I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
I would have gone for the Wyred except I decided to splurge and go for the BCref1000m2s for a significant premium.
The premium got me 100K input impedance compared to 60K and perhaps an upgrade in the on-board power supply.
I like the Wyreds as the best value overall though that are capable of driving the OHMs to the max and also mate well with most tube pre-amps.
So if you want to splurge, you can substitute the BC ref100m2s for the Wyreds in the equation, but you may end up with very comparable results with the Wyreds as well I suspect. Some reviewers have suggested an audible sound difference between the two, but I have never had the opportunity to compare.
And yes, I am a fan of the MErcury Living Presence recordings as well and they provide some of the most captivating sound available on a suitable system. A lot of those used very simple miking techniques combined with a focus on delivering a captivating stereo sound experience back in the day when stereo was a new and big thing. The OHMs deliver this in spades as they are capable of doing with most all very good recordings I have tried when driven to their max potential by an amp like the Wyred or BC Icepower amps.
I do not understand what the Icepower detractors are hearing to justify that position. The sound may not be to everyones taste (nothing is) but there is certainly no graininess or any other artifacts that people associate with anything even remotely digital in nature.
YEs, I would easily recommend those with smaller rooms like my two 12X12 rooms go straight to a pair of smaller OHMs in an optimized nearfield configuration with suitable amplification as well and rest in peace from there.
I run monitors in one of my two 12X12s but frankly if that were my main listening room I'd probably just add another pair of smaller OHMs and call it a day.
Mapman - One of my most treasured finds is a Mercury Living Presence of Frederick Fennel conducting the Cole Porter song book. It's a Wilma Cozart production, stereo, in remarkably good condition. It can make almost any vinyl playbeck system sound wonderful.
Diebenkorn - interesting observations. I have noticed that if I scoot my chair up from it's usual position to form a roughly equilateral triangle, about 4.5" per side, my Walsh 2000s do sound better than from further away.
A teaser - I am trying a new preamp out on my system. Way too early to post any more info, but I will eventually.
Having heard well set up true omni mbl speakers in a sizeable room unlike any that most of us schlubs will ever have, I would consider those to be the all time champs I have heard in terms of image depth and 3-d soundstage.
The pseudo-omni OHMs approach that kind of 3-d soundfield best in a near field configuration I find.
depth of soundstage is the only area where I would say good true omnis like mbl in a very large room with lots of space behind them have the edge over my OHMs in my rooms normally.
Yes, I have the CD of that particular MLP release.
I have a dozen or so different MLP titles on CD and pick them up whenever I see them at reasonable cost without a second thought. None on vinyl yet though unfortunately.
Okay - I am ready to break my silence. (Pause, while I put on my flame-proof protective suit). I recently decided to stop trying to get my Conrad Johnson PV-11 preamp to behave and replace it. I wanted to stay with tubes, I wanted all the features of the PV-11 plus several more - remote control, a balance control with more range (I have acoustic issues) and - gulp - tone controls (quick duck and cover). Those of you who know the preamp market know that that left me really only one choice: McIntosh. Mac gear is mostly out of my price range, but I decided to splurge on a used C220 hybrid tube preamp. This is a current model, in production since 2006. I went with Audio Classics as a dealer. Although I paid a bit more than I might have here or on that big auction site, I got a guaranty, a home-trial period, and a trade-up option. Since I had never heard this piece before, the home trial was a must.
A full detailed review will eventually go up on this site, but for now, I have decided to keep the C220. Yes, it is warm sounding, as you would expect from Mac. But, it is not your father's McIntosh tube preamp. It is pretty extended up top, and especially so in the bottom (I discovered I had been missing a good part of the lowest octave). It is pretty quiet, especially for a tube pre. It is extremely well built, and pleasurable to use. Compared to the Connie-J, I do feel I am giving up a little soundstage width and perhaps some tube bloom. That said, this pre is cleaner-sounding, with better image placement (anyone who doesn't believe Ohm Walsh speakers can project a solid image needs to hear my current system). I am also getting a hint of soundstage depth, of which I had none with the PV-11 (I do have a 55" RPTV behind and between the speakers). Most of all, though, I am tapping my toes more, and playing more air guitar since the change. And it turns out that about 90% of the channel imbalance issue I had with the C-J was in fact the C-J. Just 2 or 3 clicks of the balance control (out of 107 possible) are sufficient to provide a dead-centered image.
The internal MM phono section seems about as good as the PV-11's.
Another area where there is a big difference is in sibilants. They are very different on the C220 than on the PV-11. Overall, I think they are more realistic, although they can be a little too pronounced on some recordings (which means it is likely the recordings, not the C220, at fault). The improved sibilants are matched by improved transients as well. This, I think, is what is responsible for the improved imaging I am hearing. The transient info is more attached in space to the musical notes that follow. At no time is the sound edgy, brittle or wince-inducing, even when played pretty loud.
Those tone controls have not been used extensively. Mostly, I am in the Tone Bypass mode. However, when a particularly ugly CD is played, they have come in handy, and do not seem to harm the signal at all. It has enabled me to simplify my system by removing the Behringer parametric EQ which, as the C220 exposed, was not very transparent.
There is only one area that caused me some concern with this upgrade. There is occasionally, on some recordings, a small patch of roughness or exaggeration at around 8kHz. Guess what the Walsh 2000 does at 8kHz? Yup - the hand-off from Walsh driver to tweeter. I am not sure what to make of this, but it is rare. Perhaps it's a little bump in the C220's response curve, or perhaps it is transparent enough to expose the limits of whatever crossover components are used in the 2000.
Some of the best sound I've listened to thus far was from Norah Jones ("The Very Thought of You") and Pink Floyd ("Wish You Were Here"). Note that the Pink Floyd CD is a standard CD reissue, not an audiophile item, and it had always been a fatugue-inducing recording. Through the C220 and Ohms, it was simply real sounding and musical.
This is my first "modern" stereo preamp. I must say that I do feel I am now in the grown-up section of the pool. And I cannot stress enough how amazing the Ohm Walsh 2000s are. That a sub-$3000/pr loudspeaker allows me to hear so clearly the differences between preamps, digital players and a cheap EQ is truly remarkable. I doubt many speakers in this price range can do that.
Bond, My old Mac 6200 was the only piece of gear that didn't bother me because it had tone controls. Congrats on the C220, Mac gear works beautifully with Ohms.
Thanks, all. Marty - I just meant that I felt like I was playing with the Big Boys now, as opposed to struggling at the margins of the high end. Yes, there is plenty of pee in the world of high end audio! So far, I think have avoided it. :-)
My room is rectangular--about 12.5 feet by 17 feet. It is closed off from everything else by doors, but I wouldn't call it hermetically sealed.
I've gone through a bunch of speakers for the side and rear surrounds, and I've come to the following conclusions. I prefer them at least two feet above ear level. I don't like direct radiating. I prefer them to match the fronts as close as possible.
Simon, Finsup - I agree totally. I have MWTs as surrounds. They are up on a pair of cinder blocks to get them above ear level. Although the right surround is pretty close to my seat, I do not get any speaker localization issues with this set up (see my system link for the whole rig).
I find it interesting that you have back surrounds from Ohm, too. Currently I have a pair of Paradigm Atoms on tall stands as back surrounds. Since I upgraded to Ohms for 5 of the channels, I have been pondering whether to stick with 7.1 or go to 5.1. But a pair of Walsh Walls mounted on the back wall is tempting. No funding available right now, though. That Mac preamp pretty much broke the bank. Oh well.
I have gone through various 5.1 and 7.1 configurations for the sides and rears, trying combinations of the Super 2's, the 100 S3 omnis, the mini-micro omni's, bipoles, dipoles, and three sets of direct radiators. For my money, there is no substitute for 7.1 if you want a full soundfield back there.
I saw that review. Driving them with a Fisher 500C tube receiver? And his jaw drops? Mind you, I have not heard any Ohm speaker but his experience runs a little counter to posts in this thread about the need for high current to really make them sing.
If anyone is looking for an outstanding high power amplifier to pair with their Ohm's see the class d amp kits at classdaudio.com. These kits are ridiculously cheap for the quality of amplification you get.
I put together their 250w Super D amp to pair with my Ohm's and I could not be happier.
If you have basic soldering skills you can put this amp together. No affiliation with the company, just seriously impressed with the sound quality of this amp for the $500 total in kit and parts.
" his experience runs a little counter to posts in this thread about the need for high current to really make them sing.
What to make of this?"
You may not be pushing the limits of volume and dynamics possible with the OHMs with a Fisher tube receiver, but the end results might still be quite pleasant.
I lot of people run OHMs off of gear that is perhaps less than optimal and remain quite satisfied. Its all relative.
I'm sure that the "jaw drop" thing was a response to the omni presentation. You'll get that effect straight away and it does make its mark. It's only after you "listen through" that striking first impression that you get to things like dynamics, tonal balance et. al. I suspect that most listeners will find the Ohms really impressive at first listen, even if they're poorly matched in a system. If they're well matched, then you've got a good thing going for the long term.
Its true that omni speakers produce a distinctly different class of sound that can wow people immediately regardless because the presentation is so inherently unique. Most may never bother or feel need to move forward from their initial setup at that point I would imagine because they have already accomplished a major change for the better in their sound that is hard to match otherwise.
Maybe I was spoiled? Funny, but the soundstage aspects of the Walsh 2000s that I bought last year were not what made them keepers for me. Sure, the soundstage is huge and holographic, but properly set up (which mine were), the Vandersteen 1Cs I had before also could do some amazing things with soundstage reproduction. As a result, the first thing I noticed when I fired up the Ohms was not a bigger soundstage, but an amazing truth in timbre that the 1Cs lacked. Now, I have heard many loudspeakers that tend to bunch the sound around each speaker. If you are used to that kind of soundstage, then, heck yeah, the Ohms will knock you out of your chair with their soundstage abilities.
As time has passed, I have noticed some differences in the soundstage: Overall, the soundstage is not as far into the room as was the Vandys, different, not better or worse. That said, I think the Ohms do a better job of reflecting what is in the recording, soundstage-wise. The Vandys, I think, kind of created a lot of soundstage fireworks, whether they were on the record or not. Interestingly, the new McIntosh preamp has changed the soundstage presentation of the 2000s. Mostly for the better, with a little more forwardness in the presentation, and a bit more depth.
Hi mapman. Thanks for asking. I love these speakers, but a surprise impending divorce forces me generate cash right now. I'm also trying to sell Grado cart ai love. And I may have to sell the Yamaha M-85, which I'm trying to forestall. When all this is done and finances recover I'll be back in the Ohm Walsh customer base.
I the grand scale of things, your asking price is very favorable. There is no speaker I know of capable of more at anywhere near that price point. There are decent monitors, but these compete with fullranges and the OHMs play with the best IMHO.
The challenge with the OHM Walshes from a sellers perspective I think is that many see older OHM Walshes out there for under $1000 these days and are not aware of the differences in performance between old and new OHM Walshes. The cans and cabinets all tend to look similar, more so than most designs, so I think it is important to make sure prospective buyers know exactly what they are getting, a speaker that in most rooms competes with the best out there, and not a 30 year old less refined design.
If anybody has recently upgraded from series 3 to the latest 1000 series models, I'd be interested in hearing some about what you do or do not hear different or better with the newer designs?
I owned the Walsh 5 S3 and upgraded to the 5000s and have extensive listening hours logged with both. Here is a point by point comparison:
1. 5000 greatest improvement is in the midrange - it is much more open and transparent - superb inner detail and quiet background - much more dimensional.
2. 5000 has lower SPL, ~2 dB, needs more power and a good 200W per channel amp - and has a superior bass with better slam, tightness and extension - quite amazing actually. All the Walshs had excellent bass but the 5000 has hit the sweet spot with just perfect box tuning.
3. The 5000 treble is very airy and sweet and never ever will you hear grain or grit - hours and hours of listening pleasure and zilch fatigue.
4. The soundstage of the 5000 goes deeper with much better fleshing out of the back rows of the ensemble and much more hall acoustic and you-are-there presence.
The 5000 upgrade from the Walsh 5 Series 3 is well worth the dollar investment and heartily recommended.
I haven't posted to this thread for a while as I've been changing components over (and over again) the past year. I have Ohm Walsh 5000 prototypes in 5-S3 cabinets. It has been months of changing out electronics, cables etc. and listening to get to this point. More than once, I thought I knew what the Ohms were capable of; The Ohms proved me wrong. In my experience, they have more to offer as you match your gear and move up the electronics food chain. They are very neutral speakers. My Ohms have been much like the proverbial "chameleon." The quality of their sound has changed and improved as the system of electronics in front of them has been optimized. Others, (Mapman) have noted that Ohms have the ability to be better with better gear. As I have matched and upgraded electronics, cables, and even my ac outlet, the sound of the Ohms improved in quality too. I spoke to a very high end dealer once who bluntly stated "you need different speakers." That's been a recurring theme I've read and heard. I don't know about older Ohm models, but the modern Ohms are quality.
There is a lesson I have learned. System building takes more patience than I like. Seems that sometimes it takes more time, trial and error than I wanted to deal with. I didn't know these speakers could be this good but I continued to experiment with different electronics, power cords etc. As I went through component changes, I thought the sound of the Ohms was improving but realized it was still unsatisfying. I practically gave up. But, I learned that you have to stick with speakers sometimes and continue to experiment upstream. One find along the way was Auricle Audio interconnects. They are great and a bargain! The other find was the Maestro ac outlet some of you have read about. Each of these has contributed to the enhanced performance of the Ohm speakers in my system. The sound quality of the Ohms can go where you take them.
Foster - I couldn't agree more! I was gradually upgrading my electronics and cables, and eventually realized that I had taken my old speakers as far as they could go. In the year that I've had the Walsh 2000s, I have made some upgrades - a new DAC, moddified my turntable, a new cartridge, and a new preamp. In each case, the 2000s revealed the differences. Although I am really enjoying my system right now, I agree with you that I can only benefit from further system improvements.
Don't worry about that dealer; I bet he'd say that about any speaker he didn't carry. People who discredit Ohm products either haven't heard them or haven't heard them in a good system that is well set up. Even people who have had Ohms in the past and moved on generally speak highly of Ohm's speakers.
Interestingly, John Strohbeen told me that he does not do trade shows for that very reason - too little time to do it right and show his products properly.
John S. really has a talent for voicing loudspeakers. All we consumers have to do is add the right electronics, cables and a proper set up to benefit more fully from this talent!
YEs, I find with the OHMs, it is much like making really good soup. All the ingredients matter and attention to detail 9and some patience) is the key to getting really good results.
Foster, I know all teh gyrations you have gone through so I am very happy that your patience and attention to detail appears to be paying off.
BTW, after bringing in the 100S3s and later the 5S3s, the only part of my system at the time that did not change as well towards the goal of optimizing performance was my Linn Axis turntable, speaker wires and Denon103R cart. Everything else changed including amp (twice), pre-amp + phono pre-amp, DAC and ICs. So pretty much nothing remained the same. But it was all worth it.....
I just found this thread and had to voice my experiences with Ohm speakers. My first experience with anything Ohm happened around 1974 when I purchased a pair of Infinity Monitor speakers. These speakers used an inverted Ohm tweeter, a mini Ohm speaker (maybe 3 inches tall?) mounted upside down. The only problem is I kept blowing them. The guy at the stereo place was getting tired of replacing the drivers and offered to let me try out some Ohm F's. I take them home and set them up (I had no idea what I was doing). I had a Phase Linear 400 amp that I drove them with. They sounded very good but seemed like they were missing something so I took them back and got the other speakers. As soon as I got back and hooked those up and turned them on, I knew immediately I had made a big mistake. The Ohms were far superior. Not only that, there isn't a more fun speaker to watch work!!! :-)
The mid 80's rolled around and I started moving to CD's. I needed a new stereo setup since my old one was long gone. So I purchased a pair of Walsh 4's and a Carver M1.5t amp and 4000t preamp. It was like a match made in heaven. The Walsh 4's could take just about anything the M1.5t could throw at them (I would routinely push 500 - 600 watts per channel at them) without strain. I was reading here about the lack of low bass punch with Ohms. Ohms need power and lots of it. To get an Ohm to open up and sound like they should requires good clean power. My 4's are currently sitting in storage with blown drivers (thanks to my kids when they were younger) awaiting the new Walsh 5 upgrade. In the mean time I've had 2 pairs of Walsh 2's in my living room. While they don't have the same punch or tonal quality as the 4's, they sound excellent. At first they sounded a little muffeled until I got brave enough to crank in the power. Once I did, the memories of the 4's started coming back. While they can't handle the power and start to sound strained when really pushed, I've listened to high quality recordings at natural levels with them and they are very easy to listen to. The sound stage is vintage Ohm with everything placed precisely.
I blew one of the 2's by accident. My receiver was out for repair and I use the Carver M1.5t for the front channels. I had a direct connection from my laptop to the amp when the mini stereo plug fell out. The amp graciously allocated all of it's power to that speaker and... well, just say Walsh 2's don't like 750 watts at once.
But all is not lost, just ordered another pair of Walsh 2's off of eBay for $240 until I can save up for my Walsh 5000 upgrade. But based on what I've heard, I won't be changing speaker brands, I love my Ohm's!
As side note, I'm ordering the 5000 upgrade for my Walsh 4's today! Can't wait!! John is taking both pair of Walsh 2's for a trade in. As soon as I get them in, I give them a write up here.
Thanks Finsup for posting that note from John, I also put a little notice up over on my 3/3000 update thread too. I really should call John and get those MWT/omni's ordered for my home theater! Tim
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
