps, and agrees that the extra power allows the Ohms to perform their best. Ohm never claimed that the Walsh speakers are high-efficiency models. But with class-D amps getting better, massive, quality wattage is becomming more affordable and practical. Although in a very small room, modest power will work, you just have got to hear what the Ohms can do in a large room with really massive power on tap. There is nothing quite like it! |
Long time lurker first time poster. I've been reading almost all of the posts in this thread and it's funny that even though it was originally for the micro talls it became the go to thread for all Ohm Walsh posts. Anyway I just wanted to share my experience with the ohms and this could be long so I apologize but I have to do this because I have some questions to the experts. Also, I am just starting with this game so I don't have a lot of good gear yet. I have a marantz sr5005 going to a 20 year old b&k sonata video 5 amp. Interconnects are regular acoustic research cables and speaker wires are the DIY white lightning.
So..I started my hunt for better speakers coming from polk monitor 70s. Listened to klipsch too grating for me. Tried B&W - while it was pleasing and presented a lot of details, it was not for me as I find something is missing. Tried psb T6 - reminded me of polk monitor but in a more smoother and pleasing way. Listened to the monitor audio rx6 and found it too bright and fatiguing. Then I listened to the martin logan esl at paradyme and wow this is what I was looking for, the music just seems to embrace me ... but only if you are in the sweet spot. I then I asked the sales person to put it outside the dedicated listening room where it more closely resembles the family room at my house and it was connected to just a plain receiver and blu-ray player and it lost it's magic, the life just got sucked out. I learned with this experience that source gears are that important if you want the best sound possible.
Still looking for the correct speaker for me I chanched upon Don Lindich's website (soundadviceblog.com) and how he really likes Ohm's. Emailed him about how I felt about the martin logans but told him about my concern regarding the limited sweet spot and he told me to try the ohm walsh. Googled ohm walsh and found this thread and started reading reviews and posts.
Called ohm and it was John who answered. Expressed what I was looking for and told him about my room which was about 4200 cu. ft. but only had a budget for around 2K. He suggested I go for the sw2.2000 which was the older walsh 2 cabinets with the 2000 drivers. I did some research about this older model and I dig the looks and the wheels...at least when there is an earthquake the speaker will not topple and just move from side to side..cool. John even sent me veneer samples of different types and colors...what company would do this? I proceeded to order the sw2.2000 in rosewood thinking that even though it was a little small for my room that I can supply the low-end with a subwoofer.
Received the sw2.2k in about 2 weeks and all I can say is that the packaging was like a russian doll, it was box within a box within a box within a box - I would imagine that even if the UPS truck flipped, the speakers will still be okay. Plugged it in for the initial listening and it sounded closed-in so I let it break for about 100 hours and I remembered the drinking cool aid by the gallon comment on a review about the ohm 2000's...it really was real and painful to wait for it to break.
Finally, it setlled. The sound coming from it was not like the martin logans where the image just projecs in front of you, it is more of a live stage type where you are listening as an audience. I have an irregular shaped family-kitchen setup where the right sound coming from the right gets pulled due to the wall, while the left is open to the kitchen. Fixed this by putting a sound pannel on the right wall but no more absorptions at the back as I find it takes away from the live experience. Optimal spacing for me is about 5.5 ft in between and 2 feet from the back wall. Any wider spacing between the speakers and the "whole backwall becomes a speaker" does not happen and I will notice the sound coming from each speaker. I like the magic of this speakers where it makes you feel like you are not listening to speakers at all. Very natural and music just flows, unlike the regular box speakers where I feel the music being pushed to me. The closest speaker that had this character but at a higher price that I have auditioned is the Broadmann Acoustics festival speakers - really nice speakers.
The combination of the sw2.2k with the 100 watter b&k amp is very good for me at regular listening levels. Louder and it sounds constrained and grating. My favorite albums when listening to these speakers are the regular cds of dire straits' brothers in arms and Muddy Waters' folk singer - very good quality from these albums - theses albums made me realize how important the source is and now I hunt albums with good quality recordings. While the b&k and the sw2.2k is forgiving, it is really pleasurable to listen to good recordings.
Now my question...I read that the ohm's sound better with more power...do I really need to upgrade my amplifier? I have it crossed at 40hz and let the sub take over from here. Once in a while I put these ohms in the bedroom where I have a parasound zpre2 and a niles si 245 (45 watt @8ohm and 70 @4ohm) and it just sounds glorious as well. It makes me really ponder on whether I need to spend more on the amplifier, and now I am always on the hunt for a good deal specifically at the parasound hca 1500a. Please good experts..sirs.. provide your feedback! Thanks and sorry for the long post. I still have a lot to tell about these speakers but maybe on a separate thread. |
Map, thanks for the advice. I think I will give John a call. |
TObe,
Thanks for that info.
Its a very intriguing combo or potentially adding more sibilence, definition, pierce and air, the things that are heard above 7-8Khz or so, to to the top end with the OHMs if one is looking for more of that than the built in directional soft dome tweet can provide. |
Once I started moving my OHM/O.H. in and out between 1 to 3 feet from the back wall, the same old problem of room placement creeps up. At one foot from the back wall and the OHM/O.H. clearly want more room to breath. Three feet give more soundstage depth but at the expense of balance, the low end wanting some back wall reinforcement. What I'm trying to say is that speaker placement has more to do with the main speakers rather than the supertweeters. In my case, for my room, everything gels and falls into place at 20 inches from the back wall to the back of the OHM. |
It's my understanding that the crossover on OHM own dome supertweeters kick in at 8 KHz but the walsh drivers themselves are allow to run full range, in which case they begin to roll off naturally above 8 KHz. The Omni Harmonizers which kicks in at 7 KHz seem to me like a natural close fit with the OHM walsh roll off. |
Tobe,
Inquiring minds want to know.....
Looking forward to your findings. |
When I get home tonight, I can try moving the OHM/O.H. in and out away from the back wall to see if it's an issue with the supertweeter.
I want to take back my description of the O.H. as reserved on first listen, with about 15 hrs. breakin, they seem to have open up with more extension. |
An omni tweeter, especially using the folded ribbon Heil kind, sounds like a good thing. My only concern would be how well it integrates with the rest in lieu of a crossover. It appears to be designed to integrate cleanly and easily out of the box without a crossover with other M&D speakers which makes sense.
I would expect adding to the OHMs would make them sound more like mbl than prior. mbl uses multiple omni drivers including tweeter. mbls tend to need more distance to walls than OHM for best sound since they are full omni. The tweets might as well? OHMs by default can go closer to walls due to attenuation applied to CLS drivers in wall facing irections inside the cans. Not sure if closer distance to walls would be an issue or not with the omni tweets. |
No downside, only positive attributes going all omni from top to bottom. Loren Charles of Mark and Daniel says 100 hrs for full breakin. |
Tobe,
That's great! Thanks for sharing. SOunds like music even over my crappy PC speaker.
Any downsides with the current configuration that you are hearing? |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Uhz_ihqDU&list=HL1365048297&feature=mh_lolz or search "Ohm 3000 and Omni Harmonizer" on youtube. |
Smaller than optimal OHMs for room size + subwoofer(s) to make up the difference if needed is always another viable option. |
IN general, for best sound in an OHM speaker investment, I would look to go with the newest model possible suitable for room size for allowed budget.
Trade-ins up to two pair and 40% discount is possible.
Buying used pairs on ebay just for trade in value is not a bad idea, especially if arrangements are made to ship directly to OHM for trade-in.
REfurbishable cabinets are the main requirement for trade-in. Condition of drivers or sound quality of trade-ins does not matter. This was the case for me when I did this a few years back. JS could confirm current trade-in guidelines up front.
Occasional sales also help. JS knows what he can offer at a sale price at any particular time.
Sale + trade-in together might even be possible. Only JS knows for sure but he will tell you if you ask. |
I should also point out that that the low bass adjustment on 5's or newer 5000's may be labeled "room size" with small, medium large room size adjustments. I have used these to put my large F5s into a small 12X12 room and see how that works. IT works quite well actually. The adjustments on the 5s do enable those to go into most any size room pretty well. But if they will never be used in what OHM would consider a "large" room, it might be overkill. Smaller models for less cost should be able to do as well or better. Fitting speaker model to room size is key with the OHM CLSs, regardless of vintage. |
Ohm 5 MK II is second generation CLS design, one generation earlier than my 5 F3s.
I have not heard mkII series so cannot comment on sound. I have also owned and heard 1st generation Walsh 2s.
I should be a lot of speaker for $2300.
All 5s have the same 4 3 way level adjustments for low bass, mid bass, mid-range and treble that help tweak the sound to room.
Unless you have a large enough room to justify the size of the 5, you might be able to go with a smaller and perhaps even newer model used in similar price range. The main thing you give up is the level controls, but there are many other ways to tweak sound in a room with the right size Walsh speaker if needed. |
After sitting on the sidelines for a l-o-n-g time, I am thinking about buying a pair. Model is the Ohm Walsh V MKII. I know I can check out the Ohm website for details, but since this is THE go-to place for info on Ohms, I'd like to know what you guys think about this particular model - its strengths, weaknesses, things to look out for, possible upgrades, alternative models. Asking price is $2300. Thanks |
I've heard a folded ribbon/heil type tweeter that looks like the one in those in a pair of Goldenear Aon speakers recently. THose were very impressive with a very smooth and somewhat polite top end compared to say the native OHM X00 series three line or Dynaudios with esotar tweeters that I currently own. I have not always been a fan of how ribbon tweeters integrate with conventional cone drivers but those using recent technology were as good as I have heard. I could see where they might blend in well with OHM Walsh drivers which also tend to be quite fast when properly driven The omni dispersion design of those M&Ds an interesting approach in that the a weak aspect of those tweeters that I have heard is that they are quite directional compared to soft dome tweeters. |
Thanks for the update Tobeornottobe. Always wanted to hear the OH and just may at some point. |
The Omni Harmonizers were placed on the Ohm 3000 grills with no problems. The grills still leave some space between themselves and the top of the metal can that encloses the Ohm drivers. My understanding is that Ohm own dome supertweeter sit directly above the Walsh driver inside that can. |
Bondmanp, the Ohm walsh dome tweeters were never disconnected. And I had no issue walking around the room and still getting that huge stable soundstage Ohm walsh driver are famous for with the O.H. connected. The issue of the center image being slightly diffuse may be room dependent but I'm referring to the O.H. ability to give that image more weight and body. |
Tobeornottobe: I just read the Audiophile Voice review linked at the M&D web site. Interesting. I do wonder, though: Where did you place the Omni-Harmonizers? The Walsh caps are not totally flat, and I would bet John Strohbeen would not approve of placing anything atop them, much less the Omni-Harmonizers that must be fairly heavy. I would think it would interfere with the upward radiation of the Walsh drivers, no? One of the things I love about the Ohms is the floor-to-ceiling imaging. I'd hate to compromise that. |
Finsup: My 2-channel chain does not include any DSP. However, when I listen in surround, my AVR applies Pioneer's MCACC, and I do notice a smoother quality to the sound. Note that I run my 2000s with a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs with Vandy HP-5 crossovers. I have never felt the need for any EQ in the bass, but maybe it would help things.
Tobeornottobe: Fascinating post! I have often wondered what my Ohms would sound like with a pricier tweeter. Did you disconnect the Ohm Walsh super tweeter, or does it continue to run alongside the Omni Harmonizers? FWIW, I have no issues with a solid center image. If anything, it is too centered and narrow. That may be due to room treatments (mostly Auralex foam panels). I have removed some of them, and may remove more. |
Finsup,
I use my Ohm 100s with Rythmik subs. I use an Audyssey enabled Onkyo pre-pro to integrate the subs and provide room correction. The system sounds awfully good and I think it's going on 2 years without a component change - probably a personal best!
Marty |
Finally the Omni Harmonizer super tweeter arrived yesterday. First order of business was to make sure they were in good working order. Hooking them up to the amp output and slowly turning up the volume, they began to sing but I heard nothing special or magical. Next, I added the Ohm 3000 with the O.H. super tweeter running in parallel. First impression was different than what I had expected. Having lived with the ribbon on my Dali Helicon 300 for many years, those Dali ribbons infuse dazzle and sparkle. The O.H. on the other hand are every bit as extended at the top end but are more polite and reserved than your traditional ribbon tweeters. I assume this has to do with the O.H. AMT tweeter's lower distortion figues. In any case, subjectively I chose to set the O.H. attenuation at 0 db. The O.H. are a definite improvement over the Ohm 3000 own built in dome super tweeters, which in comparison, I would describe as slow and dull.
I saved the best for last, because the biggest improvement was down in the midrange as others who have experimented with super tweeters have mentioned. The Ohm 3000 on their own do have a vagueness or slight diffuse center image. The O.H. adds midrange bloom and body which stabilizes vocals and helps to create that believable phantom center image. It's startling at times when the vocalist seemingly materializes in your listening room. The improved midrange also make it impossible to hear where the O.H. AMT's 7 KHz crossover kicks in. Both Ohm and AMT drivers are fast and worked together as one.
All listening was done using only CDs as a source. I'll try to get my daughter to help me put up a You Tube of the Ohm 3000 and Omni Harmonizer playing together soon. |
Just curious, has anyone inserted the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 DualCore Digital Signal Processor into their system?
I am guessing that most Ohm users do not have overly-damped/treated rooms however, bass correction could still be very useful with the Ohms. |
Hey Nyaudio98, there is a pair of Ohm made Blue Circle BM2 speakers on us audio mart dot com... I think you might be able to work a deal for those into your budget - they are like Ohm's version of a Watt/Puppy with sub/sat together... Worth an audition (assuming you are in the NY area, they are located in the finger lakes area)... No affiliation - just a happy owner of Ohms here :) |
This is for Jim and nyaudio98: As I've posted here previously, one of the best aspects of Ohm Acoustics is that John Strohbeen achieves nearly identical voicing throughout the Walsh series. IME, most speaker manufacturers start each line with one model, then build up and down from that point. Since each of the successive models are compromised designs to meet a price or size point, the best of the series is usually that initial design, upon which most of the R&D was lavished. Of course, there are exceptions (Silverline Audio is one exception I can think of). But, as an owner of a pair of 2000s as well as a used, older pair of MWTs (for the surround channels), and a Walsh Center, I have to say that in terms of timbre and soundstage presentation, the consistency through the line is near ideal. But the MWTs did not do as well filling my rather large basement listening/viewing room as the 2000s, which are appropriate for my room based on the cubic footage.
As for the lack of reviews, there are several possibilities: The product has not changed significantly in many years, evolving instead of reinventing. I know for sure that John Strohbeen dislikes shows because he is fussy about setup, and turned my audio club down for that reason, too. Perhaps he does not trust many reviewers to set them up properly. Ohm's direct sales business model is not always viewed favorably by the audio journalist community, since it bypasses the struggling b&m dealers.
I have heard the MBLs many times and if I'd won that Powerball, that's what I'd buy. Sort of Ohms on steroids. But for the money, I have yet to hear anything I'd rather own than my Ohms.
As always, if anyone is in or passing by my Union County, NJ, home, let me know and perhaps we set up an audition. Just be warned that, as noted above, my amp is holding my Ohms back. Maybe the IRS will send me some money this summer for a new amp? (That's a joke.) |
Well, Ny, this entire thread started with questions about the Walsh Micro tall speaker. They have been almost universally applauded by owners and reviewers alike. They were about $1000 at the time that this thread started. This thread just sort of morphed into a thread that covers many of the various Ohm speakers
The least expensive new speaker currently listed on Ohm's site is the Microwalsh SE. It's at $1400. I'd call and talk to them, that's what I did, and how I saved $1500 over the new 5000s by getting all of the new electronics in an older, but perfect looking cabinet. Mine are a black semi-gloss oak-grained finish. |
how are speakers below this one that cost 1000 usa |
Above 450hours now, and the 300-5000's keep getting better.
What happened, did I chase everyone off?
Nothing since 3/17! This may be the longest pause since 2008!
I keep thinking about what else I might try at this price range that might offer what these do. Maggie 3.7's? I think the room's too small, and limited bass.
Emerald physics? I'd have to add another amp and the external active x-over . Which means a call to an electrician for another outlet.
And I'd have to figure out what to run through the Purepower 2000, and what to take out, since I'm at plug capacity.
Geez. And would anything really sound better? |
Hello all. Though I'd give it a few days to let things settle before I blather on about how fantastic these new 300-5000's are. Now about 290 hours on them, maybe 5% of that was spent changing CDs or between movies, so call it 275 hours.
They continue to open up and sound lifelike all of the time, though I think I'm currently in one of those gangly teenage phases where things are a little out of sync. Certain parts of vocals and instruments are pushed forward right now, but as some of you guys went through this stage and noted that things smooth out, I'm optimistic.
Did you notice that they seem to play louder at a given volume than they used to? I sure do!
These things are on 24/7 right now with a tuner, but I wonder, does any playing at all do them good, or is it to the point that they need real volume to continue to break them in? They reside downstairs, sub-bedroom, so night time volumes are down for sleeping.
On much of my source material I can close my eyes and the whole front of the room is just bathed in sound.
The other night the missus and I grabbed ten of our favorite albums each, and took turns playing songs. She hasn't done this before, so there's another good sign. She's quick to comment on how much she likes them.
I removed all of the wavy felt draped all of the way around the room, and put it back up, though flat this time, for more reflection.
They are about 7 feet apart CTC, and 8 1/2 feet from my listening spot. 18 inches in front of the 65" DLP, and this seems about right, as the center locks in nicely.
All in all, I really like them. Easy to sit and listen for hours at a time with no fatigue. |
With regards to amps, I tried a couple of different things w/ my 2.2000's and finally arrived at a Valve Audio Predator, which I heartily recommend as a good match for Ohms. The Predators aren't all that easy to find, but they are at least reasonably priced (I picked up mine used for about $1200.
B |
Jim,
I respectfully disagree with you on the merits of the "speakers to match the room" idea. Unless you happen to have an anechoic chamber for a listening room, you're always hearing a combination of the speaker and the room. Below 150ish hertz, you usually hear mainly the room. Tailoring the bass balance of a speaker to the room size makes a ton of sense to me. BTW, you often see a debate in these threads about bass balance for this speaker model or that. (I can't believe you like the Acme model XYZ, it has way too much (little) bass!). I always wonder what the poster would say if he heard the same speaker he's trashing for bass balance in a much bigger (or smaller) room.
As to your other point (Why aren't omnis more popular?), that's a good question. Here's another question:
Let's pick a # and assume that of the next 100 folks who visit Audiogon, 10 or fewer have heard omnis. If the other 9o were to audition a well designed omni (like Ohm or MBL), how many would want to switch. Certainly NOT all 90. But I suspect that a fair number would think hard about it. Why the market hasn't addressed that opportunity, I don't really have a good idea.
Marty |
