@bondmanp that Sugarcube looks very nice, however, at 3k it's too rich for my blood! I'll probably look for an ADC in the 200-500 dollar range and just make sure to clean my records real good in a Record doctor V. The Record Doctor is simply amazing if you haven't tried it.
Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?
Hi,
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'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.
2,916 responses Add your response
@bondmanp no doubt that the vinyl rip sounds better. It's a fact that (well in most cases) that LPs typically have better dynamic range than their CD counterparts (although the CD format DOES have much better dynamic range inherently, but it's not taken advantage of). I plan on digitizing my vinyl collection after I upgrade my cart and phono preamp and then getting a good ADC. Won't be cheap. |
@jim_hip - IME, the main criteria Ohm uses to determine which center channel you need is distance from that center channel speaker. In my case, I was told by John Strobeen that since I sit about 10 feet from the center, that the smallest model would be just fine. I followed that advice and have been pleased with my center for around 8 years. As for the repair vs. upgrade question, you should price both options out. The 3000 cans will have slightly better performance all around, and will be more durable. But the difference in sound quality is not huge. I would try to speak with John Strobeen himself to discuss. He won't steer you wrong. |
Hi Ohm followers, I have been using the Micro talls and micro center in my home theater set up for many years. My late brother willed me his Ohm 4xo's updated from the original F's from the 1970's. When I fired up the 4xo one of the drivers had an issue no top end. I contacted Ohm and spoke to Evan their and I could have the driver repaired or update them to the 3000's. My room is 16'X 24'. My question is if I update the mains should I also update the center Micro center to a larger model. The center sets on a cabinet just below the screen. Now I am mature in my years so my hearing is not of a 20 yr. old but there is more to music and movies then the highs. System powered by a Harmon Kardon AVR 7200 (heater). All responses thanked in advance.. |
Ok, I just had to post this... I am finally able to digitize vinyl at 96/24 using my Sweetvinyl SugarCube SC-2 and play it back from my server. I am listening to Sting's LP "Nothing Like the Sun" that I digitized from a pretty clean double LP, and I am having a "Holy-Mother-of-Crap" moment, where everything is just about perfect. Clean, effortless, extended, all the buzz-words. Wow! The highs, especially, are so much cleaner and smoother than with my Red Book digitized files using my Marantz CD recorder. Considering my system costs a fraction of what many people here have spent on their rigs, it is really something! I love music, and I love this hobby! John Strohbeen, if you're reading this, I will say it again... your speakers should be fed with really good electronics and accessories. Nothing short of amazing!! |
@bondmanp -- The TV sits on a wood TV cabinet. While the cabinet itself is against the rear wall, the back of the TV is about 6" or 7" from the wall. (The internet router is located behind the TV.) BTW, the Siless panels are only about 1/16" thick when on a surface. I suspect they could still be used on a wall-mounted TV. And, within the realm of "audiophile" accessories, the $20 I spent for the Siless panels makes the a downright steal |
Here's an update on the Ohm 1000s. I've had them for over a month now and have them settled in the right spot and continue to really enjoy them. The stridency issue originally mentioned turned out to be the rear panel of the flat screen TV that is in between the two speakers. Apparently, the extra acoustic energy from the Ohm's quasi-omni radiation excited the TV panel in a way the GE Triton 7s didn't. The problem was solved by ordering Siless sound proofing panels from Amazon. These are relatively thin but dense material with an adhesive back that are used for sound deadening in cars. It is very easy to cut to any shape desired. For about $20 you get two 15" X 24" sheets, so it is not very expensive. (I've only used about 10% of the material on the TV so far.) I cut some Siless panels and stuck them to the back of the TV, being careful to not cover any ventilation holes. Even though I only added deadening to about 20% of the back of the TV, it substantially reduced the rattle of the back panel and the strident sibilance is almost completely gone. That's one thing about the Ohms -- they do interact with the room on a substantially different level than conventional front radiator speakers, so be prepared to approach things in a different way. And, as I believe I noted before, these speakers are staying put. Zero need to take Ohm up on their 120 day return offer. |
Map, like you, I too would prefer the Omni approach, giving nod to the MWT over the Arro, however it is certainly horses for courses. I have not lived with Arro either, the MWT I have, so hard to say. As to which one is most detailed, that too a tough call, as presentation and perspective kind of differs a bit. One may perceive the Arro as the more detailed as the sound is thrown directly at you, the MWT more diffuse-although I really somewhat hate that term, as it always seems to be applied to all omnis in general, one in which I feel is wrong a lot of the time.... Either one though is a nice speaker in its own right. |
BTW, Totem Arro and OHM MWT are perhaps my two favorite floor standers of their size and price range that I know of. I could live with either but in the end I would probably live more contently with the MWTs because I am an omni kind of guy in general. Room acoustics and placement options will be a big factor in choosing between these two as both do everything they do extremely well. Is MWT as detailed as Arro? Would have to spend more time with both to know for sure. |
leahy, like has been suggested, talk with John at Ohm, give him as much detail as you can on your room size, shape, and what you want to accomplish with your system. He will steer you right between the choices, and how well any of them will work. I would be inclined to say MWT’s could work very well, and they really do have very respectable bass. The 1000 improves on the bass end even more so, but depending on placement may prove too much potentially. But all that is my own thoughts at the moment. Ask the one who will know. I think your current system with the Naim and Totem(I used a Naim Uniti with MW T’s for awhile) is a good one, if it works well, sometimes it may be difficult to upset things, but with Ohm’s very generous trial period, certainly worth a try, I say go for it. As Map stated, the MWT abd Arro are very similar in size, the Ohm being a bit taller maybe, but that is where the comparisons will end, they both do a bit different things sound wise of course. Have fun, enjoy the music either way! Tim |
Thank you for all three replies - that all sounds very hopeful. My inclination is to try the 1000. The volume of my room, with 9' ceiling, is just over the 1000 mark, and excessive bass has never been an issue with any speaker I have used (Altec A7 and split 210 cabinets included). I'll check in with Ohm. |
I'm enjoying my Ohm 1000s as I type this -- Murray Perahia is playing Beethoven's Piano Concerto No 1 and the sound is expansive. Ohm's do a wonderful job of capturing the scale of an orchestra in a concert hall. My room is roughly 13 X 14 and the speakers are 7' apart from each other on the shorter wall, 10" out. (They started out 8' apart and 14" from the wall, but small changes make a dramatic difference. Experimentation is important.) I had originally discounted the Ohms, because as a semi-omni speaker, I thought the wall opening at the right behind the speakers would play havoc with the sound. John Strohbeen at Ohm and I discussed this and it turned out he was quite right. I'd suggest you discuss your issue with him and see what he thinks. You may be surprised, as I was. |
You might get by with Microwalsh talls, even smaller, more like Arro size I think. Call OHM and talk to John Strohbeen. See what he says. I use ohm 100s (slightly larger than 1000) in 12X12 rooms as close as 1 foot to walls to better effect than conventional monitors or towers of similar size in there. |
All, Coming in to this game pretty late... My room is 8X14 with a french door opening to the living room, and I'm always looking for a speaker that can make the room appear larger than it is. I'm about to move some Magnepan .7s today. I wanted to hear them, and they are excellent speakers, but they dominate the room. So, out they go. I'm currently very happy with some Totem Arros and a Naim Nait XS2. Very engaging sound, but it might be nice to have a slightly bigger soundscape. I'm actually quite happy with the bass from the Arros in this room. The question is, should I even consider the 1000s in this space, or is it just too narrow? I would be at 10-12" from the side walls, and the room can only be set up to fire down the length of the room. If anyone has experience trying something this narrow with the Ohms, I would love to hear your thoughts. |
@mslstl:. Glad to hear you are enjoying your 1000s. I doubt they are anywhere near broken in yet. Be aware that things may get worse before getting even better. I find that poor recordings are quite listenable on my 2000s, even if they are exposed as the lousy recordings they are. You may wish to experiment with cables, but only after the 1000s are fully broken in, in a few months. Those speakers will respond to every change you make upstream, and you will know quickly if a new component or wire is an improvement or not. |
I've now spent about 12 hours listening to my new Ohm 1000s and experimenting with their placement in my room. This is not a dedicated listening room so there are limitations as to what can go where. Right out of the box, the 3-D imaging was amazing. Even more so, it is extremely impressive is to be freed from the very small sweet spot that most other speakers have. For a long time I told myself that when I'm listening seriously, I'll be in that one spot that gives the best image. If I'm anywhere else, then I'm listening casually and imaging isn't that critcal. I think I've been cheating myself with that view. The Ohms have removed the shackels. It is simply marvelous to be able to move about the room or sit elsewhere and have the music continue to image like a live ensemble, without the 3-D qualities disappearing or changing unnaturally. The one thing that had kept me from trying Ohms in the past few years turned out to be a non-issue. There is a door opening (with no door to close) behind and to the side of the right speaker. I had thought that would screw things up badly for a quasi-omni speaker. However, after talking to John at Ohm, he said that shouldn't be an issue -- it's the wall between the speakers that counts. Turned out he was right on and the doorway does not seem to adversely affect the sound. The other strong point is that acoustic instruments, and vocals in particular, are extemely well voiced. They are natural and accuate sounding and the tonal balance is outstanding. This, in combination with the gigantic sweet spot, makes the sonic image float eerily independent of the speakers -- very nice. Interestingly, the speakers were a bit bass-shy out of the box. This is not something one expects from Ohms. However, in experimenting with the placement and running a few 20 Hz to 200 Hz frequency sweeps, I found the right spot that got rid of the mid-bass dip. It was just a matter of moving them about 2 or 3 inches closer to the wall behind them. Bass is now impressively solid and deep. The only shortcoming is very material dependent. Some recordings have their vocals too closely miked (or used a rather "spitty" sounding mike), so there can be some brittleness on vocals in those recordings. That happens less than 10% of the time on the material I've played so far. Plus, between the break-in and experimenting with positions, this problem has subsided substantially over the past few days. I've still got some more work to do that may help this, but I do need to remember that I can't expect a speaker to fix the poor aspects of a recording. Despite having a 120 day trial, I've already decided these are keepers. I have very eclectic taste in music -- classical, jazz, folk, pop, rock, and various other oddities. (Just picked up a CD of civil war songs along side some Ginastera and Pink Matini....) While I don't listen loudly -- 85 dB is about the maximum for average volume -- so far the Ohms are handling it all with ease. As you can tell, I'm pleased. |
Thanks bondmanp for the info. I have a micromega that has room correction and would be using them in a 2 channel system without subs. From what I understand of the Ohm is they reproduce a more 3-d image, I guess a larger 'sweet spot' and just wondered if room correction would actually work against this type of speaker as opposed to a more traditional front firing speaker. |
@djones51:. although I don’t use it in stereo, my 2 channel system is integrated into my home theater system. In multichannel listening, I use a Pioneer receiver with MCACC. I have not had any issues with this and my Ohms. Except for the subs and the back surround speakers, my surround system is all Ohm Walsh, 2000, a Walsh centr and MWT surrounds. Works great. |
OK, the Ohm 1000s arrived Wednesday and so far I've got about 4 hours of listening from them. The 3-D image is wonderful out of the box, but still have some experimenting to do with respect to positioning. Plus, they need some break-in time. Way premature to give much in the way of a review, but we are off to a good start! More to follow. |
jwc2012 writes, "I've got a set Ohm Walsh 2XO cans in great shape that I thought I'd be able to find an old set of cabinets on which to mount them." One option is to find a set of Allison CD-7 cabinets. The 2XO cans should just fit the top-mount opening for the 8" woofer, though the rim may require some bracing to handle the weight of the cans. (It's old pressboard, not MDF.) The internal volume is just a bit lower than that of the 2XO cabinet, though it's a sealed cabinet. My understanding is there's no crossover external to the can, so it's just a pair of wires from terminals to the can. The Allison is hollow and unbraced, typical of the era, so adding some internal bracing probably wouldn't hurt. Besides the later RDL based on the CD-7 design, I'm unaware of another similar size cabinet with a top-mounted woofer opening. |
Thanks @bondmanp. I'm probably still 3 weeks or so away from getting them, but plan on giving them every opportunity to become a permanent addition to my system. As noted before, I had a trial run with the 200s back in 2003 or so and they fell just a bit short of what I was after. Trust that a bit more tweaking has been done since then. I certainly plan on giving a full report when I've had a chance to live with them for awhile. |
@mlsstl - Provided you and the folks at Ohm agree that the 1000 is the right Walsh speaker for your space, I expect you’ll be pleased. Just a few points: The standard current Walsh line are not full omnis like the old F’s were. They attenuate output somewhat in the rear to facilitate placement near the front wall. They can be ordered without this attenuation if desired (and I often wonder what my 2000s would sound like without this attenuation). Second, you must allow plenty of break-in time. The speakers will go through many tonal shifts as they break in, and full break in can take months. Thirdly, the current Walsh line use a conventional dome tweeter, unlike the F's, which were full-range, true omnis. This means adjusting the toe-in, which works backwards from conventional dynamic speakers, is important. Toeing in these Ohms will attenuate the treble output at the listening seat, and toeing them out will accentuate it. Lastly, I think the 1000s will have much of, if not all of, the magic of your F’s. They certainly have a wide sweet spot. Please keep us posted. |
Just thought I'd start up this thread again to state that I have a set of 1000s coming in a few weeks. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the 1970s and loved them - they threw an absolutely magical 3D image. I have always regretted selling them when I moved in 1977. Been through a lot of speakers since. Tried a set of Ohm 200s back in 2003 to replace the aging set of tri-amped trasmission line KEFs I used for a number of years but liked the Maggie 1.6QRs better in the room at that time. When we moved in 2006, the Maggies didn't work in the 13 X 14 room in the new house. I ended up with a pair of Spendor SP1/2Es which I really loved, but the wife didn't like the 70s boxes. So I then switched to the current set of GE Triton 7s. They are very good, but talk about a tight and small sweet spot! I've got a difficult room as there is an opening behind the right speaker that has no door. I assumed omni type speakers were a lost cause due to the lack of symmetry. After recently talking to John at Ohm, he said the wall IN BETWEEN the two speakers is what's important. If that's the case, I may be OK. So, here in a few weeks we're going to find out. I'm crossing my fingers that they'll do the trick and have the magic I remember (and, release me from the microscopic sweet spot.) |
@bondmanp : Your description of Ohms as being tolerant to less than perfect setups but at the same time rewarding the improvements is exactly what I am looking for now. The former quality will come in handy now, the latter - more down the road ;-) I sent a diagram and a photo of my room to Ohm and the response I got was: "...Yes, we definitely still recommend the 1000 for you based on your overall room size and your listening distance. The irregular shape of the one side of your room will serve to improve the acoustics of the space substantially -- particularly in the area of mid-bass clarity...." So based on that and not having heard a really strong opinion one way or another in this tread I am going to order 1000s. Thank you guys for your help! |
Good summary Bondman. OHMs goal is to make good sound easy and affordable, not hard and complex. I ran them for many years that way not worrying about what could be done to make things better. In 2008 or so I decided to focus on achieving the best sound I could for me and after joining this forum, dabbling with some other options for a number of years and listening to all the various options, including QUAD ES, Magnepan, and other more conventional designs including B&W, Triangle and Dynaudio, I decided to give the OHM upgrades a chance. Everything else in my system changed after I got the upgraded OHMs in order to perfect the sound. Now it has been that way for several years now and I have enjoyed countless hours of totally contented listening regularly since. Its an endeavor well worth it if one cares, but with the OHMs and the ready availability of high quality electronics to run them these days, its not that hard for many to get the best sound they have ever had relatively easily. |
@blin116 - I defer to mapman on the efficiency issue. The way I see it is this: The Ohm Walsh speakers represent such a good value, that if you find you must upgrade elsewhere, such as your amp, it is well worth it, as these speakers will let you hear what you spent the money on. If your integrated has pre-outs, you can try borrowing a higher powered amp to see if you like the results. But you may not feel this is necessary. My thoughts are that John Strohbeen does not want to present Ohm speakers as tweaky or demanding of a lot power or expensive electronics. And, to a degree, he is correct. As my initial review noted, the 2000s sounded quite good on an older Onkyo surround receiver rated at 80 watts per channel without my subwoofers. And yes, you can plunk them down in your room, play a little bit with toe-in, and off you go with good sound. But, and it is a big but, none of this means the Ohm Walsh series won't respond well to better electronics, tweaks, room treatments, etc. They will, and in spades. The good news is they are not tweaky in the sense that they won't sound good at all unless you get fancy footers, expensive gear, high-priced cables, or extensive room treatments. So one can do as much or as little as they like, and then just enjoy. |
Yes I use subdudes under my 100s when used in rooms on upper levels of the house. Its the floor construction (suspended plywood) that matters not the cover type. If you jump up and down and get any vibrations transmitted to items in the room then the subdudes should make a difference. I think I read somewhere that the smaller models are less efficient than larger but if ratings are similar most likely not much difference with these two models specifically. |
Thank you all for the responses! @mapman : I will follow up with Ohm to see what aspects of my room warranted their recommendation. Also, do I understand correctly that you use SubDude platforms under the 100s? My floors are now carpeted but that is going to change soon to hardwood, and the sonic aspects are not the primary considerations there ;-} I guess I may need some padding under the speakers when it happens. @bondmanp : I like the idea that going with the 1000s now leaves me an option of adding one or two subs in the future to cover the low end extension (instead of sending the speaker back for a size-up). Ideally, though, I would love to not have to add more boxes to this room. And if Ohms handle the lows in mid-30-s nicely, it may be enough for me for now. Another thought I got from reading multiple reviews and discussions. It's mentioned that the Ohm speakers sound best when they are fed lots of power. Will that "sweet spot" of power intake will be lower for the smaller model and therefore easier achievable at reasonable (not too loud) music volume? If that's the case it may mean +1 for 1000. Both 1000s and 2000s have their sensitivity listed at 88db, so the same power level from the amp should result in the same SPL at the couch. Or am I having this wrong? |
Did OHM indicate the reason for 1000 rather than 2000 if the site indicates 2000 for that room volume and the room also opens up to adjacent areas? I would want to know if it were me. The difference between 1000 and 2000 should be mainly bass levels in a given size room. Larger models might also be a tad more efficient if it matters in your case but I would ask OHM about that to be sure. Floor type and interactions are another significant factor to consider. If your floors have a lot of give, as most floors in modern homes are, that affects the bass in that mid bass gets an artificial bump that can also obscure mid-range and detail to some extent. Isolation pads like Auralex subdude platforms solve that problem. I use my OHM 100s which also have 8" drivers in a comparable sized open room area with excellent results however I use the sub dude platforms on upper levels. Not needed in finished listening room at foundation level. |
@blin116 - My room was on the cusp of requiring the 3000s, but the room volume for the 2000s overlaps with the room volume for the 3000s. I went with the 2000s, primarily for the cost savings. As you can read in this thread, this was nine years ago, and I am still quite thrilled with them. So, I would think the 1000s will work for you if that’s what Ohm is telling you. That said, while the x000 series has really similar sonics up and down the line, the larger models will offer deeper bass extention and somewhat better dynamic capabilities. Now, I also use a pair of subwoofers with my 2000s. Is it overkill? It depends. I am a bit of a bass freak (well, ok, not "a bit of" - I am a full-on, for life, unrepentant bass addict), so for me, the subs would have been kept even if I had sprung for the 3000s. So, of course, if you ask me, I would take the money you save on the 1000s and buy one, or better, two, good (I stress, GOOD) subwoofers. But I would surely wait for your 1000s to fully break in first. You may not feel the need for any extra oomph or extension in the bass. And, if you really regret getting the 1000s instead of the 2000s, you can always return the 1000s and get the 2000s (although the shipping will get expensive). Separately, you should think about deadening the wall behind your couch. Sitting against the back wall is never ideal, acoustically. Most Ohm users agree that "live-end, dead-end" works well. IOW, the front wall should be live, acoustically, while the back wall should be dead (or dead-er). I tried covering up my 60" plasma screen with a quilt, and ended up leaving it uncovered - the sound was better that way. These speakers are different than dynamic-drivers-in-a-box speakers, and respond better to different room treatments and positioning than those speakers. Keep that in mind as you break them in. And, please, allow them to break in. The changes are quite dramatic, IME. I am powering my 2000s with 150 watts per side as well (although the subwoofers have their own amps, so the main amp is rolled off, first order, below 80Hz), and it is generally plenty of power. I did try out a pair 500 watt monoblocks with them at one point. They were marginally better, but not so much so. I stuck with the 150 watt per channel amp I had. But I may move up to a higher power amp someday. I guess the point is that these speakers will work with lower powered amps, and still sound really good. But, they will respond really well to any improvements you make upstream - whether that is better power, better source gear, even better wires. I am still amazed at how the Ohms allow me to clearly hear differences in upstream cables and gear. In addition to the helpful folks at Ohm, we on this thread will be happy to help you if you have any other questions. |
Sorry, just drop in on this thread every now and then, so if someone has already brought it up, I have been watching Bosch on Amazon, based on a Michael Connelly book. And he (Bosch) is using Walsh speakers and I believe a Mc275 and turntable. Used to see the Walsh speakers at Fedco in southern calif, and coveted them. |