I had similar hum when I first inserted Bel Canto C5i into my system to replace previous amplifier. Turns out source was the cable line into the cable box I had connected as audio input. Try disconnecting any coax cable signal wire input and see if it goes away. Using this resolved the problem http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002KR2RM?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s...
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
Nice recent article from JS on OHM site in his blog. It describes how to use the 4 level adjustments on each 5XXX model OHM. My F5s have these and these controls have been gold for getting things tuned in just right in my rooms. I kinda figured out their effects over time but nice to have "the man" describe the intent. A very unique feature that is pretty fundamental really. Blasphemy having "equalizer" controls on a speaker though in some parts I suppose but to me it just makes sense and in fact works. http://ohmspeaker.com/news/making-the-sound-fit-the-room/ |
I read the article and found it interesting. John has a way with illuminating speaker aspects that are subtle. The substitution of different terms for the various frequency ranges was illustrative. I don't understand the orthodoxy of audiopholes in regards to not using equalization or tone controls when fitting the speaker sound to the room. John gets it, but others don't seem to. Even Jim Smith (Get Better Sound) rarely mentions changing the sound coming out of the speakers, but focuses primarily on changing the room to fit the speakers. That thinking seems backwards to me, but I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer...or am I missing something important here? |
t8kc: You may need an in-line filter for the hum. Whatever nexus your audio system has with the TV might need this. If the hum is from the TV transformer itself, not much you can do except to try some of the plug-in devices designed to quiet noisy transformers. Both my plasma TV buzz pretty loudly. I just ignore it as I am not nearly into video and film as I am into audio. When the TVs are off, there is no hum. I also get a little buzz from my FiOS box. If it bothered me a lot, I would get some of those line filters. joefish: I have had my 2000s about as long as you have had your MWTs. I concur entirely with your thoughts. The texture and palpable aspect of instruments (including the human instrument - voice) is one of the best aspects of the Walsh design. |
T8 disconnecting the cable wire should indicate if that is the problem. If the hum exists only with cable wire connected. I I had this problem with Comcast specifically. I switched to Verizon which uses optical ire feeds afterwards and no more hum. But the transformer device I mentioned did solve that problem with Comcast. No no way to know if the cable line is the problem or not with testing by disconnecting the cable feed. |
Bondmanp, Yes, the Ohm's still continue to amaze me. I first noticed the string oscillations on the Yes song Roundabout. The acoustic guitar intro clearly showed the string oscillations and textures that seem to be hidden with other speakers The same goes for piano. I thought the micro talls did an excellent presentation of piano. Only when the 1000's were fully broken in did I realize that they were superior to the micro talls in fleshing out the tones and textures of piano strings. I could go on and on. If I ever get enough money, I may get a set of the 5's and better amplification and consider it my ultimate system. John has won a customer for life, and at age 63, these speakers will probably outlast me, and the thought of that makes me very happy! |
t8kc, congrats on the upgrade, the install should be fairly simple. There can always be some minor setbacks, but generally John has provided everything you might need. Not having any crossover boards to pound out makes things so much easier too, although I am not sure if you will receive a new terminal board that will replace the current one or not. Either way, it is no big deal to pop the old one out. John likes to use hot melt glue to put the new terminal board in, I tend to like to use black silicone, it is a bit easier to deal with and a nice bead of it around the inner edge where the board goes will work fine. It just takes a bit longer to cure/setup, but doesn't become brittle over time like the hot melt can. The new terminal board will have what looks to be like the older original heavy gauge clear skinned "monster cable" connected to it, and another connector at the other end which will then plug into your new can. The new can will be already mounted on a new "baffle" board which will then be mounted right over the existing hole where your old driver went. This board is typically screwed in with the provided 4 wood screws. It really is just a matter of getting the new board/can assembly situated squarely on the cabinet top before screwing things down. You might also get new grilles, as the driver can is a bit bigger around and also taller. At least my OW2 to 2.2000 was this way. At any rate, take things slowly and pre-fit things first just to make sure you know how things will go together. The only real thing to be aware of is the orientation of the driver on the cabinet, and the instructions should show what way the driver should sit so that the tweeters are in the right position. Really seeing as there isn't the typical logos on the OW1 cabinet like the other bigger brothers, not much you can really get wrong here. Obviously if something doesn't look right, fit right etc., John will help you out. Have fun and enjoy the process! And especially enjoy the music your Ohms will give you! |
I guess I should mention that my above comments were how my upgrade from an OW2 to 2.2000 was(So basically same cabinet and driver size), so there may be slight differences or John has made some running improvements to this. I suppose the new cans might not even come with new baffle boards now, as it seems I have seen what looks to be slightly different configurations for the driver mounting flanges. The new can/driver might just mount by itself now to your cabinet. I will be interested to hear what all you have and what you did for this upgrade/update. Keep us posted! |
Finally got the time to install the upgraded 2.2000 drivers in my Walsh 1 cabinets. The install was straight forward, but did require some finesse to install the drivers in the top of the cabinet. I'm not a wood guy so I had to pay attention to removing all the old particle board/glue residue before re-gluing the new board in place. Once assembled and when the glue had set up, I had the chance to try the speakers out. The volume was kept at a sane level for a couple of CDs and then I started to increase the sound level. The result was a definite increase in the bass response (expected) and a good clean, balanced sound through the range. The new drivers are smooth and consistant. The old drivers (both the OW1 and OW2) had some holes in the frequency range where the the volume fall-off was obvious. I am aware that some time has to pass for the break-in period. My plan is to just play them without being too critical until a couple of months have passed. As is, they are better by far than the old drivers and I am happy. I shouldn't need to do much to my current system except enjoy it for now. To review, I'm running a B&K Reference 5 S2 preamp into a Parasound HCA1500A amp. My source is a Yamaha CD-S300 player connected by standard RCA cable to the B&K preamp. I have a set of Marrow MA1 interconnects from the preamp to the amp. The speaker connection is 14GA bare-ended standard type wire. Speaker placement is about 6' apart and a foot from the back wall. I have no illusions about being an audiophile, I just want good sound. Any suggestions are welcome. |
I would be interested in how the old board is removed and new one installed. Curious, but as I said in my above posts, John continues to work on things and tries to make the upgrades easier to install, all the while bringing added refinement to the sound. As to suggestions, I would say leave well enough alone, listen and enjoy your music through the Ohms. Music isn't about being an audiophile! Have fun! |
Frazeur1, the old board was removed with a hammer and is destroyed in the process. The new board has the driver already mounted and fits into the existing space after all the old glue/board remains are removed. I used a file to help smooth things out. The directions talked about using wood glue and no mention was made of "hot-glue" as some have talked about on this thread. The new cross-over was screwed into the bottom of the cabinet and can be removed if necessary as it has a contour switch on it (low/medium/high) that, I believe, affects the bass response. As I didn't have any grills before, I don't have a reference as to whether the new grills are different than the originals due to the new drivers. They fit equally as well on both. It is too bad that this site doesn't allow photo posting on the threads as I could show you better what I'm talking about. |
I think I get what you are talking about. Some of the early versions just had a mounting board with new driver, you pulled off the old driver and just placed this new mounting board/driver directly over the existing hole and screwed it in place with four wood screws. This was my version anyway. As to the crossovers, mine were all in the can itself and did not come with any controls. So the old crossover/controls were removed and a new plain terminal block/board was mounted in place-hence the hot glue. So sounds as if some things have changed. The main thing is how they sound though, and hopefully you will enjoy them! Thanks for the response! |
Ok, it may not be a cross-over exactly, but there are some electronics attached to the input board and there is switch and some capacitors. I have a photo if anyone is interested. My TV related speaker hum ended up being a bad set of RCA cables between the cable box and the preamp. After talking to the cable TV repairman, he told me that digital cable doesn't cause any hum and that was only an issue back in the analog days. Hey, what do I know? |
In addition to the crossover electronics. Which should be pretty simple I think there is also what is called the "sub bass activator" circuit which is used to help extend the bass. I'm assuming the latest x000 models still use that. Js would know. It's a circuit sold as an upgrade to older models as well. I bought a pair when I refurbed my old Ohm Ls. |
"Even Jim Smith (Get Better Sound) rarely mentions changing the sound coming out of the speakers, but focuses primarily on changing the room to fit the speakers. That thinking seems backwards to me, but I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer...or am I missing something important here?" Quote from t8kc- Just to pick this thought up a bit, I think what happens quite often, and even I have been guilty of said thing, is that sometimes we try to "fix" what we think are sound issues with different gear. The thinking behind this is that it will somehow fix the problem, when in reality, the issue could very well be the room itself and poor acoustics-probably more times than not. While changing tone controls etc. in effect changing the sound coming out of the speakers, rarely will the changes given by ordinary tone controls really fix issues. It might make some things more pleasing to some degree, but room acoustics tend to go far deeper than what we can fix this way. While I don't know if this is exactly what Jim's thinking is here, as I have not read any of his book, it makes sense to me. Get the room as acoustically "fixed" as possible, then work with the gear/speaker side of things. Of course this also brings up differing means of treating the room depending on the type of speaker to some degree-such as Magnepans, Omni's or front driven speakers. Even though the basics can apply to every one of these, each one also may have a slightly differing means of going the next step further. The nice thing is that in my opinion, most Ohm speakers are a bit easier to work with room-wise. I always called them a more "friendly or real-world" speaker system. While certainly benefits can be had by taking the room acoustics and setup to the utmost degree, I find they just work fairly well with minimal fuss overall. For what it is worth! |
There are automatic digital room correction devices available today that users swear by and I suspect can do a very complete job of adapting speaker output to rooms if done properly. One way to skin the cat fairly completely in one blow if desired. There are many other more traditional ways as well to address the problem that work well with some trial and error over time. My opinion is one of the most common and significant problems many aspiring audiophiles face are floor interactions that often muddies the bass. Muddy bass not only sounds bad but obscures other good things that may be happening. Any modern construction home with suspended plywood floors is susceptible to this I believe including mine, The solution is to use isolation devices under speakers like isolating pads or stands. Heavy rigid spiked stands or spikes under floorstanders alone do not solve the problem. its a big problem that probably effects teh majority of listeners these days. How do I know this is a problem? I use my OHMs and other speakers both in two finished basement rooms on solid concrete foundation, and same speakers one level up in two rooms with suspended plywood floors. In basement the bass with all speakers is both clean and articulate in both rooms. Upstairs teh same speakers have muddied bass that greatly impacts the sound quality. It took me many years in my house to discover this. Isolating stands (I use Isoacoustics brand under smaller monitors) and pads (I use Auralex subdudeunder my smaller Walshes upstairs) are the cheap and easy solution. In the basement, I allow the speakers to couple to the solid foundation (opposite of isolating) with no ill effects. Most modern houses and floors are built to have some give to provide earthquake resistance. Good for that but bad for sound. If you can jump up and down and things in teh room move or vibrate you have a problem. Your room essentially "rings like a bell" except at a much lower frequency. |
Roger that, Mapman! I have my 2000s on Sound Anchor craddle bases, tri-spiked into the shallow carpet-over-cement-floor in my basement Man Cave. Bass is tight, well-defined, powerful, extended and bloat-free (I crossover the 2000s to my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs @80Hz). Bases are required for stability. That cement is solid, but not flat. Basement man caves rock!!! |
Well been doing a lot of reading and finally took the plunge and purchased a set of Ohm Walsh 2000s with cherry veneer. I am a long time Magnepan owner and currently they are replacing my Magnepan 3.6s. Need to down size some stuff with a baby on the way. So far the break in process is going well with about 20 hours on them thus far. I am fiddling with positioning and by and large really enjoy their sound. There are only a couple things I am not quite getting out of them vs the 3.6s. Vertical height happens but isn't quite as big and broad on a consistent basis as the Magnepans seems recording dependent. Also there are points where instruments like cymbals are clearly coming from the tweeter in the speaker lose that in air feeling. They are lack the finesse and air of the ribbons. Overall though an extremely musical speaker and they make me rethink what a cone speaker can do in terms of producing a sound stage vs big planars. Any thoughts on placement to solve the couple of issues above? |
Not sure what can be done about image height to make more like tall planers. Dispersion pattern is much different. Two different beasts in that regard. YOu can experiment with toe out perhaps in order to get more direct exposure from the tweeter for more air and such abovev7khz or so but it is a soft dome tweeter which seldom sounds like a ribbon. Ribbons tend to have narrower dispersion patterns so not a good fit with a speaker like Ohm that goes for very wide pseudo omni sound. I have ohm 5series 3 with the 4 three way tone adjustments the uppermost of which boosts or cuts treble. I have older ears and find the 3db boost possible with that of benefit sometimes but I can easily do without it. Mileage will vary on that for each. |
Also I will say the tonality of the ohms is very dependent on the signal fed it. I've done tweaks like wires and minor wall treatments to fine tune the sound. Also had to switch amps twice since replacing my Maggie's in order to get things right. The ohms can be like like Maggie's or quad Es on steroids in many ways but there are differences. |
Thanks for the response Mapman. The Ohms have a nice system feeding them: Mac Mini, PS Audio Perfectwave DAC MKII, Ayre K5-XE, and Mark Levinson No. 432 amplifier. So far they are really good speakers minus the issues raised above. To my surprise they are much more musical compared to the Magnepans in my room. I find myself surprised at the ease of sound coming out of these things and love the ease at which they image vs the Magnepans. In my 13x12 room the Ohms copious amounts of bass. So far my ears give out before they do. I will get everything adjusted with Dirac once I get the basic placement of the speakers down. My only other quibble with these speakers and it is non acoustic is that the bases of the speaker are finished rather poorly compared to the great cCherry veneer work. I expect a little more from a speaker costing nearly 3k. |
| Post removed |
Crazy enough I figure I would try Dirac out this evening. Very impressed with the bass response and I knew the speakers were digging down into subwoofer range just by listening to abusive music like Lorde. Sure enough on measuring them in Dirac the Oh,s measured a flat response down to 20hz prior to any correction being applied. This is well beyond what they were sped'ed for by Ohm. It is amazing what these speakers can do for bass. I haven't heard any speaker so effortless convey bass dynamics. |
Accurus - I would suspect room accoustics, but my Walsh 2000s do hieght extremely well. On some material, the voice sounds as if it is pressed against the low, 6' ceiling in my basement man cave. However, particularly when it comes to image placement and soundstage dimensions, I find the 2000s will reflect the information on the recording. I had an audio buddy over recently who owns some very good Mirage dipole towers. He picked the music. At the end of the demo, he remarked that he liked the Ohms, but that they don't seem to have a very large soundstage. I then put on "Wash Me Clean" by K.D. Lang, and the entire front half of the room exploded in a ginormous, holographic soundstage. His jaw dropped. Likewise for hieght. Some vocals sound as it they are coming from two feet off the floor, some higher, and some at the 6' hieght of my ceiling. IMO, one of the best characteristics of the 2000s is that they will reveal the qualities of each recording, but still make it possible to listen to and enjoy even poorly made recordings. Many typical rock recordings that I could not listen to on my old speakers are enjoyable on the Ohms. Thin, bright, congested recordings still sound that way, but they breathe a little more, and the bright, etched treble doesn't seem to dominate and crowd out the whole experience the way it can on many other speakers. I often found myself thinking, "oh, so this is what the recording engineer was thinking" for recordings that were unlistenable on my old speakers. First, I would give the break-in more time. Mine took about six or seven weeks to get most of the way there, and full break in took about six months. Mapman's tweek suggestion is also important. IMO, Ohms don't need tweeks to sound good, but they can be beneficial. To give my 2000s a solid footing on my uneven basement floor, I had a pair of cradle bases made for me by Sound Anchors (~$325/pair), with three-point adjustable spikes. They really firmed up the imaging and cleaned up the sound, subtley, but noticebly. Second, make sure you compare the sound with and without the DSP carefully. I am not sure that all room EQ programs work as well with unconventional speaker designs as they do with the conventional dynamic box speakers that they were most likely designed for. FWIW, I use the MCACC room EQ on my Pioneer AVR, but only for watching video. The signal for 2-channel listening is outside the surround sound, and DSP, loop. As for the finish, I would say that this is not the strong point of Ohm. It is adequate, but I think any major upgrades in the fit and finish would add significantly to the price, and John Strohbeen is trying to keep his speakers affordable. I would put it this way: Strictly in terms of sonics, what can you buy for under $3K that sounds as good as the 2000s? I have not heard the current Maggies, but many people, like me, don't have the space to set them up properly. In fact, the only other speaker I've heard that I would consider in this price range is the Golden Ear Triton 3. However, I think they are about to get a revision and price hike, and I have not heard them in my home, so I have no direct comparison to refer to. FWIW, my cradle bases hide most of the plinth. Enjoy your 2000s, and keep us posted if you have any further thoughts. |
Oh, as for the upper treble, I concur with your assessment. I have wondered what the 2000s would sound like with a folded ribbon tweeter, or an omni tweeter. But again, this tends to be recording-dependent, IME. I agree with mapman here. Remember, with the Ohm Walsh line, the tweets are angled inward, toward the listening position. So, toe-in will decrease direct sound from the tweeter, and toe-out increase direct sound from the tweeter; opposite of conventional baffle speakers. I have mine very slightly toed-in. |
Thanks for the response bondmanp. I would say my experience so far with the Ohms is that my image stability in terms of voice height is very consistent at about 4 to 5 feet high regardless of the recording. The changes is the image height and I think it has to do also with how pressured the room gets. The louder I crank of the speaker the bigger the sound tends to get, maybe 10-20% larger soundstage. Additionally as you point out height definitely can vary with recording. Play the Interstellar soundtrack last night by the wind noise was can height, but by the end of the track with the orchestra in full force the height was nearly hitting my 8 foot ceilings. As for toe-in and Dirac so far I have only tried them toe'ed out which seems to add more image height but I will try them toe'ed in. Dirac also was a great difference in my room. I can turn Dirac on and off instantly with my setup and the difference has been improved control and extension (probably due to Dirac killing a 15db bump between 40 and 60 hz) and a much smoother and focused mids and highs. Also the holographic surround effect has been tuned now to be more precise and realistic. As for what speakers in their price range could beat the Ohms I would honestly say not many from my listening experience. As I said in another post compared to my 3.6s which are renowned for being a top tier speaker the Ohms excel in numerous places. One could look at the Magnepan 1.7i's or .7s but in terms of dynamics the Magnepans would quickly be put in their place and the Ohms definitely have a less veiled and open sound to them compared to the Magnepans. Which is odd since that is one of the hallmarks of Magnepans. But the Ohms just have this open unrestrained sound to them that is easy to forget when listening to them, but you quickly remember when comparing them to other speakers. One interesting this is that people talk about Magnepans having an airy sound which they do when it comes to the texture of the sound (especially on ribbon models). However the Ohms excel at having sound literally sounding like it is coming out of nowhere. It sounds not airy in texture, but as if the sound placement is just coming out of nowhere and it is a somewhat weird, but easily adapted to trait. The Ohms when playing some material have the ability to project a wall of sound as if the air itself is the speaker. I have never had that experience before on any system I have heard. Overall more break-in coming and I will certainly try the toe-out. After spending 4 hours moving the speakers in 6 in increments and then fine tuning I think I have place down minus the toe-in experiments. However all of this break-in work will be for not since my left driver can was damaged at the factory and I have replacement cans for both speakers coming in this Tuesday. I spoke with John the next day about the damage and site unseen he instantly offered to send out new drivers. So the break in process will start fresh on Tuesday, but I am excited to take a closer look at the cans taken off the speakers and atleast I have the placement sorted out so it will be time to pull out the tape and mark some spots on the carpet. PS: Can you send a link to the exact Sound Anchor product you are using with your Ohms? I am interested in picking some up and wanted to give them a shot. I currently use Sound Anchor stands on the Magnepan 3.6s and really enjoy the effect they had. |
accurus I love the rigorous examination you are giving the OHMS! It helps confirm a lot of what I have been saying over the years. I feel like with the right size OHMs for a room, a good quality source, and the right amplification to drive them to their max (which many average OHM owners may not have and not know or care what they are missing) you are basically just hearing the recording the way it should sound in your room. So the recording is pretty much everything. The best sound the best and the poor ones lag way behind but are mostly all still listenable once you realize it is what it is and enjoy it or not for reasons other than absolute sound quality. Its like having a good HDTV. Huge range of picture quality possible depending on teh source. One other thing I would mention is that I have found OHMS or any speakers for that matter that sit on upper level suspended plywood floors found in most modern homes may benefit from placement on isolating platforms or stands. Stands that couple to the floor will sound way different than those that isolate. I have my OHM 100s in Walsh 2 cabinets on Auralex Sub dude platforms when used on my nicely finished second level with plywood flooring. When I run them on the first floor (house foundation level) the stands are not needed. In general I find you do not want any speakers interacting with lively floors. It muddies the bass and obscures detail. |
Thanks for the advice Mapman! I in fact do have the speakers on a suspended floor and I do feel it vibrate along with the walls and pretty much everything if I have music like Lorde and Interstellar playing! Even better though is I actually have some old sub dudes sitting around which would actually give me some more physical height out of the speakers and address the problem you are suggesting. Sounds like a fun evening of music is ahead with a couple of experiments and probably a remeasuring using Dirac when I am done. |
I will also be posting on here a full review at some point and sending it off to Ohm to use as they want. I will say that I can't believe more people don't own these speakers. Once some time has been spent setting them up they offer a good hybrid of what dynamic cones due best with what planars can do. With the gear in my system I also don't feel like I am losing resolution compared to the 3.6s. I know I have lost some air or delicacy compared to the ribbon in the Magnepans, but I don't think I have lost resolution and I have gained musicality and dynamics. The music so far has been far more engaging. |
Let us know how the subdudes work out. Should take things up a few levels still I suspect. They did for me. Exact same true with Isoacoustics brand isolating stands I use with small monitors in another similar room. I’ve used those with my Triangle monitors and just this week with an old Pair of Boston Acoustics A40 series ii speakers I bought 30 years ago and just refoamed this week. Wow! An audiophile could pick up a pair of those for $50 or less at a thrift store, fix them up with a $20 kit, and be nicely set in many smaller to medium size rooms. Not OHMS but they really sound good these days with modern high quality gear driving them. You definitely have to spend 10X as much or more to do better with new stuff. I'd like to be able to hear the Isotar soft dome tweeters in my Dynaudios used in teh OHMs. Would probably up the cost even more though. |
Bondmap, Thanks for the link. I too am a satisfied Sound Anchor customer. :) Mapman, I will definitely report back this evening. Really glad you mentioned the Subdudes because funny enough I have really been wanting to try experimenting with raising the Ohms up a big since I a tall guy and have a fairly high listening chair and oh jee I just happen to have two of them sitting in a closet within 5 ft of my listening room. So that will kill two birds with one stone. |
Ok so far fiddle with toe in vs toe out. Prior I had them toed out about 1 inch. I then tried 1 inch toed in and that did some added rear ambient energy but 2 inch seems to enhanced that effect and made everything sound a bit bigger not just in the rear but the fronts. Definitely a duller upper range but after I fiddle with the iOS platforms I can run Dirac and it can compensate for the recessed highs. More incoming... |
t8kc...A 'permanent fix', if left to the spouse, might be a pillow applied late one night. ;) Or some sort of involuntary therapy.... You might try a common ground. TV's aren't known for being all that 'clean' when it comes to being 'sanitary' in their audio. I've some residual low level hum, but it's attached to a smaller system that compensates for the awful drivers that are installed into flat screens.... And sound bars? Don't get me started... |
avsjerry, I don't think the "pillow" procedure will be applied unless she finds out how much I have spent on audio gear lately...just saying. My temporary solution is to just unplug the TV RCA cable when I want to listen to music seriously. I wish the fix was more elegant and convenient, but having limited room (I live in a small house) means only one stereo system. The Ohms do provide nice sound for movies. |
Sorry to not get back to the thread quicker on the changes with the updates. Things have been hectic, but I will say that the height is better the speakers speakers on the Subdudes. Bass is definitely different as it is far more dipole and airy and not as cone like of a sound. I did get the new drivers for my speakers yesterday as one arrived dented. I took apart the left speaker and I will take pictures of the driver and the inside of the cabinet tonight for the sake of sharing knowledge of this speakers. |
Sounds like the Subdudes are doing their thing. Results are similar using similar function isolating stands with my conventional dynamic monitor speakers so the benefits of isolation when called for are not unique to OHMs. |
I have a question about Walsh speakers and acoustic treatments. I have a 5000 and have 2 panels right behind them and on ceiling 5 feet out from them. Are Walshes better with no acoustic treatments behind them? My room is 20x12 with 8 foot ceiling. I have them on the long wall Thanks for any help. I have researched Internet and not found any answer . Thanks. Mike |