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.
Question: When does Porcupine Tree sound like Nirvana?
Answer: When heard over my system with Ohm Walsh 2000s! ;-) (details below)
Much has changed over the last few days. As I mentioned, I got a deal on a really nice DAC. Although for now the digital cable I am using is a budget model that I doubt is getting the most out of this DAC, it still has brought significant improvements to my system. I also upgraded my PS Audio Quintet with a PS Audio Jewel power cord.
Between these upgrades and more run-in time on the Ohms, my system has slightly less bass output but better bass definition and extension. This works out well, since the bass output from my CD player/DAC is now similar to the bass output level from my turntable, which is lighter on bass than my CD player without the new DAC. I can now leave my subwoofers dialed where they are, and get satisfying bass output from both sources.
My system now sounds better than it ever has. I am getting smooth, detailed sound with a wide and high soundstage, some good extension into the room, and more balanced soundstage left-to-right. Although, due to the room layout, the soundstage is still irregular, I am finally getting some extension into the room from the left channel, which lacks a full-length wall like the right wall. The highs are smooth and clean.
Listening to a new (for me) CD of PT, "Stars Die" (a double CD collection of older PT tracks) was extremely enjoyable. Holographic soundstage, deep, solid bass, clear vocals, and that spot-on timbre. Listening to the second CD of the set on Saturday was a real carnival ride!
Over the weekend, I heard a system including a decent preamp, CD player and $20,000 powered speakers. They could definitely play louder than my Ohms (although the 2000s are as loud as I could want them to be) and were very dynamic, but they didn't do a lot of things as well as the 2000s, like soundstage, overall smoothness, and fine detail retrieval. I had that s--- eating grin on my face as I listened to this system, thinking about how my $2800 speakers and $1500 amp outperformed this $20,000 powered speaker in almost every important way!
Is my system perfect? No. Will it ever be? Doubtful. I am hoping more burn-in will bring better dynamics, better transient definition and detail retrieval to the Walsh 2000s. I am also hoping that experimenting with positioning and adding bases will further improve the soundstage and imaging. But I am really enjoying the limited time I have to listen, and look forward to listening more.
Away from the Ohms, my PV-11 is acting up again, with some high frequency noises that come and go. Although the C-J folks are very nice, I can't help thinking they are selling me tubes that are not very good in the PV-11. I had purposely sent the PV-11 into C-J for a retube and checkup prior to ordering the Ohms, so that I would be good to go for the trial period. I am not going to interrupt the trial period by sending it back again. Maybe I'll look elsewhere for different tubes. I guess I should post on the preamp forum for ideas, but if any of you have suggestions, I am all ears.
Parasound, if you can't take them, I sure would take them and fix them up! They are classics, and getting more difficult to find. They are pretty big but they sure would be a lot of fun though! Enjoy! Tim
Huh. I just got offered a vintage pair of Ohm F's, free of charge. For reasons of space, and the fact that as a military spouse I move very couple of years, I need to think about this before I take them.
I'll start an entirely new thread, and hopefully some of you Ohm-philes will assist me as I figure out what to do with them.
Well, the Bel Canto S300 arrived last week, and it has been sitting on top of my component cabinet waiting for the Manley Shrimp to arrive. The Shrimp arrived last Friday, and when I open the box, it turned out that the volume knob had detached from the unit. Federal Express must've given it a pretty good whack somewhere in transit. Anyway, the seller is being extremely helpful and has offered to pay for a trip to our local stereo repair shop to reattach the volume knob and also make sure that no undetected, internal damage took place along the way. Anyway, hopefully, I will have the system up and running before the end of the week and I will report back...
"The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage"
Hmm, I've found that more direct exposure to the directional supertweeter brightens things up if needed but also collapses the soundstage width at least somewhat. Toe-in usually means less direct exposure and a bigger/wider soundstage in my case. Room acoustics have an impact on soundstage as well, so keep on tweaking until it sounds just right....
Mapman, everyone else... Thanks for the encouraging words. The 2000s do enough right that I want this work out. The added toe-in has smoothed out the mid-upper treble range considerably, although at the expense of a slightly less dimensional soundstage. I will continue to experiment with placement.
My speaker cables are Kimber 4TC - decent budget cables, but I'm sure not the last word in speaker cables. I will look into the DNM option, but as with the speaker bases and matching center speaker, financial constraints will put this purchase on hold. On top of that, I just dropped some coin on a locally well-liked modded DAC. I wasn't ready to upgrade my CDP, but this was an opportunity to pick it up used at a substantial savings.
John Strohbeen strikes me as a strict engineer and objectivist and when asked which amps are best to drive the Ohm Walsh 5 mentions the most powerful and high current designs. Anecdotally, he is purported to like the Carver TFM-75 (750 W/ch) which was at the time about the most powerful consumer audio amp available. He told me he likes the Crown Macro Reference (a true beast and very well reviewed at Absolute Sound years ago) which these days can be had for about $2,000. I am using the Wyred 4 Sound ST-1000 which at 550W/ch into 8 ohms and 1100W into 4 ohms drive the Walsh 5's effortlessly. There are many fine amps that will do the job right.
Line, yes I could try the OHM 5s along the longer wall but the L shaped room is only 12' wide or so the the area where I listen.
I elected to place the OHM 5s where they are baically to keep them out of the way of the area where most activity takes place and leverage the acoustics of short section of the L shaped room to give them more room to breathe. Firing into the long section this way delivers concert like sound all the way back through the narrow portion, which is where listening and most other activity occurs in this basement level family room. It works out well in that I can chose closer or farther away listening perspective as I please. The bass levels are actually very good, just not enough to literally shake the rafters as used to be achievable with the right source music and my prior 360w/ch Carver m4.0t amp. That amp however was not a high current design and not efficient into 4 ohms, so the bass levels and overall balance suffered at more modest common listening levels. The MF A3CR is a much better fit to my listening habits overall and the sound in my system is very defined, holographic, and well balanced top to bottom , just not the nth degree that might be possible with a monster high current amp that is also efficient into lower speaker impedances as is seemingly found with the OHM 5s at lower frequencies.
When you talk to John, see if you can get him to elaborate some on the new driver designs on the various new 1000 series speaks.
Use of metal foils or other new or more exotic materials in the Walsh drivers again similar to original OHM Fs or even the modern German Physiks DDD driver would be news of interest to many who perhaps are partial to other Walsh driver designs.
The issue I have with the OHM 5s is largely attributable to my L shaped room. Bass levels are up to snuff with the 100.3s in the smaller room towards the front of my main listening area but drops off further back. This is the L shaped room with thin carpeted concrete foundation floors where the OHMS sit in the short end of the L firing into the long length, where most listening is done (see my system photo with the Jack Russell Terrier adornment). In the short end of the L and just in front, bass levels are good...further back they drop off.
I have the Ohm 4XO cabinets with the Walsh 5Mk-2 drivers on them in a room that's 16' X 24'. The speakers are centered on the long wall and spaced 6.5' from each other (center to center). There is only about 11' of back wall though, because of the open format, I have no idea how this is affecting the bass response. Maybe it's a trade-off, bass not as good as could be but less standing wave problems.
Some years ago I called OHM and asked John what amp. he would recommend that would make these speakers sing, he recommended the Sunfire Signature so i picked a used one up on Audogon and a used Legacy preamp.as well and have (on occasion) had it up to 75% gain, they handled the power without a problem.
There is an Audio Research D400 mkII SS amp up for sale here now. THis is one I find very tempting to try, but it is only marginally more powerful than what I have (200 w/ch versus 120w/ch, but the first few dozen watts are Class A and it is a lot bigger and heavier I believe).
Mapman, you're right. I should know better than to dismiss the aluminum driver in Ohm's 2000 model before hearing it, especially given the surprise I got with the Luxman receiver. I had my eyes opened this past weekend when the guy I picked up the Walsh 2's from invited me to hear his collection of vintage components. He was actually the one who suggested the pairing of the Luxman to the vintage Ohm's. His setups would not be considered ultra revealing, but damn, I could live with that kind of sound very happily and never feel the need to upgrade again. Anyway, I'm calling John Strohbeen today to move forward with the upgrade to the 2000.
Actually, I think the original OHM Fs used titanium, aluminum, and paper in their famous Walsh driver. Maybe the new 1000s are steering back in the direction of using more exotic materials in the driver again? I can't find any mention of what is used in the new drivers anywhere. The OHM site only indicates that they are new and the resulting sound is "evolutionary".
The Walsh driver operates differently than conventional dynamic drivers. I don't know if metal construction lends any particular sound in the case of a Walsh driver.
The voice coil perhaps (I think original OHM Fs used an aluminum voice coil) or maybe the supertweeter but I can't imagine the Walsh driver material itself. That would be something new for sure.
Luxman made some good stuff. My old Walsh 2s and current Dynaudios could sing pretty well with my old Tandberg tr-2080 receiver also.
Mamboni, in looking at my subwoofer specs this evening, I decided there is little to gain and to leave well enough alone. Things sound to good the way they are. Maybe a bigger amp at some point, but I really do not want to muck with the sound I am getting.
I talked to John today about upgrading my Walsh 2's to 2.2000's. I was ready to order the upgrade but when I found out the driver in the 2000 is aluminum I balked. Admittedly, I haven't heard many aluminum drivers but the ones I have heard I did not enjoy. Now I may just upgrade to the 1000 spec which has a paper cone.
On a side note, I wanted to try something solid state so I paired the Walsh 2's with a late 70's Luxman receiver and I'm gobsmacked at the sound I'm getting. Anything percussive sounds brilliant which has me scratching my head how a 30+ year old solid state amp, a receiver no less, can sound so good. I'm sure a nuerotic audiophile would find something to pick apart, but man, this combo plays music! I honestly would consider not upgrading the driver now that I've found an amp that dovetails so well with these speakers. However, curiosity will always get the best of me, so I'll move forward with the upgrade. I also just picked up a pair of Walsh 4's. Needless to say, I'm seriously sold on Ohm.
The Ohm Walsh 5s produce some of the best bass known, in quantity, quality and extension. Why would you possibly need a subwoofer? There's got to be a better placement - a few inches can change the bass output in-room, dramatically.
Fellow OHM'ers (or OHM boys or whatever we like to call ourselves):
I plan an experiment trying the big M&K sub I have running in my second system with my OHM 5s.
I'm thinking this may be the more practical (and cost effective) way to beef things up in that room.
I'd like to get the low end impact levels up to par with the 100.3s in the smaller room. Both run off my main system, the 5s in an adjacent room connected via in-wall speaker wiring I had installed when the house was built.
The issue I have with the OHM 5s is largely attributable to my L shaped room. Bass levels are up to snuff with the 100.3s in the smaller room towards the front of my main listening area but drops off further back. This is the L shaped room with thin carpeted concrete foundation floors where the OHMS sit in the short end of the L firing into the long length, where most listening is done (see my system photo with the Jack Russell Terrier adornment). In the short end of the L and just in front, bass levels are good...further back they drop off.
I will try the M&K V1-B sub located both up front near the speakers and back along the wall closer to the main listening area and see what happens.
The M&K has speaker level inputs/outputs and adjustable crossover. That will allow me to roll the 5s off at a higher frequency than normal and fill in the low end with the powered sub. If this works, then I might need to add another sub still because my second system really depends on one. I'd get one with the intent of it going to work with the OHM 5s indefinitely.
From talking to John Strohbeen, my understanding is that the late-model 100-S3's that I have do use the same supertweeter as the newer X000 series. So maybe I can comment.
My Ohms are sounding very nice these days. Bass is more controlled and highs are clearer and airier. Some of this has to do with having finally found, I think, the best room positioning, which took me quite a bit of fiddling. And some of it, I'm assuming, is break-in. So, for what it's worth, take your time. And yes, John will work very, very hard to keep an existing customer happy. When I had the Micro Walsh'es, and found the highs rolled off, he sent me a set of alternative drivers using a different tweeter configuration.
Toe-in/out relative to prime listening position is the best way to tune the top end of the Walshes.
Use a loosely rolled up sock or foam plug to partially obstruct the flow of air through the ports on the bottom to tame the low end if needed.
PErsonally, I'd give it cosiderable time and work on getting everything tuned in just right to personal taste before customizing driver outputs, but it is very nice the John offers this service when desired.
What ICs are you using? I've found low cost DNM Reson ICs provide very nice overall control top to bottom with the Walshes compared to other ICs I use.
Yes, I have been looking at a bigger amp mainly for my 5s in the larger room, but I have not been able to justify the expenditure needed so far....what I have sounds too good already, even with the bigger 5s in the larger room, and I am hesitant to change a good thing and break it.
Rebbi: Good luck with the Shrimp. I've heard Manley gear at shows and always came away impressed. IMHO, the tube-pre/SS-power combo can be marvelous. If you really miss the remote, you can do what I did - I positioned my rack and preamp so that the controls are within arm's reach from my seat.
Mapman: Are you looking for a new power amp? If so, what are your parameters & budget?
Well, I continue to burn-in my 2000s. While they do some things extremely well (timbre, soundstage, detail, lack of compression, et. al.), I am still on the fence about some aspects of the Walsh 2000's presentation. I have moved the 2000s to a more radical toe-in, with the flat face of the front of the speakers intersecting at the listening chair. I am trying to tone-down the super-tweeter a bit, and this is what Ohm suggests. Too early to tell if this will do the trick. Ultimately, John has offered to swap out the drivers to lower the tweeter output a bit if I am still unhappy after the break-in, so one way or another, I suppose this issue will be resolved.
I am going to try this weekend to trim back the subwoofer output a bit. Although on bass-shy material the added bass output is welcome, on material with more substantial bass it can be a bit too much.
If any of you lurking out there have new thousand-series Ohm Walsh speakers, please chime in with your thoughts on the super-tweeter output. Thanks.
I just sent payment for the Manley Shrimp! The reviews for the Pre3/S300 combo are excellent, but the reviews for the Manley Shrimp (by users and reviewers) are ecstatic, and I really did want to try a tube preamp. It'll be a more complex physical setup -- the two Bel Canto pieces would have stacked on top of each other and fit on top of my stereo cabinet. The full width Manley and half-width BC will take some fiddling to place. The only substantial deficit in the new setup will be lack of a volume control, which I can live with if the sound quality is what I think it might be. The Bel Canto arrives today. I'll report back when both pieces are in place and working! :-)
I can get a Manley Shrimp tube preamp - excellent reviews - for $1100 here on A'gon. It has an output impedance of 50 ohms, good fit for the Bel Canto. And a guy on Audio Asylum is using just this amp/preamp combo and really likes it. Advantage: maybe great sound, and I get to mess with tubes. Disadvantages: a little over my budget, and no remote.
OR: I can snag a Bel Canto Pre3 preamp for $999, plus shipping. Advantages: barely within my budget, aesthetic and acoustic match and remote control, so no getting up and down to adjust volume. Disadvantage: don't get to mess with tubes. :-)
Thanks for the if. The 500W Wyreds could well be the way I go. The value is there and your recommendatio with the 5s makes for a strong case. Thanks!
THE, nice $100 pickup. Upgrading will make a big difference. It did when I went from original Walsh 2s to my current "Super" Walsh 2s (1003 drivers). Keep us posted!
Hi guys. I don't want to sidetrack the dialogue on preamps but I thought I would poke my head in and say hello. I just picked up a pair of circa 1990 Ohm Walsh 2's for $100. I listened to them last night with my Eastern Electric M520.. not the best match, I know. I found they showed promise with certain characteristics of sound so I intend to upgrade with current parts from Ohm to bring them up to the same spec as the Walsh 2000's. I'm going to rework the cabinets as well and use a very dramatic veneer ala Duevel. Should be a fun project. I'll keep this thread updated on my progress.
Mapman said: You are using the 500w/ch Wyred4Sound amp these days I think I recall?
How do you like it?
Any chance this is too much power for the 5s resulting in the driver damage you report?
The 500w/ch Wyred is probably the most powerful amp option out there that I have considered and I'm wondering if it is overkill, and 250w/ch or so is plenty.
Yes, I am using the Wyred4Sound St-1000 which is nominal 550W/ch into 8 ohms. These amps are the first to really take hold of the power-hungry Walsh 5's and put them through their paces. The Walsh 5's have peak power in excess of 500W so I do not think this is too much power. I certainly am careful not to overdrive them. However, I have played full orchestral works with organ where there are rare 95-100 db peaks. But the average sound level is typically 75 db and typical peaks around 95 db.
The problem is in the left channel head unit. The woofer and tweeter sound perfectly fine, so this is not a case of fried driver or damaged voice coil per se. There is a buzz coming out of the speaker, centered around 1-2 khz I'd estimate, that occurs intermittently and is hightly frequency dependent. The following source materials evince this buzz, which sounds like a resonance:
1. Piano - only some recordings and at one keyboard note 2. female soprano voice on some recordings 3. french horns and trombones playing around concert Bb (horn's F at the top of the staff) 4. some organ recordings
My guess is that is is a loose soldier joint, board component or even a loose screw or plug - that's what the buzz reminds me of. I don't abuse my Walshs but they do get a lot of use. I log easily 3-4 hours listening per day; on weekends that might be 6 hours. And I lean towards full orchestral and organ recordings, so the Walshs get a workout. I've owned Ohm loudspeaker for many years and they are true workhorses - well engineered to operate trouble-free in the field. But after several thousands of hours of being subjected to vibrations, something is bound to loosen.
I'm compiling a CD with various tracks that evince the "buzz" so John at Ohm can hoepfully identify the fault.
BTW: I spent several weeks doing inventory on my listening, moving and removing any object which might be resonating and the source of the buzz - to no avail. I am fairly certain it is coming from the driver head unit.
I discovered the problem several weeks ago when I was driving the Walshs with my Sumo Andromeda II amps (240W/ch into 8 ohms). When I described the problem to John at the time he suggested that the amp might be clipping - he informed me that the power peaks on piano strikes and female soprano can be wicked, even at moderate listening levels. Nevertheless, the problem is virtually the same with the much more powerful ST-1000, so I don't think clipping is the problem. And I never had this problem with my original (classic) Walsh 5's.
You are using the 500w/ch Wyred4Sound amp these days I think I recall?
How do you like it?
Any chance this is too much power for the 5s resulting in the driver damage you report?
The 500w/ch Wyred is probably the most powerful amp option out there that I have considered and I'm wondering if it is overkill, and 250w/ch or so is plenty.
Thanks for the advice. There's a Manley Shrimp up on A'gon right now. A little pricier than I'd like (and no remote) but output impedance is only 50K ohms, so I'm seriously considering it.
Fascinating discussion, by the way. I've learned a ton from you guys!
10:1 is based on reasonable power loss across the preamp output: the pream-amp circuit is a power divider. At 10:1 preamp to amp impedance only about 10% of the voltage signal is "wasted" in the preamp output stage. However, no preamp has a perfectly falt output impedance across the audible frequency range. The 10:1 should be applied to the peak output impedance of the preamp, not the manufacturer's stated nominal impedance. Impedance mismatch is a predictable source of coloration. The preamp is a voltage source that prefers to see an infinite impedance so that it is not loaded down which results in voltage sags and distortion.
The best SS amps use FETs for differential input stage for this reason.
BTW: My Walsh 5 Mk IIIs will be going back to Ohm for repairs on one driver. I spoke to John and decided to upgrade to the Walsh 5000. John says the improvement in sound will be "evolutionary," and they have double the peak power handling and go a little lower. I'll take any improvement I can get with these most fantastic loudspeakers.
YEs, the consensus also seems to be that the higher ratio the better for optimal interfacing between amp and pre (sounds kinky), so who knows where a 10:1 minimum comes from?
After some investigation, the ARC sp16 I use is also a candidate for you at least technically, though the cost may be a tad higher.
Here are the specs:
260 ohms Single Ended main;
20K ohms minimum (amplifier input) load and 1000 pF maximum capacitance
So ARC recommends a ratio actually of about 77:1 for this pre-amp, which is well beyond the 10:1 minimum that many indicate in general.
With your Bel Canto's input impedance of 10000 ohms (half the ARC recommended value) the ratios with ARC sp16 would still be over 38:1, still almost 4 times the consensus minimum, so I think the Bel CAnto will work fine with any of the tube pre-amps identified above (Manley, ARC, Juicy) with the similar low output impedance specs.
Hi Rebbe and to all in the best thread at the 'Gon.
RE JUICY: This was posted on their site today:
"Time to turn out the lights...
It has been a great 5 years, but it is time for me to retire. I will no longer be building any new production batches of the BlueBerry, Peach, Tercel or pCAT. I WILL however, be completely supporting all customers (in and out of warranty) with their repair, upgrade and modification needs.
The web site will be here for ahwile (as reference), but I am removing the PayPal purchase buttons.
If you have any questions about your product, just send me an e-mail."
So for example, my case, with the ARC sp16 premap output impedance being 20K ohm, I would want an amp in the 200K input impedance range (my A3CR is only 31K).
Also, interconnects factor into the equation in regards to impedance loads presented to the pre-amp, so things get mor complicated again here.
Of the SS amps I've considered, the newer Bel Canto Ref1000m would be the best choice for me apparently, but pricey. I'll be looking to find some other options and will not rule out tube amps necessarily either.
The consensus here seems to be a 10:1 amp input/pre-amp out ratio is a good target. Also that actual output impedances of pre-amps is higher at lower frequencies with can negatively impact bass response.
Certainly a low pre-amp output impedance seems to make it easier to match more amplifier input impedances, but I wonder is it the absolute value of the preamp output impedance, or the ratio or magnitude of amp input impedance to pre-amp output impedance in the end that matters?
I know you've heard a lot of combos and have a good handle on the matching impedance issue between amp and pre.
Do you find that the ratio of amp input to pre-amp output impedance is a reliable indicator of performance? If so, what differences do you hear consistently as this varies? Are there thresholds regarding this ration that can be identified that reliably predict actual performance in certain areas?
Thanks for whatever insight you might offer up on this topic.
Spoke to Matt at Bel Canto today. He says that what's called for is a preamp with an impedance output of between 50 and 100 ohms
- shrink and center the quoted text
Rebbi, there are a limited number of tube preamps avaiable that will fall in the 50-100 output impedance range but if a Bel Canto rep says it, then its advisable to stick with that. I'd steer clear of preamps with output impedance in the thousands if I were you. The Juicy Music preamps do have variable output impedance that can be swithced to low output impedance.
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.
