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.
Great, Marty. I can't wait to hear your impressions. I am still periodically swapping out my Totem Arro's with my Ohm MWT's. I'll update with some impressions.
Also, my Sapphire FINALLY arrived from being refurbished from SOTA, and my Bottlehead Seduction phono stage is almost completely assembled, so I'll have my vinyl to play with real soon now, too! :-D
Well, I thought it was past due for me to post another set of impressions. I have been playing both the Totems and the Micro Walsh Talls as much as possible. I've been alternating the two speakers, pretty much one week on and one week off. Here are some impressions...
Both speakers are quite impressive in their own way. The Totems have tight, ample base, particularly for their diminutive size... there is some real magic going on there, for sure. :-) Also, with the right source material, the Totems are capable of throwing quite a large, holographic soundstage.
The Totems also have a quality that I'm not sure how to express, let alone evaluate. At this stage of their break in, they seem to express a very detailed, "transparent" quality. What is unclear to me is whether this is really neutral or a rather bright/forward tilt. Ultimately, I think that the way you feel about the Arro will be more a matter of personal taste than anything else.
Although I definitely see the great strengths of the Totems, I am still, at this stage of the game, somewhat more drawn to the Micro Walsh Talls. For one thing,they are capable of generating some truly profound bass notes... beyond "bass notes," it would be more accurate to say "bass energy." When the source material calls for thunder, these things can really thunder! I can understand why someone commented that John, the owner of Ohm, says that one some people hear them, they think there must be a subwoofer hidden somewhere. :-)
Another thing that the Micro Walsh Talls have going for them is something that, as trite a word as this is, I would call "coherency." The music hangs together in a seamless fashion that is quite striking. I really don't know how else to describe it.
Finally, the Micro Walsh Talls have the ability, with the right material, to not only throw a wide and deep soundstage, but to really reach out TOWARD YOU and fill the room with music. It's very involving, and sometimes, almost spooky.
Right now, I would say that Totems do have a bit of an edge, all things considered, in that "transparency" department, but I suspect that the Micro Walsh Talls still have some opening up to do, and that the Totems still have some settling down to do.
I've had a great time reading this thread. I've listened to the MW talls in Ohm's Brooklyn factory and I have owned the Walsh super-2-S3; its the new Ohm walsh 100 driver in an old Walsh-2 pyramidal cabinet. I too enjoyed the bass, coherency, and soundstage...but I had problems with precise imaging. I've also considered the Totem line and debated getting the Hawks but was always intrigued by the Arro.
I'm NOT writing the hijack the thread, but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents regarding the most inexpensive but best performing of all the speakers mentioned here; the Monitor Audio RS6. I got a new pair for $750 and I'm stunned at their performance. They best the Walsh in my space and to my taste.
Now, if I could only get the Micro walsh, Totem arro, and MA RS6 in the same room!
Well, I got in the new phono preamp (Bottlehead Seduction) assembled and debugged and it works! Haven't had any chance for critical listening, but this will certainly open up a world of vinyl-based music for me to explore with the Ohm's! more to come...
I think while the imaging is excellent on the ohm speakers, you will never get the same precision you'll find in a traditional dynamic speaker. Likewise, while you can find great imaging in a dynamic speaker, you'll never find the same openness and wide sweet spot the Ohms give you in a traditional speaker. Every design has trade-offs and as you've said the room is key. Like you also said it would be great to have more than one speaker to listen to! I plan on adding another setup with a traditional speaker but I don't see myself getting rid of the Ohms to do this. Enjoy the RS6's! I've heard good things about them :)
I finally got to play some vinyl with the Ohm's, the refurbed SOTA Sapphire and my newly built Bottlehead Seduction phono stage. I threw Dire Straights' "Brothers In Arms" on the TT and was mesmerized.
The guitars on "So Far Away" absolutely filled my listening room. "Walk Of Life" had amazing stage depth.... the hi-hat on the opening bars sounded several feet in back of of the rear wall of the room. Cool! More to come...
A device with a name like "Bottlehead Seduction" has to sound great!
Seriously, glad your experiencing some magic moments!
We had a bunch of people over yesterday and I had to push the big Ohm 5's only 6 inches or so from the rear wall and have been listening to them there.
I'm really liking what I'm hearing even so close to the rear wall. There seems to be a swag of extra authority and meat to the bones with the rear wall re-enforcing the rendering. Imaging accuracy and depth of sound stage is still quite good as well.
I was playing an old vinyl recording of Bach music performed by E. Power Biggs on pipe organ on Columbia Masterworks label earlier and it was quite an involving experience. I'm not sure one could pull this configuration off as well from what I've read with other more true omnis.
A lot of sonic magic in particular with acoustic music happens with phono in my setup as well.
I have a new Audio Research sp 16 tube pre-amp with phono stage coming in a week or so. That should shake things up for teh better for me I'm hoping as well.
I've had my 100s w/Velodyne SPLR 8 subs for a little over a month now. Of the 3 speakers I tried with these subs (actually 4, including a brief "what the heck-give it a shot" attempt with my Verity Parsifal Monitors), the Ohms have settled in as the clear favorite over Maggie MMGs and Carver Cinema ribbon monitors.
As a stand alone, the Ohms offer a very neutral tonal balance with unusual bass extention. In this respect (60ish hz on up), they can IMHO compete with anything out there at any price - just dead neutral! The deep bass, low 30s hz in my room actually feels a bit elevated and a subwoofer wouldn't seem necessary. They also provide a wide stage with images well behind the plane of the speakers. Additionally, images seem to have real "body" which is a rare and wonderful characteristic to find in any speaker system.
To my ear, the Ohm is less dynamic in reproducing big swings than my Verity or Merlin speakers, but this is the only significant shortcoming for me. The Verity is also more transparent to the source (and the Merlin more transparent than the Verity), but this isn't real high on my current list of priorities. Also, the recessed soundstage, while absolutely convincing, doesn't present front to rear depth like the Verity or Merlin - another nit to some, more important to others.
The addition of the subs makes the speaker more dynamic. It still doesn't quite match the other 2 I mentioned, but the gap is closed significantly. The Ohm is an incredibly easy mate for subs. I had a near perfect transition in 15 minutes. (By contrast, 8 hours with the Maggies got me a very good result, but not as seamless a match as I quickly got with the Ohms). The irony here is that the Ohm/Velo crossed at 80hz feels better integrated than the stand alone Ohm - which is essentially a full range single driver system with a supertweeter.
I'd also add that, in black, the speaker can fairly be describes as "unattractive". OTOH, it's small.
There are 2 things going on here. Great performance from well integrated subs and great performance from the Ohm 100s. As a stand alone, the Ohm is a viable alternative to my usual recommended extended bandwidth speakers at $2kish - Vandy 2s, Em-Tech LFTs, and possibly Maggie 1.x QRs. In combo with the subs of your choice, it's a lot more than that.
Note: It has since come to my attention that the SVS 16" cylinrical subs will handily outperform the Velo SPLRs (much lower distortion at high SPLs) and are $150 less per pair. These are much larger cabinets, however. Ohm also makes a matching sub with an even larger footprint and that might merit consideration, as well.
The reason I include this note is that the performance I'm getting from 25hz to the 15ish khz that is the upper limit of my hearing is pretty damn amazing. I have found that I tend to listen a little louder with this set-up which helps restore a sense of dramatic dynamics. Other than that, it's really hard to find much meaningful criticism of this system. At the price point, it's truly amazing. Depending on personal priorities and listening habits (i.e. preferred spls), it wouldn't surprise me if some folks liked this set-up as much as any system at any price.
I'm not saying it's perfect - only that in the respects that are most important to me, it's terrific. I've never heard seamless, neutral performance with this type of bass extention in my room before, despite owning 2 other systems that cost several times the price. Obviously, I can't definitively rule out all other speaker system designs, but I wonder whether any speaker without a powered sub can provide this kind of performance in the deep bass.
Further, it's entirely possible that a wiser choice of subs might yield even further improvement (although that might only be apparent at spls I won't ever approach).
If ultimate transparency, macro-dynamics at modest spls, and front to back imaging are your priorities, you might well do better with a different speaker system. If you can nudge the volume up a bit, don't obsess about the "is this cd or sacd I'm listening to?" question, and don't miss the forward imaging provided by some other systems - the Ohm/Sub combo may well be unbeatable.
that's funny- you answered every question I didn't ask. Even down to the Sunfires and the Maggies- which are the other speakers I'm considering.
I think the bass is the most important aspect I'm concerned about. I really want a full-range speaker w/o a sub, but the flexibility to add one down the line if I have a larger room.
I said "There are 2 things going on here", meaning the subs and Ohms.
Actually there are 3 things going on here. Great performance from the subs, great performance from the Ohms, and great integration of the two - a function of both of the above and the Velodyne SMS-1.
In my case, before acquiring the newer Ohms, my Triangle Titus 202 with sub was one of my references for great integrated bass.
I run both Ohm 100s and 5s in rooms of appropriate size without sub and have zero concerns or reservations regarding bass. That's their trump card over the Maggies they replaced as a matter of fact. I will say that in my larger room, the only shortcoming of the 100s compared to the 5s in in the satisfying bass department, but in the 100s current location, a 12X12 room, zero issues there.
Also, I recently replaced my old SS Carver c-6 pre-amp with a new Audio research sp-16 and the improvement in low end can be heard clearly with most any recording of any quality. With good quality recordings, I don't think I've heard better and I've auditioned quite a few systems of late looking.
My space is app. 14'X24" with a cathedral ceiling and an open rear wall (no wall, just a railing behind the listener), a much larger volume than Map's. Despite this, the 100s produce very good, remarkably extended bass - stand alone. IMHO, the overall performance of the speaker - in my space - improved dramatically with the subs. Measured bass response via the analyzer in the SMS-1 went from very good, if just slightly raggedy here and there, below 100hz and dropping sharply at +/- 33hz, to just plain flat to 25hz. Look, I'll be the first to admit that this measurement isn't the "be all and end all" of bass performance, but in my case it reflected what I was hearing.
Incidentally, for Para's stated desire; priority on bass without a sub - I'd also check out the Vandy 2 and the LFT. On his other note about liking the flexibility of later adding a sub, I'd stick with the Ohms. It may be the omni radiating pattern, but these thing mate with a sub like nothing else I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with the 100s stand alone, it's just that I'm way more impressed when they're coupled with subs - at least in a largish room like mine.
Martykl great updates! I too use dual subs with my 100s and the results are fantastic. I am using separates and added some of ACI's passive filters to take out low bass from the mains. This opened them up even more.
Good to hear of your success with a similar set-up. My Velodyne SMS provides 6db/octave of low cut for the mains at 80hz - so I'm filtering the 100s in a similar fashion to the way Ohm filters the Sat 100 model for use with Ohm's own subs. This was the set-up John at Ohm had recommended for a room of my size, but I couldn't accomodate the large footprint of the Ohm subs. Therefore, I subbed in the SPLR subs and off I went!
Marty
BTW - The SMS-1 provides room analysis, PEq, and a very versatile high cut x-over for the subs. The thing is amazing!
Hi, Gang, Sorry it's taken me such a long time to give you guys an update on my speaker adventures. I've been ridiculously busy at work and with family responsibilities... I'm finding myself in what you might call a bit of a conundrum these days. On the one hand, with my new phono preamp up and running, I'm having a ball digging back into the miles and miles of vinyl that I can finally play again. It still amazes me how wonderful those black discs can sound. On the other hand, speaker wise, I'm in a bit of a no man's land at this point... Both the Ohms and the Totems can make amazing music, that's for sure. What I'm not sure about is what I'm hearing, and although I know that ultimately, I'm the one who has to enjoy and live with the system, I find myself wishing that one of you guys lived in my neighborhood so we could get together and tweak this thing! Here's the thing: the Totems seem to have the edge over the Ohms when it comes to a sense of detail or transparency. I just find myself noticing details in the music, with some tracks, that are getting lost or muffled when I am listening to the Ohms. Now, the question is: is what I am hearing really "transparency," or is it more like an upper frequency tilt in the Totems? And are the Ohms, by nature, more "neutral?" I have read in some reviews that in the Totems are a bit "hot" out of the box, but that this "sizzle" settles down as they break in. In this regard, I am also not sure whether I am hearing all of the midrange clarity that the Ohms are capable of delivering. I'm not sure exactly how many hours of playing time they have on them -- I haven't been clocking it -- but I'm guessing it's not much more than 25 hours or so. So, by any measure, the Ohms should still have some opening up to do, correct? By the way, I think I read one person post in Audio Review.com that Micro Walsh Talls sounded as if they were playing from under a pillow until they opened up, at which point, they revealed all kinds of additional detail. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether I have either set of speakers optimally placed for imaging purposes. On some source material, the Totems present a very "etched" or precise sense of each voice or instrument in space. By contrast, at least as I have them placed currently, the placement of instruments with the Ohms can sound a bit more vague, for lack of a better term. As I've been switching the speakers in and out, I have used some pieces of tape on the floor to mark what has seemed to me to be the optimized position for each different set of speakers, otherwise, obviously, I'm not comparing apples with apples. But, again, I wish I had one of you with an experienced set of ears to help me with this task of speaker placement. I would like to add, that, in general, the Ohms present a "fuller" or "meatier" sound, especially in the bass note regions. Interested in your thoughts and advice...
My best advice is trust your ears to determine which sound you will live with most happily over an extended period of time with the music you enjoy.
No two speaks will sound the same with the same benefits and disadvantages. This is particulary true when comparing two radically different designs as is the case here.
Avoid wishing one did things the other does. Just listen to each on its own terms for as long as it takes and decide.
The Ohms will cost you a premium at this point so be sure you are comfortable with that as well.
Regarding speaker placement, I recommend carving out a few hours to tweak and listen continuously as much as needed until you settle in on what sounds best.
My gut feel is that the Ohm MWTs will do better on larger scale more complex recordings at more realistic listening levels particularly in a nearfield listening scenario, but the Totem Arros will be hard to better at the other extreme, ie lower to more moderate volumes, simpler more acoustic music types.
I base my gut feel above on the assumption that the Arros will play out against the MWTs similarly to how my Dynaudios play out against my 100s, more or less.
With more acoustic, less dynamically demanding material, sitting in the sweet spot, the Dyns give up nothing to the Ohms at least in my smaller rooms.
For larger scale, more dynamically challenging recordings, at more realistic listening levels, the Ohms not only rule but compete in a bigger league only with other much larger speakers.
Of course the Ohm 100s are somewhat larger than the MWTs, so that has to be considered as well.
Anyway...sounds like a win/win situation for you which ever way you go. Keep us posted!
Rebbi - you are definitely caught up in the trade-off-world... The Ohm's neutrality is what won me over, you'll have to decide on which speaker sounds more musical to you - and one that you can live with for the long term.
A couple of days ago, I had all but decided to return the Micro Walsh Talls and keep the Totems. I just found myself drawn to a greater sense of "detail" and "transparency" and "airiness" in the Totems, as well as a sense that the imaging was more precise. I figured that the one thing I might miss with the Totems was the authority of the bass region that the Micro-Walshes deliver... the bass on the totems Totems sounds somewhat tentative or anemic by comparison.
I called John at Ohm to ask him about arranging a return. We spoke for a long time, and he questioned me about what I preferred about the Totems. He said that he had only heard the Arro once, and briefly, so he wasn't that familiar with them. Finally, he asked me to let him think about what to do and he would get back in touch.
John and I spoke earlier today, and he told me that he had prepared a set of modified drivers with the treble response slightly "goosed" in a way that might work better in my room and bring out some of the sense of detail that seems to be missing. "Audition the new drivers for awhile, and see what you think."
Whatever happens, these guys at Ohm are a class act... I can't imagine anybody else going to this much trouble for a $1000 pair of speakers. It's clear that John really believes in his product, and also, that he wants to do everything in his power to make his customers happy. I will keep listening and report back... stay tuned...
By the way, as an experiment, I moved the Micro-Walshes approximately 8 inches further out from the rear wall, and if I'm not mistaken, the imaging specificity seems to have sharpened up quite a bit.
By the way, Mapman, I think you probably hit the nail on the head when you said that the comparison between the Micro-Walshes and the Totems is not unlike comparing the Micro-Walshes to your Dynaudio speakers. I had actually auditioned some monitor-size Dynaudios myself (I think it was maybe the Audience 42?) and if my auditory memory serves me properly, the sound was not unlike the Totems: airy, detailed and a large, "etched" soundstage presentation.
Ohm has a reputation of taking care of their customers and getting a lot of repeat and referral business.
John Strohbeen is a unique guy. He doesn't fool around or beat around the bush from my few exchanges with him. A true MIT-trained engineer!
About 10 years ago when I was auditioning speakers for the first time in a while, the two that caught my ear were Dynaudio and Totem (can't remember the models). I ended up buying B&Ws instead mostly for the bigger, full sound than the other models in the same price range.
Now the Dynaudio Contours replaced the B&Ws. Then I tried the Ohm 100s. Then I decided to buy the big f-5s to replace my Maggies as well.
I parted with the B&Ws but find would find it hard to part with the Dyns. Luckily, I have enough rooms with in-wall speaker wiring to support multiple pairs of speaks.
Do the tweets on the Ohms face your listening position when you compare with the Totems?
I'm wondering if the tweak is to reposition the super tweet to point towards you better in your listening position?
Ohm often repositions the tweet from the normal 45 degree forward/inward orientation for special purposes. For example, in their surround speakers, they orient the tweeter upwards.
Assuming the Dynaudio/Totem similarity in timbre, this might have the effect you are looking for if the tweets are not facing your usual listening position currently. When the tweets face me, the timbre of both my Ohm Walsh speaks very much resembles the Dyns, which are inherently more forward sounding while the Ohms tend to be more laid back, in particular, when the tweet levels at the listening position with the Ohms is lower.
The down side of tipping up the super tweet is that it does tend to collapse the soundstage a bit. Some will like this and some will not.
With the much larger 5's, there are 4 three way adjustments for the timbre for low bass, mid bass, midrange and highs that can be tweaked also. I've played with quite a few combos to hear the effect. Not the case with all other models though.
If the tweets are not facing your listening position directly as they would in a near equilateral triangle listening configuration, try toeing the speaks differently so the tweets face you directly and see what you hear.
If they're aimed at their normal 45 degree angle into the center of the room, are the tweeter "paths" supposed to intersect in FRONT of your listening position, or right AT your listening position? I tried separating the speakers further from each other so that the tweet paths would intersect closer to my listening position, and it definitely affected the tonal balance... considerably brighter, and the imaging seemed more in focus... vocals centered solidly between the speakers, etc. I'm wondering if I've had them too close together?
"I tried separating the speakers further from each other so that the tweet paths would intersect closer to my listening position, and it definitely affected the tonal balance... considerably brighter, and the imaging seemed more in focus... vocals centered solidly between the speakers, etc. I'm wondering if I've had them too close together?"
Sounds like it.
You can try a slight toe out as well and see what that does if needed.
I had a pair of 100's and didn't like the lack of image focus. I also felt like the center stage was pushed back when it should have been....well....more front-center to my taste. I talked to John at Ohm about this and he made a VERY convincing argument to let him send me another set of more 'forward' drivers with an extension of the normal 120 day audition. He gave me a lesson about speaker voicing and 'west coast' vs "east coast' sound. I was simply stunned by his professionalism and dedication. I decided, however, that I would refuse John's efforts as I knew I had mentally moved away from the omni directional sound and didn't want to waste any more of this guys time. I do recommend his speaks VERY highly and recognize that he is fighting for and earning every customer. Once I construct a second system, I'll be back to the Ohms if for no other reason than to keep a guy like him in business. For me, the truth is...I didn't really find the sound I was looking for until I got a tube amp. now I wonder what that Ohm would sound like with some KT88s pushing them!.
I recently have introduced some tubes in my DAC and pre-amp to the Ohms and have been 100% rewarded so far.
The Ohms have a difficult load to drive and are not ideal for tube power amps on paper, but I would love to hear about the results where someone has actually done this.
I've found the image focus is very good to outstanding when set up properly but the presentation is not the same as other designs that naturally image well, like good monitors. I can't say that it is better or worse...just different. To me , the imaging of the Ohms is more realistic if not as pinpoint which I like, but that is a matter of taste.
I concurrently own and run a pair of Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkII and Triangle Titus 202 monitors and have noted the similarities and differences from the more omni Ohms in great detail over the last couple of years.
Also the Ohms sound stage does tend to be naturally laid back. I have also found though that they seem to let the character of the electronics feeding them through more so than my Dyns or Triangles mainly because they are more full range and deliver a sound more in line with much larger and more costly designs, so the electronics used will have a big impact on how they sound.
I drive my 100s with ss TAD mono amps, but I also own a pair of Prima Luna tube mono amps. I'll roll some KT88s into the PL and report back in a few days. All in the interest of science!
Marty
BTW, since I'm using subs, the Ohms should be a somewhat easier load and the chances of success may be better.
Thanks very much for your post. I think you've done a good job of articulating the issues here. I got to listen to the Ohm's a little more yesterday and I must say that the tonal character and image focus change quite dramatically when you adjust the distance between the MWT's. By pulling them farther apart and thus aiming the supertweeters to converge closer to your listening position, the high's are emphasized and the image focus becomes sharper. Now, I think I may currently have them a little too far apart, because yesterday it sounded as if too much of the sound was "stuck to" the speakers, which is definitely NOT the way Ohm's should sound... so I'll try moving them a little closer. But as I said, imaging definitely tightened up and the sound brightened when I moved them farther apart.
I, too, had mixed feelings about accepting John's offer, but I was so taken with his determination to please and make a sale that I agreed to give the modified drivers a try.
For what it's worth, my amp is a ss/tube hybrid, and I'm wondering how that affects my current results...
Rebbe, though I've never heard the Unico, based on my experience so far with the tube DAC, pre-amp and SS amp, I think the hybrid integrated is a very good place to be with the Ohms.
I tried moving the MWT's even farther apart, further than I'd ever have thought of placing them... several more inches from each other. The imaging has really come into focus and the tonal balance is considerably brighter, but the expansive soundstage is still there, only seemingly bigger. Brothers In Arms sounded amazing!
I think my comments regarding soundstage collapsing applies only in the case of the adjustable Ohm 5's where I up the treble level using the switch on that model but speaker location stays the same. In this case I find the soundstage collapses somewhat compared to prior. In other words, if speakers stay equidistant, but tweet level increases (relative to the Walsh provided portion of sound spectrum) the soundstage may collapse somewhat accordingly.
With any model, moving the speaks further apart to get more direct exposure to the tweet should maintain a wide soundstage.
If the imaging sounds like it is in focus similar to the Arros correctly set up then I would say you have nailed it!
Yes, the sense that you can point to the location of the singers centered between the speakers, as opposed to things being "vague" is much better. The presentation is still different than the Arros (of course) but now that I seem to have optimum positioning for both sets of speakers marked out on the floor with tape, I can at least a/b them with a sense that they're both at their best in my room.
As I said, Brothers In Arms sounded amazing, and Supertramp's "Breakfast In America" (man, am I dating myself, or what?) also sounded great. Just wish had more time to listen.
Good points. No, I've never had the chance... I need a block of an hour or two to just try one of those methods that you posted earlier, but I haven't had that kind of time. You do make a good point, though.
The other thing that I would suggest is you download REW and really work on the proper setup and placement of the speaker and seating position if you can play with that. Bare minimum you might see what is causing the difference and then you can certainly fix those area(s). You will be amazed at what you don't know acoustically in your room...
free download here:http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/downloads-area/ you can use a Radio Shack meter then get one of these: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MobilePreUSB.html if you want to use a mic that uses Phantom power you can use many different mics including this one: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=248-625 (if you go this route you will still need a RS meter) or you can get this instead of the RS meter and it's VERY good: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Galaxy-CM140-Check-Mate-SPL-Meter?sku=421162&src=3WFRWXX&ZYXSEM=0&CAWELAID=26028141
This should really help you and no matter what speaker you choose I would strongly suggest that you do this.
If the image sounds "focused" then you've solved the imaging issue. Worst case is very small changes in speaker location might fine tune it even further.
Room acoustics/flatness is another story. Though measurements and tweaks according can be an educational and productive exercise for getting the timbre that sounds best to you if you have the time, both Ohms and Totems are competing under the same conditions in the same room. That might be enough to make the call if you think you've spent sufficient time getting each to sound their best.
Rebbi - Sounds like you're really taking advantage of the demo process - not something you can do in a store!! That would make sense that you're getting more of the tweeter, with the speakers farther apart.
Yeah, it's been an interesting process. I played some Steely Dan this morning before going off to work ("Two Against Nature") and it sounded astounding... you'd have sworn you were listening to some sort of surround system, not a two-channel stereo... that's how much the music reached out and enveloped the room. Yet, with the Ohm's moved farther apart, the imaging was solid and lost the "swimmy" or indistinct character it had before.
My set of customized drivers arrived by UPS today. I'll report back about them soon.
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.
