Have you guys seen the new Ohm website? http://ohmspeaker.com It's a beta site, much better than the current version, plus there is an incentive to find errors. I can't believe it, but the Ohm 5000 talls are priced at $3250, instead of the current $6500. No kidding! Check it out.
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
The new Ohm site is pretty incredible. It's like they just time-jumped from the early 90's to day in one leap. If nothing else, take a look at the impressive lineup of center channel speakers. Oh,m and surround speakers Oh, and the sub based on the old F cabinet looks like it might be a beast! Definitely worth a visit to check it out. |
I think the new site is definately a big step in the right direction, been a loooong time coming. About the only thing I see is that more pictures of each model would be a good thing, and that may be in the works still. I am sure like most things, it is a work in progress. Lets just hope that it isn't another 20 years before it is finished! Only kidding John, well done! |
Aargh! I go one day without checking this thread or reading my emails and the new web site comes out and the offer to find error comes in my e-mail. Well, I sent John a list of 26-28 errors. I am hoping at least four of them were ones you guys missed. :) At least it will be cleaned up a bit. Agree with all the comments above: The site looks much, much better, there should be more photos (what is a pancake center channel anyway?), and some "click-through" links too. |
Coot, I might consider a tube amp if not for the cost and maintenance issues. Teh tube amp would haveto have way more tubes than I would care to tend to to have a chance of maxing out the OHMS at higher volumes. Using a sub and offloading much of the low end to that opens up more possibilities in regards to using a tube amp to maximum effect. |
Coot, I would qualify that somewhat further and say in a smaller room, with smaller OHMs perhaps, and for certain musical and listening tastes/preferences, OHMs alone + a modest power tube amp alone might fit the bill. The bigger the room, and the more demand for good extended bass, the less chance of a smaller, lower maintenance tube amp cutting it alone I think. OHM + modest tube amp will certainly work, especially at lower to moderate volume. A lot has to do with personal preferences and situation. |
Coot, 100 watts/tube=500 watts/ss, if this were the case, an awful lot of people would have given up on solid state a long time ago. This just isn't so and is another hi-fi myth. I don't think I have ever seen quite this amount of exaggeration though to be honest. Watts are watts into the same load. At any rate, within the amplifiers capability and not clipping, tube or solid state will work into the Ohms, just depends on how loud you like it and how big the space you have to fill. Many have tried tubes, some stay with one or the other. A matter of flavor at times, others a matter of drive and dynamics. Finding a good match that you like with Ohms is what matters most, your ears, your system. Enjoy them! Tim |
Love the new site. But, it look slike black ash veneer is no longer an option. I love my 2000s and center in black. Some day, I want a pair of wall-mounts for the rear-surround channels, and I'd like them to be black as well. Maybe this is a custom order? Frazeurl: I have long guessed that tube amps sound louder because their distortion products are pleasant. If a SS amp begins to distort, you would either turn it down or off. But the distortion and clipping characteristics of a tube design would not stop most people from listening. Since we hear distortion as loudness, tube amps are said to sound louder given the same rated output before clipping. My $0.02 |
Coot, a SET would not work for the Ohms. A push-pull of high wattage (such as a McIntosh, would need about 150 wpc for the 5000) tube would be fine. My approach with inefficient speakers is to concentrate on a tube preamp with a powerful SS amp. That way one can play around with tube swapping without busting the bank (preamp tubes are relatively inexpensive), and tubes last much longer with the modest amount of amplification of the preamp. Some of the tubes are cheap, and some cost upwards of $1200/pair, like the Sophia Electric Royal Princess 300B, and with amps you might need to replace the tubes in as little as a couple of years with heavy use. |
Bond, that was why I said "within an amplifiers capability and not clipping" bit. Once that happens all bets are off, but I do understand what you mean, tubes are a bit more graceful when they clip, or can be, and I suppose the argument could be made that tubes even when running within their limits, still have distortion figures quite a bit higher than solid state in general, it is just a more pleasurable distortion if you will. Still I find so many claims of tube amplification sounding like "more watts than solid state" to be somewhat silly. Anyway, I should just let it slide really. No big deal. I am sure John will do you black finish on your surrounds/rear channels too still. It is too popular to not do it. It is just good to see the website take on a major improvement after all these years! Take care Bond and all. Enjoy the tunes. Tim |
I got my 5000's back a couple of weeks ago and they sound bettter than ever. Tweeter fixed and more protection. Bass is tighter also. Also toe'd them out a bit and treble more audible. Also upgraded to Bryston BP25 preamp to drive my Bryston 14BSST. A great speaker company. I look forward to each and every listening session. |
I remember when I ordered my WMT's, John was not thrilled with another black ash order, and he tried his best to guide me into choosing another finish. Not that he was hard-selling me, just using his gentle suggestion approach. But it's still my favorite finish. With the lights out, they really do disappear quite nicely. Four years later and I am still amazed at how elements 'float' across the soundstage. These speakers are just uncanny- I've yet to hear anything quite like them! |
"Oh, and the sub based on the old F cabinet looks like it might be a beast!" How can you tell? I wanted to see it but could not find a photo." Coot, I briefly had a pair of F's. The bass out of those cabs was pretty startling. I can only imagine what they can do as a dedicated sub. Purely conjecture on my part, of course! |
I asked John about them and he said maybe he could use my existing drivers and a 15" to do a custom pair. I am not thrilled with the prospect of shipping my 5000s 3,000 miles to him, however. I'm afraid it's gonna be awhile before I seriously take it up with him. It's just speculation for now, but it's nice to know it can be done. |
Today is my first day looking into speakers as I am coming from headphones. I came across the MWT and seems like I'll like them and they're pretty much a bargain for the performance. My problem is, I have no clue where to start and what I need in order to drive these properly. I have no idea what sounds best with what; my knowledge is all on headphones. I'm about to purchase the Matrix Audio X-Sabre DAC but I'm not sure now that I want to get into speakers and rid myself of the Audeze LCD3 and HD800. Could anyone suggest a speaker set up, all components totalling $3000? Set up is going to be for a small/medium sized bedroom; originally I was intending to get bookshelf speakers but I'm not sure. |
I was re-reading a detailed technical review with detailed bench measurements of the older Walsh 200 mkII Here. The impedance measured mostly between 8 and 25 ohms for most of the frequency range, down to 40 hz or so where the port kicks in, at which point it dropped to below 4 OHMs. That with all the rest there seems to indicate the OHMs are not as tube amp unfriendly as many conventional designs, except in the very low end bass, where tube amp unfriendly low impedences are often common as designs attempt to become more full range without achieving mammoth sized proportions. This is consistent with those here who have observed that tube amp + OHMs + subwoofer is a very good combo. If you can take the port out of play, then the OHMs become quite tube amp friendly it would seem. At least in the case of 200 MkIIs. I have not seen similar charts for newer models, but I would be very surprised if much changed for the worse in this particular department over time. |
Mapman, that coincides exactly with my personal experience with the 200 mkIIs. I drove them with 32 watts of tube power for years. On the few occasions that I experienced amplifier clipping, it was in every case very dynamic low frequency reproduction that caused it. The bad part, amps were not being pushed harder than normal and no warning. Also more likely to occur with better than average recordings. Fortuneately no damage ever done. Musically the combination was excellent. |
"What do these OHM Walsh speakers look like with the black mesh can removed? Does anyone have a link?" "OHM Walsh" related Google searches usually turns up some, mostly of older 1st gen models that people dissect either to try to fix or just to see what's in there. Haven't seen pics inside newer models. Can't imagine it is too different or much prettier. Plus, JS is known to customize to tailor to customers needs, so I'm sure there can be many variations. Having the driver hidden inside the can for protection and aesthetics certainly has a lot of benefits in terms of what can be done to improve the sound cost effectively without having to worry about how it looks. My understanding is a different tweeter was used in series 3 versus series 2. Latest X000 series uses a different Walsh driver made of different materials as well I have read, but do not recall details. SOund of newer models is advertised as "evolutionary, not revolutionary". |
I'm thinking of upgrading from my 2XOs to the current generation 2000 drivers mounted on my existing g cabinets (love the old pyramidal look, so I'm looking at the upgrade package). Before I pull the trigger and sink the money I to this, I'd love to hear thoughts on the upgrade and any comparisons between the original 2XOs (or 2s) and the new 2000s. How do they compare? What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging. Background info: Room size = 16 x 35 x 8 (approx 3200 cu ft), slightly larger than recommended for the 2000s, but divided into a dining and living room areas. My listening area takes up less than half the total space, and I'm seated 12' from the back wall and 10' from the speakers. Amp = vintage Sansui AU-D707 (same as AU-819) w/ 90 wpc (excellent sound, rarely turn volume past 9 o'clock). Sources = Rotel 1080, Squeezebox Duet run through a SMSL dac. Any thoughts or advice appreciated! Thanks! |
"What I'm most curious about are any changes in detail and resolution, along with stability and precision of imaging. " I had Walsh 2s before current series 3 models. detail, resolution, and stability and precision of imaging are exactly the things that changed the most for the better. The newer models are competitive with other modern quality speakers in these regards. The original 2s were clearly not. |
Jwc2012: I have a pair of 2000s in a 2800 c.f. basement. Although you might be sitting nearfield (I sit 9' back), the speaker doesn't know or care where you are sitting. It is going to fill the enite space. Even with powered subs, crossed over, 1st order, at 80Hz, my 150 watt/channel amp is clipping in the midrange. So, if you are going to run the 2000 cans full range, make sure you have enough juice, and check with John at Ohm to make sure the 2000 cans will work. If I had a lot more money and a little more space, I would have gone with the 3000s. Just my $0.02. |
"Besides size how do the Ohm Walsh 2000 and 3000 series differ?" Size of the speaker/enclosure, size of the Walsh driver, and size of the room that the speaker is capable of producing full range sound in accordingly. Larger rooms generally require larger speakers to achieve similar good results, especially in the lowest frequency range. All Walsh models in the line are designed to sound equally good in rooms of various sizes. No need to buy larger more expensive models if a smaller one fits the bill. That's a fairly unique aspect of the OHM Walsh line. |
thanks I thought that I had read somewhere that the driver materials or something was different between the 1000/2000 series and the 3000/4000 series. Just curious, it would not persaude me from buying one over the other. In fact I have two 3000s and a center channel in Sapele on order. Talking with John I didn't think to ask and I didn't want to bother him with a call back (I had talked with him several times as it was and a couple of emails too). Thanks for all the info in this thread. It was very useful |
"I thought that I had read somewhere that the driver materials or something was different between the 1000/2000 series and the 3000/4000 series. " That's possible but do not know. John Strohbeen would. I do recall reading Walsh drivers in latest X000 series are of different materials than in past, I think. |
I like things squared up as much as possible, so when I first installed my 5000s, I set them facing straight forwards. I have been happy with the sound, but being an audiophile ("It's good but maybe it can be better."), the other day I was adjusting them to angle outwards so the label points towards the seating more. My wife wanted to know why. If they are omnidirectional, what difference should it make? I truly did not have a good answer other than because there's a sticker - that's why. I knew my answer didn't satisfy either one of us, so what should I have said? |
OHM Walshes by default are NOT fully omnidirectional There is a separate tweeter that is directional above 7khz or so angled inwards normally. That works to produce widest soundstage by default. I have dabbled with angling out for more direct exposure as well. Nothing wrong with that. I find when I do, soundstage narrows but tonal brightness increases in "sweet spot" due to direct tweeter exposure. JS changes this configuration to make it more omnidirectional in some special cases, including special requests. |
Thanks Bondman. I've never been clear on the meaning of "energizing the room." Not being much of a bass head, I have to say I've pretty happy with the low end with my original 2s and the 2XOs, especially within my listening zone (sitting all the way across the room is a different story). My room has a hardwood floor over a crawl space that seems to be conducive to bass. It is also a very live room with lots of wall space to the sides that tends. To broaden the soundstage beyond the speakers. Bookshelves and a fireplace serve to break up the rear reflections. My vintage Sansui with 90 wpc (@ 8 ohms) handles them with no apparent difficulty. John S told me that this amp should do fine with the 2000s, which are a slightly easier load, but that the bass would be subdued in a slightly oversized room. I haven't heard trace of clipping, even if I play them loud. Old Sansuis had killer power supplies and were allegedly conservatively rated. |
Coot, don't overdo it on toeing out. I've found the toeing out the Ohms very slightly improves the treble further away without detracting noticeably from the soundstage or image. You can barely notice, unless looking carefully up close, that the cabinets are not perfectly squared. I suppose the relatively wide dispersion of the tweeters allows for this. |
I have NEVER heard ANY OHM Walsh speaker flinch at any volume level. THat's a unique aspect of them all since day 1. I once set up my original Walsh 2s outside on a farmhouse porch for a party going on in a field extending 50 yards or more in front. That was the BEST I ever heard the Walsh 2s sound, literally like Neil Young, Fleetwood Mac, UB40 etc. were performing live on the porch. That off my old gorgeus and classic 80 watt/ch Tandberg TR2080 receiver. |
The reason the walsh's do so well at high volume are: 1) simple crossover design at relatively high frequency limits what the tweeter is asked to do 2) The Walsh drivers used tend to be larger than most drivers used in most speakers for comparable price. The driver in my current F5 series3 OHMs are the largest I believe and look to be about 10 inches in diameter. Back in the 70's selling stereos at Tech Hifi, 10" seemed to be the right size for most speakers capable of going loud and clear in larger rooms. 8" was good for smaller rooms. Drivers nowadays are improved and smaller to achieve similar performance to most back then I think. 3) The OHM CLS Walsh driver operation seems to lend itself very well to achieving high output levels with minimal stress or breakup compared to typical pistonic dynamic speaker operation, though why this is the case is not totally clear to me. |
Map, if the problem is clipping, that would be be amp flinching rather than the speakers. Still, the difficulty in driving Ohm Walshes--even the originals (but not the A or F)--is often exaggerated. The great high volume performance may be due to the way the surface area of the speaker is used to radiate sound. The physical excursion of the cone material should be shorter and perhaps the effective surface area (or the efficiency of its utilization) is greater. But the OW's ability to go loud may be the flip side of a weakness of the design--I've found that my 2s and 2XOs sound best when played quite loud and tend to lose more detail, resolution, and reproduction of spatial cues at low volume than I'd like. This is, in part, recording dependent, but I don't get the same loss of detail, etc. at lower volume with my conventional speakers. I'm hoping an upgrade to the 2000s helps to address this limitation of the early OW models. It would end an endless family battle for control over the volume knob! I'd like to hear others' impressions of later series' performance at low volume. |