"Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange?"
Hmm, not sure, particularly when it comes to Walsh drivers.
With the Walsh drivers, I believe there is more surface area with larger drivers which you would think would have an effect. I'd have to a/b both my Walshes in the smaller room again and listen more carefully perhaps. I did not hear a clear advantage with the 5s in the smaller room prior, but perhaps I was not listening for that.
I would say the mids are just a touch more dynamic perhaps with my 5s in the large room compared to 100s in the smaller, but that could easily just be an artifact of room acoustics more so than the drivers. |
Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange? You know, laws of physics, yadda yadda.
BTW, I was floored by my Walsh 2000s twice in the last week. Once was while listening to a CD of John Williams Baroque guitar solos. The reproduction of the timbre of the acoustic guitar was mind-blowingly real. So much so that, when I went to a record show last Sunday, I searched for guitar works (only found one Spanish guitar LP, though).
Another time was listening to a couple of Gershwin pieces on CD - Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (a Bernstein recording, IIRC). I know they're two well-worn works, but on my system with the Walsh 2000s, they really clicked. The dynamics were better (still not perfect), but being able to follow each musical line was thrilling - all without any congestion during the numerous crescendos. This CD was a real carnival ride! |
"An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many"
I can testify to that!
-P |
BTW, regarding OHMs and room size, for larger rooms, I think a very cost effective strategy could be to actually undersize the OHMs in lieu of matching size exactly ( do NOT get OHMs that are too big for a room, that could be a dead end) and then get a decent sub to fill in the low end that you will give up.
All the OHMs from smallest to largest sound mostly the same except for low end extension is better on larger models. I can hear that when comparing my 100s and 5s in the same room on the same system. An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many. |
Bondmanp,
I agree with the application of a sub in your case with your OHMS, room size and sub.
Using the sub allows to to bump up the SPLs in the range they are covering, right, compared to your OHMs, which cannot, right? WIth a good sub blended in correctly that will give you more control of bass levels and low end dynamics accordingly than with speakers alone, be they OHMs or others.
I use an early 90's vintage M&K sub with my Triangle monitors in my second system. Depending on how I adjust the sub, that system can have more or less low end impact and dynamics than any of my other speakers without a sub. Its nice having that flexibility. Until I got the 100s and 5s, that system was my reference sound overall in my house. Since getting the OHMs, the 5's are, and I tend to adjust the speaker configurations in my other rooms to what I hear with the 5s. The M&K runs up to about 60-70 Hz with my Triangle monitors in that system and the M&K breaks no sweat doing its part. I bought it in a audio shop for audio use and it really does sound quite fine, though it only goes down to 30 hz or so. My OHM 5s go down to 20hz or so smoothly I would say.
I was thinking of trying the M&K V1-B with the 5s just for fun, but when I revisited the subs specs, it did not make any sense to use it there. My 5s do have two bass level adjustments and though my room is a decent size within ghte range OHM specs for 5s, the highest bass levels possible are not needed. The midrange and overall detail and smoothness suffers a tad if I do. |
Mapman - Your points are well taken. The cubic footage of my basement is within, but near the top, of the cubic foot range Ohm specifies for the 2000s. Thus, the subs should help the 2000s by lowering their output below 80Hz.
Also, I can't stress this enough, the 2Wqs are not typical subwoofers. I've heard plenty of low and mid-priced subs over the years, and none of them did what the 2Wqs do. Namely, they reproduce not just bass energy, but true timbre. They are tight, fast and clean in the extreme. The unusual crossover scheme allows a better blend than any sub I have heard. Plus, they are designed specifically for corner placement, and work quite well in my room.
If you have never heard these subs, you should try to. They simply do not make themselves known unless you unplug them. Then you hear their absence. There is no boominess or constant rumble, and I swear all of the bass sounds like it is coming from the Ohms (and previously the Vandy 1Cs), and not the 2Wqs. Placing a hand on the cabinet during loud bass passages will reveal a very solid cabinet (90 lbs.) that does not vibrate in tune to the music. A lot of it has to do with the crossover design, which is a first order type (pretty unusual these days) and simple, in-line filter for the amp. Also, using three small drivers instead of one large one could be a factor.
You can read about them on the Vandy site - Vandersteen.com. Also, Richard Hardesty had a similar view of these subs. IMHO, they are one of the most underrated high-value products in HiFi today. Sure, if you drop big bucks on the JL, Thiel or other high-end sub you could get similar results, but these list for about $1400, and I bought mine used for considerably less hear on the 'gon.
For all of these reasons, the 2Wqs stay. The only area where there is any discontinuity between the Walsh 2000s and the 2Wqs is in macro dynamics. The 2Wqs have noticeably more dynamic impact in their range than the 2000s do in the range above that. That is why I made the comments about the dynamics of the 2000s in an earlier post. I could live with the system as is, but I am hoping the dynamics of the 2000s will improve with break-in.
I have a third sub (nutty, right?) for LFE and redirected bass from the center and surround channels. It's an old Definitive Technology PF15. It is everything the 2Wqs are not (and that's no compliment). But with the help of a Paradigm X30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP (parametric digital EQ), it works well enough for film soundtracks. It is out of the loop for 2-channel listening. |
Also, to be clear, the cases for subs I outlined above apply to 2 channel audio listening scenarios, which is what the Walshes are primarily designed for. I think OHM/John S. even recommends considering use of subs with their speakers for ultimate home theater applications. |
One other scenario I can see for using a sub is if one likes a particular amp that may not be an ideal match current wise for the OHMs. In these cases, the full low end potential of the OHMS may not be realized and a sub could be an effective supplement |
Correction, I said:
"My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors."
I meant to say:
My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the smaller OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors." |
I've only measured using my ears as opposed to a sound pressure meter, but when I play a test tone record through the OHMs in their respective rooms, I hear a very balanced level all the way down to 20hz (on the 5s, the 2s/100s may not go down into the 20hz range). And when I listen the overall timbre including bass levels is in line with what I hear at most good sounding live concerts, at live-like SPLs.
My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors. And in those cases, the sub had better be able to blend in smoothly down to 20 hz or so (for organ music, etc., most recordings have nothing that low) or else the overall timbre and clarity can suffer. I think this is the case with most any speaker if one goes bass crazy, the bass ends up masking the midrange, which is where most of the unique magic of the OHMs resides.
I do not set my 5s to maximum bass levels in my biggest room where they reside. I find when I do, the overall clarity of the midrange in particular gets buried and things to not sound as good or natural overall to me. Not sure if that would be any different were it a sub putting out that extra low end rather than the 5s. |
Mapman: I did remove the subs from the signal chain briefly last month. I am sure the bass output from the 2000s is respectable, but I absolutely love my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs. I missed them enough that I put them back in soon after. I'll live with the longer break-in time that results.
My amp is a solid state Odyssey Audio HT3 with cap upgrade (150w X 3). Odysseyaudio.com. There is also an Oddyseey Audio circle over at that audio circle web site. IMHO, it's a heck of an amp for the money. If I could afford it, I would look at either a Butler or a Moscode, but an amp upgrade is far down on the list. Preamp is a C-J PV-11 w/phono.
The Sound Anchor stands are cheap for well-healed audiophiles, but for me, the $300 or so cost is affordable, but not an impulse buy.
One of the reasons I like the Vandy subs so much (and there are numerous reasons) is that they do provide a visceral, feel-it-in-your-gut kind of bass, even with my carpeted concrete floor. In all honesty, and I know this sounds a bit silly, if the Walsh 2000s didn't blend well with the Vandy subs (they do), I would return the Ohms rather than give up the 2Wqs. |
So true Mapman, things aren't very pretty at all under the cans. But I sure do love the music they make. And that is what is important! I do love the design, and I love the industrial look of those cans!
I was doing some testing on the Super-2/2000 upgrades, they are a very nice upgrade over the original drivers. I don't know how they compare to the last series as I don't have anything to compare them too directly at the moment. I have enjoyed reading through this thread. Enjoy your music! Tim |
Parasound,
The cages nor speakers aren't bad looking, but I do like to be able to see my drivers doing their thing when I chose to.
But as I've pointed before, what's under that cage is not pretty and nobody would want to look at it. So the cages are a very practical design touch. |
Remember the old Maxell Logo?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/2106734511_029b3f1ffc.jpg
That guy might not take well to the presentation of OHMs or omnis in general. |
"the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases"
Any cheap tweak to make them stable if not otherwise is worth it.
That will help them transit low end energy through the floor more effectively and can only help with impact/dynamics.
Concrete foundations/floors or similar heavy rigid flooring will inhibit energy transmitted through the floor that an end user may sense and help perceive more impact/dynamics.
I've been relating to FOster_9 in emails that I have both OHMs on a solid concrete foundation/floor (lightly carpeted to help filter high frequency reflections) and that produces a most controlled bass still with plenty of impact and dynamics at realistic listening levels, and all off of a mere 120w/ch (but fairly high current) amp. |
Bondman,
I'd lose the subs for awhile if you want to work the OHMs hardest to break them in fastest.
What amp are you using again? |
Say it isn't so! I love the cages. They remind me that I don't have 'monkey coffins' |
Thanks Mapman, Rebbi & Parasound. I am not putting the kind of hours on the 2000s that many would, so I guess I have a ways to go yet for break-in. Plus, since I am running them with a pair of subs, the 2000s see a 1st-order roll-off beginning at 80Hz, which is probably prolonging break-in as well.
Extremely interesting comment from Parasound on the glare at the two month mark. I am about a week away from the two month point right now. I guess I need to be patient.
I still think that, contrary to what John Strohbeen tells me, the Walsh 2000s will benefit from spiked bases. I suppose that on a flat floor the Ohms would be fine, but my cellar floor is anything but flat, and even with the shims and pads Ohm sent me, they are not totally stable.
Once I make a final decision on keeping the 2000s (which seems likely at this point), I will order the bases from Sound Anchors (they are custom made and not returnable).
I have a combo 2-channel/HT system, and have found the Walsh 2000s fine for films and TV. Right now my center and surrounds are mismatched (Vandy center, surrounds and Paradigm Atoms for the back surrounds). The timbre-matching issue aside, I have no issues with the surround sound produced by my system. Eventually, I will get the Ohm center channel speaker, and watch for some used Walsh speakers for surrounds. |
Also I'd say that those cages are kinda boring to look at. I do like the look of a nice set of drivers! |
Bondmanp- your posts may be long, but when I'm done reading them, I want more. Keep 'em coming.
I think it's important to note shortcomings in the Ohm's (and all speakers, for that matter)- otherwise we become unabashed fan-boys and might as well post on the Audioholics forum. :P
I have very little criticism of the Micro Walsh Talls, although I occassionally miss the bombast that my Deftech BP2006's could impart, especially on movie soundtracks. The Ohm's just don't seem to add to the drama, but rather present what's there- for better or worse.
I've also noted that the soundstage does not move 'into the room' per se. In that sense, it's a bit like a live performance of unamplified music I guess.
I did notice some glare at about the 2 month mark of owning them. It calmed down considerably. Not sure if it's break-in so much as settling into final placement, about 5' 1" apart and 15" from the rear wall (still looks awfully close to my eye, but just right to my ear) |
Yeah, I think I had my 5s for almost a year before I was convinced they had fully opened up in terms of dynamics.
The 100S3s were acquired second hand and largely broken in it seemed when I got them.
I'd pull the trigger right away on a bigger amp for the 5s in my bigger room if I were not fully satisfied with the dynamics, but whenever I listen, I am. My approach is always if it ain't broke, don't fix it, even though I am still curious what a big monster amp ( or more likely for me a juicier Class D) might do.
I also am very big on avoiding fatigue listening. For me, most any system that is not fatiguing can be enjoyable. But my 5s were my attempt to go for broke sound wise without fatigue, and I could not be happier. That Walsh driver with all that surface area in play to produce all that gorgeous midrange which is at the core of most all great recordings.....ahhh! |
Bondmanp,
I get the "picking apart" thing... it's natural to do with something this expensive, plus you're acutely aware that you can still get much of your money back (except for shipping those beasties) within your test period. I'm not made of money either!
That said, I've found that the 100's have kept sounding more and more alive as they've broken in. Given that I don't get as much time to listen as I'd like, that's taken much of a year to happen, but it has happened. The Ohms have "opened up" in all sorts of ways. For what it's worth... |
When I go to live classical concerts, I take note of the dynamics of the sound, especially the sound of say a well struck Timpani (kettle drum). In cozier halls, you can almost feel it when the timpani drums get struck. I attended a concert at Carnegie hall in NYC earlier this year where the striking of the timpanis was almost an out of body experience as the sound resonated in the hall.
I do the same with similar recordings then at home. A similar well struck, well recorded timpani should be able to knock you out of your seat at home as well. |
Thanks, Mapman. Good point about omni dispersion patterns. I am cautiously optimistic about the macro-dynamics. |
"a lot of extension into the room"
Seem's true of OHMs and other omni's I have heard, like mbl, in general.
A less forward sound may also seem less dynamic in terms of being able to feel the music compared to forward firing dynamic speakers where most of the sonic energy is aimed at your listening position. Not the case with omnis.
The macro and micro dynamics of the OHMS definitely improve over time as they break in , I believe.
|
Parasound - (Sorry this is so long.) While I am not quite 2 months into the demo/break-in period, my only lingering criticism of the Walsh 2000s is the macro-dynamic presentation. However, this seems to be improving. Initially, I missed the startling dynamic impact of my Vandersteen 1Cs, which themselves have some limits to their output levels. But, more and more, I am getting a little of that jump factor out of the 2000s.
The other thing I have not been able to get out of the 2000s, so far, is a lot of extension into the room. The Vandys, when properly set up, can throw a suprinsingly 3-D soundstage. Not much depth behind the speakers, but good width, some hieght, and plenty of fill between your seat and the speakers. The Walsh 2000s, in my room, so far, have a wider soundstage, with even more hieght, and some depth behind the speakers (a room-related issue, I think), but not much extension toward the listening position. If there is out-of-phase information in the recording, sounds can come from behind my head(!), but only on my right, where I have a solid wall.
And, only rarely, I get that upper-midrange glare from a note that stands out a bit too much. This is most likely recording-dependent, and occurs maybe 1/50th as often as it did with the Vandersteens. I think that since it is so rare and unexpected with the Ohms, it bothers me more than it did on the Vandersteens, where it was a constant on all but the finest recordings.
Please note that I am being hyper-critical here. I have never spent this much money on any piece of kit for my system, and I am still in the home-trial period. I want to make sure that I will be happy with these speakers for many years to come, perhaps forever, since I doubt I will be able able to afford another expensive speaker upgrade. I do try to just listen occasionally, but I am still in the process of picking the Ohms apart, so I may be splitting hairs. Overall, they are amazing. The lack of congestion at higher SPLs and truth-in-timbre are probably the two finest aspects of the 2000s, but they also are great at dissappearing, smoothness, detail, micro-dynamics and lack of distortion. I began looking for a speaker upgrade thinking I could not abide metal tweeters like the one in the Vandersteen 1Cs, but the Ohms have revealed that what I couldn't handle was a crossover smack in the middle of the audio band, and all the problems that even well-designed cross-overs introduce. Having said that, I have never liked the single-driver dynamic speakers I've heard, so the Ohm Walsh design makes a lot of sense for me.
Between attending audio shows and membership in my local audiophile club, I have had the opportunity to hear many different systems and speakers in many price ranges, many of them really big bucks systems. In all honesty, the only speakers still being made that I might prefer, now cost $12K (the Silverline Audio Bolero I've mentioned previously). But I haven't heard that speaker in years, and it was run off of a low-powered SET tube amp that is night-and-day different than my SS amp. I think that is high praise for a sub-$3K pair of speakers. Obviously, I am leaning towards keeping them, but will reserve final judgement until later in the trial period. |
Don't forget percussion!
Regarding strong points- does anyone think they have any weak points? If so, I haven't noticed them yet |
Horns and brass may be the OHMs most unique strong points.
I have heard other systems/speakers that do other things the OHMs do very well also, but they may be in a class of their own when it comes to big band music and other big ensemble recordings with lots of energy in the midrange. |
Rebbi - Glad to hear it. I know exactly what you mean about instruments sounding like the real thing. One thing the 2000s did right out of the box was this dead-on presentation of timbre. Guitars have a sound that reminds me of when I used to play (albeit badly) guitar myself. Horns are uncanny in their realism. And yes, there is a real sense of the body of stringed acoustic instruments. I was not used to this, and at first thought the cabinets were "singing". Then I began to realize that this was an authentic part of the recording. Enjoy your new gear, rebbi. Keep us posted. |
|
Hey, Dante7 and everyone,
I'm back after Thanksgiving break.
In a word, the new electronics sound glorious! Since I changed so much at once -- both the power amp and the preamp - it's difficult to know what is due to what. But here's what I'm observing so far:
The Ohms sound more like real music than they ever have. I was listening to the opening track of Ingrid Michaelson's "Boys and Girls," and when the guitars kicked in, I had this visceral response: not, "the stereo sounds great," but "wow, there are guitars in the room!" or "it sounds like I'm in a club!" That's an experience I've never had before.
Instruments have a sense of texture and space that I've never heard before. On good orchestral recordings, violins have a "woody" quality, for example.
Good recordings also have more of a 3-dimensional quality than they did before... I don't know how to describe it right now better than that.
I am actually feeling some sympathy right now for professional audio reviewers. It's very hard to verbalize these subjective experiences and observations! What I can say pretty definitively is that the Ohms are singing on a new level with the new gear! :-) |
And Foster, any news in your hunt for the perfect low end? |
Rebbi,
I am wondering what further impressions/observations you may have with your new electronics over the past few weeks. |
Good point Newbee. Tube rolling could be just what the doctor ordered! |
Foster, consider when you are going to change tubes that you will have an opportunity to change the tone substantially, + or - depending on the type of and brand of tubes you can use. I'm sure you knew that, but I was just thinking about your issue with the bass and low level listening and how it might improve with careful selection. |
Mapman, I will eventually replace the tubes. No other speakers to compare with however. Thanks |
Foster another possibility if all else fails is to make sure the tubes in the pre-amp are good.
Do yo still have other speakers to compare to? That would help determine whether the issue was unique to the OHMs or originating elsewhere perhaps. |
Yes, make sure the rivers are tight and secure, but do not overtighten. This ca make a difference in the bass primarily.
With proper amplification and setup, the OHMs should do quite well, as well as most designs at low volume. An adjustable level sub might be one way to deal with Fletcher Munson at low volumes. Being able to adjust bass levels properly only when needed is the key. At higher volumes, it may be redundant for most recordings I would think. I would think your parametric equalizer should be able to make the desired adjustments for low volumes as well? |
Thanks Newbee, Almarg has been saying similar. |
Foster9, If you are not already famililar with the theories about sound reproduction linearity at low volumes you might like to read up on the Fletcher Munson Curve. I think how they deal with the bass issue is correct, maybe not so much with the highs. Bottom line its not so much the equipment as it is your ears and how you hear sound. |
Foster_9, I'm at a loss. Rebbi I know what you mean. The DNA-500 has more than enough power and current to drive the Walsh 5000s. This must be a placement issue. Mamboni (Answers) The speakers have played with better low end reinforcement in their current placecment, but after the system was on for several days and cables and equipment had settled in, the low end diminished. I've observed this several times. Foster, also I do not recall if you are using any power conditioning device? Could something in the hookup be out of phase? The other thing that comes to mind is to make sure the driver is tightly secured to the cabinet. How are your drivers secured to the base? Is there anything that might need tightening? Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers) Mapman, I don't use any power conditioning. I checked and double checked the phase and it's correct. Tightening down the drivers may be an issue; I think the drivers do need to be tightened down. I will take care of that. The drivers are secured by philips head bolts. IMHO, if you like to listen at lowish SPLs, it's entirely possible that Ohms just won't be your cup of tea. I do, however, have a simple solution - just listen louder! Martykl (Reviews | Threads | Answers) Marty, you may be right. I still think the speakers have the capability to play with good low end at lower volumes but some tweaking for optimization of the system must be the way. |
I don't know the 5000s as I own the 100/S3. I think this is a a GREAT design,but my one issue with this speaker is that macro-dynamics aren't great - you need higher SPLs to get satisfying dynamic impact (vis a vis my other preferred high end designs). IMHO, if you like to listen at lowish SPLs, it's entirely possible that Ohms just won't be your cup of tea. I do, however, have a simple solution - just listen louder!
Marty |
Foster,
The other thing that comes to mind is to make sure the driver is tightly secured to the cabinet. With my F-5s, there are 4 wing nuts that must be tight to secure the driver else the bass levels suffer. These worked slightly loose after some initial playing time and I found that a tight fit is key to good bass.
How are your drivers secured to the base? Is there anything that might need tightening? |
Foster, also I do not recall if you are using any power conditioning device? If so, try running without it and see if that makes a difference in the bass impact level. |
Yes, the exact placement can make a significant difference in the bass levels I have found also as Mamboni points out.
That solid brick rear wall I recall could also be working against you...not sure anything can be done about that.
Foster, you are heavily armed well beyond most at this point with that McCormack amp I would think. I doubt that is the problem.
Could something in the hookup be out of phase? |
Foster 9:
The DNA-500 has more than enough power and current to drive the Walsh 5000s. This must be a placement issue, I have measured (and heard) substantial differences in the bass output of my Walsh 5s in the main power band (~40-60 hz) with movement of the speaker a mere 3 inchs. You need to pick up a Radio Shack sound meter and a test CD with tones from 20 -100 Hz and run scans for different loudspeaker positions. Believe me, a mere few inch adjustment can do wonders for sorting out the bass. |
Foster_9,
I'm at a loss. This is one for Mapman to figure out! ;-) |
Hello gang. I've been working with my Walsh 5000's and although I thought I was on the way to getting their performance right it's turned out to be a no go. The 5000's are inefficient and need high current and high power, particularly to play them and get good bass-fill at lower volumes. As some of you know I have the McCormack DNA-500 and a VTL 2.5 preamp. The DNA-500 is high current and 500 per side at 8 hohms. I like to play my setup at low volume sometimes and enjoy the music, thus the high current amp. At low volume the bass weight and fullness is not there and it should be with a high current amp. Now, you might say, "it could be your room or it could be speaker placement issues.". But I've heard the Walsh 5000's play with bigger bass in this room and in their current position in the room. The problem is that I've only heard them play with bigger bass when I've reconfigured some interconnects or power cords within the system. (When I powered up the system and the cables and system were settling back in after a reconfiguration) In other words, while the system was settling in after cables have been moved around there have been times when I heard these speakers play with the kind of low end weight I'd expect from speakers this size. But in my experience, the sonics of a system are never stable while cables and gear are in the process of settling in. Once everything in the system settles downs after reconfiguring cables, the sonics then stabilize. This can take a day or two. During that time I've heard the 5000's move more air and play with more bass weight, but as thing settle in the low end weight decreases. This has happened several times as I've experimented with cables and configurations and has been disappointing. But what this experience revealed to me is that the speakers have the capability to produce more and bigger low end weight in this room and in their current placement. So it's not the speakers, the room, or their placement holding back the low end. The question is, what to do? Change preamplifiers, power cables, or interconnects? I find it hard to believe that this high current amplifier could be the problem. I know that amp speaker matching is always a key to performance, but it does not seem possible in this case. I'm looking for answers. |
"I'm wondering, though, if any of you have ever found that a change in your electronics caused you to reposition your speakers."
Yes, I had the same experience when changing amps and to a lesser extent digital source.
It may be a psychological thing more so than anything technical. The sound changes and a change in speaker location can help tweak it back more to what you had been used to. |
Hey, everybody,
Well, I finally got all my new electronics set up a few days ago.
I have to say that the combination of the of the Manley Shrimp preamplifier and the Bel Canto S300 power amplifier seems to have a lot of synergy to it. The bass is tight and controlled, midrange frequencies sound very nice, and the highs are light and airy.
I'm wondering, though, if any of you have ever found that a change in your electronics caused you to reposition your speakers.
When I first hooked up the new electronics, I was struck by the increased sense of "texture" in the music, particularly on orchestral works. Violins, for example, sounded "woody" in a way that they hadn't before. And everything had a sense of "air" around it.
But something was kind of missing, and I realized it was that the soundstage that I was used to have kind of collapsed... center fill was still very good, and there was a sense of depth, but that "energized room" that you get with Ohm speakers with the right source material was missing. What fixed it was simply moving the speakers back about 6 inches or so closer to the wall. Everything sprang back into place.
I called John and asked him about this, and he said that he'd never heard of imaging being affected by a change in electronics this way. I'm curious to see what you guys have found in this regard.
In any case, I'm very, very pleased. I think that the speakers have responded very well to the change in electronics, and I'll continue to report back as I have more time to listen. |
