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.
In terms of sound quality it is all back to square one again. Since I have new drivers to break in. It will be a few days before I really give them a critical listen.
blueranger: I had put up quite a few foam panels on the back-wall, and at the first reflection points on the ceiling and side-walls. I felt things sounded too dead, so I removed some, and noticed an improvement in dynamic impact and a wider soundstage. Also, I tried covering my 60" plasma set with a thick comforter, and didn't feel there was any improvement.
In short, I guess there is not much point to an omni-style speaker if you're room is treated so that all the indirect-radiating sound is absorbed and not reflected. And remember; these speakers are voiced with the reflected, indirect-radiating sound taken into account.
I want very badly to try some diffusers instead of absorbers to the sides and behind the speakers. Sadly, diffusers are a bit pricier than absorbers. But I may try some ebay specials if they aren't too heavy (I suck at things like mounting heavy objects on my drywall-over-stud walls).
acurus - Thanks for the pics. Most of us Ohm owners have never seen the drivers that give us so much pleasure. I have to admit, the driver looks fairly conventional compared with the original Ohm Walsh drivers. But who cares? The end results speak for themselves.
I am curious about two things, though. The rumors are that some of the x000 drivers, including the 2000, is an aluminum driver. The only reason I'd want to know is because aluminum drivers have never been my cup of tea. If the 2000 cone is indeed aluminum, it would be yet another feather in John Strohbeen's cap. That he could get sound like that out of aluminum would be impressive. Similarly, I'd love to see the tweeter, which, I believe, is a soft dome type. Again, I am curious, as I prefer soft domes to metal domes, in general.
I use 3 12X12 sound panels on sidewalls at primary reflection points based on where I listen from most often. May try some on ceiling at some point but have not felt the need.
My advice with OHms specifically is treat only as needed. Start minimally and experiment from there. Primary reflection points on walls and ceiling based on your most common listening position are always the place to start to get maximum effect per panel.
I also have double sliding glass door with vertical blinds behind my big F5s. I listen with blinds both open and shut and does not matter much to me. YMMV.
With omnis, you want to use the room to best effect. With more directional speakers the tendency is to fight the room acoustics which often leads to extensive treatments.
A lot depends on the room, how lively it is in general and the details which contribute to that or not.
My assessment is that out of the box, teh OHMs are designed to fit into most typical modern drywalled/carpeted/finished rooms with minimal or even no treatments needed but its up to the individual to tweak from there if needed.
Room acoustics are always a factor, no matter what speakers but may play less of a role, either positive or negative, in general with more directional speakers like those with waveguides,, horns, more directional tweeters like ribbons, etc.
Not to rehash old news but a Walsh driver is a bending wave based driver (look up speaker types and bending wave speakers on Wiki) . Bending wave drivers was Lincoln Walsh's concept and innovation. Ohm was teh company that produced the first commercial implementation of a very wide range Walsh driver. It was bleeding edge sound wise but a fragile design that blew out not quite as often as a fuse perhaps if not very careful. It turned out to not be commercially viable as a result.
John Strohbeen's later Walsh brand "CLS" driver solved tat problem but sacrificed the "Walsh" driver producing sound above 7khz or so to make the product more durable. So it is based on Walsh's principles but a totally different design that is more commercially viable.
Waves bend essentially when passing through any medium with variable density.
Like Bond said, the unique technology is interesting but its the results that has spoken for itself now for over 30 years.
Some but not much happens above 7khz or so musically. That is not a bad tradeoff for a design that I have found to be most robust and durable as well as great sounding and practical for many.
Most conventional 2 way speakers have cross over much lower which if not done really well messes with the sound and coherency of a lot of elements of the music including vocals in particular.
Over the years I find I am seldom a fan of any but the best 3-way speaker designs out there when I hear them. Its those darn multiple crossovers in the business area of the music that is mostly the culprit I think.
Bondman, while one never seems to get really good details on the drivers even when talking to John himself, I think that at least with my early 2000 drivers, the main drive unit was an "aluminum coated" driver. So certainly a bit of difference from the typical aluminum formed drivers that you see in other speaker designs. Mine appeared to be an almost exact duplicate of one of Dayton's drivers at the time.
My tweeters were indeed a silk soft dome variety, very smooth, yet detailed. I could not see my 3000 series drivers, but believe they were similar to the 2000 units, but that has been awhile, when the "Thousand" series first came out, and we know John makes little updates and improvements along the way.
Generally with regard to aluminum drivers, tweeters or otherwise, I find it isn't so much the driver itself, but the way it is implemented, the crossovers etc. that really matter to the "sound".
On a hysterical note, the original Ohm cones used aluminum. The center third of a 'F' was mated to a titanium top with a paper lower. The 'A's were 3/4's +/- alum. on the bottom with a titanium top. The cones had (and have to have) a rigid enough material for the physics to work properly.
The new Ohms are more like a Duvell, and they 'cheat' with a tweeter....MNotSoHO....
Hmm my recollection of Dueval is nothing like ohm. Dueval drivers are mounted in cabinet and fire upward towards at an acoustical dispersion component which disperses the sound omnidirectionally.
Ohm walsh drivers face down ward into the cabinet which is either ported or sealed. The driver is completely above the cabinet and the sound radiates omnidirectionally from the outer edge of the rear of the driver. Just like original wider range Walsh drivers or the also limited range ddd driver used in German physics.
I've never heard Dueval or original ohm a or Fs. So cannot comment on how things sound similar or different.
frazeur1 - Thanks. Good points, all, and I concur. It's like sausage. Who cares what it looks like being made when the results are so pleasing!
Mapman - The only other omnis I've heard are the MBLs (extraordinary). I did hear those new electrostatic panel omnis at a show, and was not impressed. I later was told that they were damaged prior to arrival at the show. Near me, VPI has a large suburban colonial home in which the entire main floor is dedicated to audio system demonstrations. One of the speakers Mr. Weisberg has there is a dual pair of the big original Ohm (F's or A's) that have been restored (and modified?), and placed one atop the other, with the upper pair inverted and held in place with a wooden frame. The one time I was there, KEF was co-hosting an event, so the Ohms were just on static displpay (I don't think there were any closets large enough for them, and I doubt anyone wanted to haul them to the basement). Oh, well. Maybe next time. I've been told by people who have heard these beasts that they might be one of the best loudspeaker systems of all time, regardless of price.
Not all omnis are created equal, but "better" and "worse" is always going to be in the ear of the beholder.
Omnidirectional response can be achieved in several different ways, each of which has its own particular "flavor", heard varyingly as pluses and/or minuses by each listener. The multi-material, full-range Walsh design (one variety of which is still being manufactured by Dick Harter) has limited max output. The MBL can safely deliver crushing SPLs. Score one for MBL (if you listen loud). However, the bass response of the MBL isn't as tight and defined as the Walsh. Score this one the other way (unless you prefer the bass "bloom" of the MBL). This stuff is always a matter of trade-offs plus personal sate.
The Ohms aren't omnis above 7khz, IIRC, so that's a cheat - if you care about "design purity".. Bose gets very wide treble dispersion in some models by angling tweeters back against the wall. The Duevel, Robertson (sic?) and Mirage models use a similar idea (fire the tweeter upwards against a deflector) to get 360 degree treble. Gallo uses a tweeter with native 180 degree dispersion in the treble, but that only kicks in above 2khz, where dispersion at the top of the mid/woofer's pass and has already narrowed.
Which design is overall "best" and why? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you played em all for ten different 'Goners, you'd get ten different answers.
Been swamped this past week and really haven't had a chance to break the Ohms in anymore. Currently in an extended listening session with them and wondering about cabinet resonance. As I move the speakers around to get the best imaging as am noticing that the cabinet has a lot sound resonating in the cabinet. I can't imagine this being any good for the sound. I am wondering about thoughts on treating it with some sort of dampening material.
I am using the Subdudes. However the subdues won't address the issue I am raising which is the side of the cabinets are definitely resonating. You can knock on the cabinet and it is clearly not inert.
My own thoughts on this are: For these prices, you don't get a Wilson or Magico type cabinet that is completely inert. John Strohbeen knows this. Rather than spend lots of money to minimize cabinet resonances, which would raise the prices he would have to charge for his speakers, he voiced them working with the resonances. Furthermore, a singing cabinet will have less impact on the sound with the drivers sitting completely proud of the cabinet, as they do with the current Walsh line, than such resonances would have on a conventional dynamic box speaker.
Just an educated guess, but i suspect cabinet design for a Walsh style driver is much different than conventional dynamic designs. Remember most of the higher frequency sound exits the cone above the cabinet so less energy is imparted into the cabinet all other things aside. So resonance effects are much different I suspect and the design may lend itself to less issues in general with the cabinet.
In any case, its not something I’ve even thought about before mostly because I have had no reason.
My Dynaudio monitors are very inert with double isolated cabinet design.
But guess which speakers I choose in the end?
So I find it an interesting question but not sure it matters much as long as the end results satisfy.
Of course as always, YMMV.
Also note that both my Walsh speakers use older refurbed pyramid shaped cabinets not new ones. So I can’t speak to how the newer cabs work compared to the old, but I do know JS in general attempts to tune each to achieve a certain similar sound.
One other thing I can note is that my impression has been JS views cabinet volume as the key design criteria for selecting OHM models with larger cabinets able to deliver more bass as needed.
Also I would add that with my two pair of OHM Walshes, I find that once teh floor interactions are dealt with as needed (similar to any speaker not just OHm Walsh) there is nothing I hear that I could attribute to unwanted cabinet resonances, Although of course room acoustics in general are always a big factor in what you hear.
Accurus I recall you were using something to correct for room acoustics and may have mentioned earlier on what that measured in your room, prior to Subdudes I believe. I'm wondering what you are reading now with subdudes and if any significant anamolies if room acoustics can be ruled out.
Definitely with the Ohms I am hearing half way down the cabinet midrange from the woofer part of the Walsh driver. Just seems like it can't be any good to have resonance from the cabinet as typically most manufacturers go for inert cabinets and market them as such. As pointed out by myself and others the cabinets seem certainly on the cheap side especially the bases which I may one day replace with a solid piece of granite or polished corian just to give the speakers a more high end look.
Mapman you are correct that I have acoustic treatment in my room. I have four GIK Acoustics corner traps running floor to ceiling in the front that have the diffusion panels on them and I also have two ASC tube traps in the rear that have the diffussors our as well. This weekend when I actually had time to listen I did install two more ASC traps on their side with the diffusors in front of the wall directly to the side of each speaker. I got a perceived increase in bass response from that. At some point I will remeasure the room using Dirac to see how the response has changed how I have moved the speakers a bit so the measurements I am sure will be a bit off from the first. However I will say a couple things about the subdudes and the measurement I did get with Dirac.
The subdudes improve for my height and high listening chair the needed boot to get the Walsh drivers to where I think the soundstage is level in the room rather than hanging low. Additionally the bass is more airy and more dipole like in nature, however until my 3.6s they can't provide the feeling on certain types of bass that the entire front wall is a driver. I think that is something where the laws of physics kick in on a small Ohm speaker vs a 6 foot tall line source. However bass dynamics with micro or macro are greatly improved with the Ohms. The other thing that the subdudes definitely do is remove pretty much all of the bass vibrations out of the floor which gives the perception of less bass, but it is tighter and better defined. My left full wall still vibrates if you play bass heavy music such as Daft Punk, Lorde or the Interstellar soundtrack.
In regards to Dirac and room measurements from the last measures I got Dirac is saying that I have a fairly smooth response in my room down to 10hz. It dips a little below 20hz by 2-3 db but no signifigant deviation. Not bad for a speaker rated to only 30hz. With some exceptional trapping and fiddling I could get Dirac to correct my Magnepan 3.6s down to 20 hz or so in room, however you would easily hit the dynamic limitations of the driver and have the mylar slap the magnet structure. So I believe the measuremens are legitimate even though I am measuring some insanely low bass coming from these speakers. Playing Lorde's "White Teeth Teens" the bass of the Ohm 2000's easily surpases a push/pull M&K MX-80 that I have setup in my office system. Frankly I really can't see with the proper amplifcation and speaker model choice with the Ohms would ever need a subwoofer. I know my Mark Levinson 432 at 800 watts into 4 ohms is pretty overkill for the Ohms, but I have yet to have a session with the Ohms where they or the Mark Levinson show any signs of strain or frankly any sign of anything but a natural sound (with Dirac engaged). My ears give out long before the speakers or amplifier ever do.
I will continue to break in the drivers and provide more measurements as time allows, but definitely think the Ohms are a superb speaker, but I would like to see improved cabinet construction. As a Magnepan I think Ohm and Magnepan share a similar value philsophy, however as Magnepan owners know they do benefit from the numerous modifications out there including an improved frame.
"It dips a little below 20hz by 2-3 db but no signifigant deviation. Not bad for a speaker rated to only 30hz. "
That's pretty exceptional for most any speaker of modest size to be able to deliver below 20hz I would think and frankly didn't know the smaller OHMs had it in them.
I do know they are champs at going loud and clear with whatever amount of clean power thrown their way though. They nor my 500 w/ch Class D amps never break a sweat.
I use only my ears to measure, so you are way ahead of me.... :^)
My sound is totally detached from the speakers. That includes drivers as well as cabinets.
John does use some higher end veneers by request I have read. Anything might be possible for a price. But he seeks to keep prices down and sound quality high. My guess is he feels the standard cabs are all that is needed to do the job right. Only one way to know: ask him.
It would not be hard to add acoustic damping material inside as an experiment if desired once one is comfortable with removing the driver boards.
My 5s have the 4 3 way level adjustments on each which provides a lot of flexibility fitting speakers to room as needed. Similar to current 5000s. Other models do not have those so more like most speakers there.
Mapman, I used to be a big believer in listening with my ears only, however there are things that Dirac does that no golden ear can including time alignment, etc. Typically I tend to place the speakers by ear first so that I get the soundstaging and imaging that I think is optimal and then let Dirac clean things up from there. My experience with Dirac is that he just cleans up the sound of the speakers where they are placed rather than transform things. So knowing how to listen and placing the speakers in the best position by ear is still critically important even in the world of digital correction.
Bondmap, Assuming my listening session tonight doesn't drive me to want to reposition the speakers I will remeasure everything for the position they are currently in and take screenshots to post.
Please note though that I do not use a +3 db bass to -3db treble line. I do use a custom curve that bumps up the bass a bit as I like the bass that way a bit better. You will will see how tight of a response Dirac can get out of the speakers.
How does Dirac work? I assume there are measuring activities to determine current state, ability to select or define corrections, and then apply the corrections during playback.
What devices does Dirac run on for various tasks? Which do you use?
Mapman, You pretty much just described how Dirac like any other room correction software works.
In my specific instance I use it on my Mac Mini that I have setup with Audirvana playback software using the Dirac Plugin and also use the Dirac software for playing movies so that they also benefit from Dirac.
Just a quick observation about the Ohms that I realized during a prolonged listening session. The Magnepans really made me listen to certain types of music. Those tracks where ones that I knew sounded good and there were many tracks that sounded terrible that I just stayed away from. I am noticing with the Ohms I am listening to albums that I haven't listened to in years and enjoying them as the speakers are just far more musical and listenable vs the Magnepans on the same track. There are some things with the Magnepans like I miss like the ribbon tweete, but the Ohms sound so much more dynamic, musical and cohesive.
accurus - I know exactly what you mean about the Ohms and not-so-great recordings. I have commented on this aspect of the Ohms myself. And thanks for making me feel fine about not having the space for Maggies.
Is it just me, or is the link you mentioned above to your response graphs missing from your post? Maybe my employer's web filters are to blame.
Accurus agree 100% on that. Perhaps the single best thing about the OHMs for a music lover. My story is similar moving from Maggies and others before back to OHM after many years.
Also wondering what microphone you use with teh software and how much was the total investment?
I love teh idea that this is a program that runs on regular computers and attempts to do so much to optimize sound quality. Might have to give it a look sometime.
Mapman to answer your questions. I used the recommended USB microphone: UMIK-1 and bought a USB cable extender so it could reach around my room. I used the stereo version of the software (they make a home theater / more channel version) which is around $430. It is expensive, but there is no other product that is going to what Dirac can do acoustically for the money. But I would say if you can swing it even after getting Dirac get acoustic treatment in conjunction with Dirac. Dirac can only fix so much including room nulls.
I like the overlay of target, before and after measurements! I’m noticing the target is not flat response. I’m guessing that is because software attempt to compensate for non-flatness of human hearing. Just a guess?
Did you attempt any nearfield measurements with the OHMs ie measure them with room acoustics minimized? Just wondering what that would look like.
What’s is your assessment of the results after Dirac versus prior from a non technical music enjoyment perspective?
Very interesting stuff. Its a software only (no special hardware required besides microphone) significant tweak for sure as measured for the cost. Nothing grey or left to uncertainty from a technical perspective there.
Very cool!!!! Affordable software only tweaks like this are just another reason to like computer audio.
At the time there was no Dirac stand-alone option for OSX and Amarra Symphony was it. It's fantastic software and if you are new to room correction you will be pleasantly surprised with the ease and flexibility it offers, never mind the great sound. Another recommended mic and the one I use is the XTC Microphone Pro. Highly recommended.
Mapman, As I said in an above post I have boosted the EQ curve to be tilted towards the bass. I tend to like this sound as it sounds a bit more reinforced on the low end.
Dirac, by default does not use a flat curve. it is +2 db in bass and -2 db at the treble. According to their research most listeners tend to dislike a flat response as it sounds thin due to the fact that our ears don't heard evenly. As I have said I bump the curve a bit more as I prefer that sound. Other manufacturers like Audio Source who make numerous equalizers has the exact same position about flat frequency response. However you can make the EQ curve flat if you so choose or really anything.
Dirac will let you set a target curve any which way you like and will tailor the response according to the target curve.
I have never done nearfield measurements with the Ohms.
Listening to Dirac in my room provides a couple of cool things. First listening becomes more fatique free, imaging becomes less blurry, and the overall presentation is more natural and spacious. You also tend to hear more information in tracks as things seem to be presented in a more even handed manner. Certainly worth the $500 price of admission after you purchase a calibrated microphone.
Well it has been a few weeks with my Ohm Walsh 2000's and I think it is time for a review. Say that with the following qualifiers: A: The speakers probably have about 30 hours in on them at moderate to loud volume so the break in is there to judge the final sound. B: I think I have figured out placement and had one of those breakthrough listen sessions where I had a "Eureka!' moment about how to place the speakers, make some room adjustments, as well as change how I am recording in Dirac.
So let’s begin with the room and system that these Ohm Walshs are being used with. I have them placed in a small 13x13 room with a bit over 8 foot ceilings. That room also has an open at all times double french door. This room is used mainly for audio though it does have 2 channel home theater uses here and there. The room has bass traps located in the corners of the room from floor to ceiling and I am working with GIK to purchase more acoustic treatment for the room per their plans. Per suggestions from Mapman I have placed the Ohms on top of SubDude HD anti vibration stands. The gear is as follows:
Source: Mac Mini with Audirvana and Dirac Integration DAC: PS Audio PerfectWave MKII Preamp: Ayre K-5xe Amplifier: Mark Levinson No. 432 Speakers: Ohm Walsh 2000s
Past Speakers: Some useful information is that I am a Magnepan guy and have been for the last 20 years. When I first heard them at a dealer showcase I loved the open nature of the speakers as well as their room filling sound. Magnepans are certainly not perfect speakers, but if soundstaging, a large surface area to have sound emanate from the speaker, and in the case of the ribbon based models a sense of detail and air around instruments are important criteria are important to you then Magnepans are your speaker if you have the room, equipment and patience for them.
The Need for Change: After all these years with Magnepans and in particular for me 3.6s dominating my small audio room I wanted to downsize the system with the anticipation of a newborn baby coming into the mix. I spent countless hours searching the web for a speaker that could have a large soundstage and three dimensional sound of my Magnepans for around $3000. The task was difficult as so many speakers related to Magnepans are dipoles and are some sort of planar. Even cone based designs that were open baffle required the speaker to be at least 3 feet from the back wall which was no improvement over the placement of the current 3.6s. Then I randomly stumbled upon Ohm speakers via a random audio thread and started some digging around. Overall the information sounded interesting, but the question of soundstage height was not being answered. Most reviewers and those that write about monopole speakers talk about spacious sound but typically it is within the height of the speakers and really it is the width and depth that are the spacious sound rather than the height. Now some of you may be thinking "Seriously what is the deal with this guy and soundstage height?" I will tell you that until you have lived with 6 foot tall and 2 foot wide panels in your listening room you don't realize what you are missing. There is a sense of life scale that few speakers regardless of price are able to match much less a set of speakers sub $5000. Needless to say a lot of internet research ensued about the Ohms and thanks to a lot of posts on this thread and some others, plus Ohm's generous in home trial took the big risk out since if they failed to meet my needs there were going back. By the way for those of you who want the quick answer: the Magnepans are sold and the Ohms were not returned.
Build Quality: So after unpacking the speakers I found that my left speaker can had a sizeable dent that John at Ohm replaced with no questions asked. Other than that the speakers look pretty good from afar. However I feel that fit and finish are something that remains to be desired. The cans look pretty cool with their perforated metal, but overall nothing about the speaker screams high end audio or matches the quality of the sound they reproduce. I think that is a real shame because we often listen with our eyes as well as our ears. I think the worst offender in terms of build quality that I found were two fold. One is internal and only found when I replaced the damage driver in my speaker which is that the port in the speaker looks to be made of cardboard and the gloss finish base of the speaker looks spray painted. I know some will argue that this is a cost saving measure and it is about the sound, but I have seen $100 Paradigm Atoms that I have had less qualms about fit and finish. I think visual impressions are important especially when we are talking about a $2000+ speaker.
Placement: Placement is a tough issue for the Ohms. Contrary to what Ohm states about the relative ease of place I found this to not be true for me. Sure you can set them down close to the wall and listen and they sound ok, but really to get the wall of sound that has depth not just behind the speaker but behind the listener careful attention and note taking must be done when moving the speakers around in order to find their best positioning. Are the Ohms as sensitive as Magnepans and one should fear being a quarter inch out of alignment...? No. But paying attention to what you are doing and spending a few weeks moving and taking notes really does help and I think that is especially true for any speaker that isn't a monopole.
Tone, Dynamics and All of the Other Fancy Sound Adjectives: Lets start by saying that at least from my experience what I think any Ohm listener will be surprised about is the bass. These speakers make bass. Lots and lots of clean effortless bass. I mean this statement not from the usual "Oh these speakers make good bass for their size." I mean to say that these speakers measured in my room are making bass into the 10hz range. For a speaker rated down to around 30hz the Ohms easy pass that spec. This is clean and music bass. It doesn't sound like subwoofers are on, but rather that a pair of stereo speakers that dig down deep on soundtracks such as Interstellar.
The Ohms are very musical and open. As much as I thought the Magnepans made music I find myself tapping my foot more and not even realizing it. These speakers have this open sense and just unsteadiness sense about them. This is certainly in part due to their dynamic power but even vocals and background sounds just have this matter of factness about them. Sound is just there and it is clean and pure. I have heard people talk about musical speakers and for the first time I truly understand what that sounds like. Now before you start thinking that the Ohms must be the ultimate speaker for audiophile, the answer is it depends on what you like in your music presentation. What these speakers do not do is provide that microscopic sound that is often written about in audio magazines. You are not going to hear the air moving around instruments. But what you are going to hear is something that sounds extremely cohesive and part of a well placed soundscape. That for my listening room covers all four walls in the room and that includes going around my head if the right track is played. However I consistently get sound going as far towards the side walls as far back as my listening position.
The speakers depending on the recording and even more so with the help of Dirac room correction have good height. Is it a 6ft tall Magnepan? Yeah sometimes. Sometimes it is less and of course I dislike that but the Ohms do so many of other things in a more musical and convincing manner that I can live with it. Where I think the Ohms could use help would be a taller tweeter array on top of the CLS driver as I think it would add more height to sounds that are localized to the left and right tweeters such as cymbals or other localized sounds. It is at those moments that it becomes clear that you are listening to a dome tweeter rather that the expansive CLS driver.
Overall the Ohms are fantastically musical spellers.mthey are not the last word in accuracy but I think that is a compromise with any speaker design that at some point cohesion and musicality turn into isolated precise renderings that to an extent are artificial but can be pleasurable to listen to.
The Ohms have their flaws and if I had to pick two it would be the dome tweeter setup and the build quality. That being said these speakers do so much right. These speakers have brought me closer to the music in my listening space them any prior speaker setup has and frankly surpassing auditions I have had with spealkers costing 10 to 20 times more and that is not including the associated equipment and larger room. This isn't just with audiophile music like Diana Krall or orchestra music. I am talking about music like Daft Punk, AC/DC, Smashing Pumpkins, Lorde, etc.
Lastly to those reading this and weary about how these speakers compare to your expensive audiophile salon speakers I saw give their in home trial a shot. To me that is all the proof you need to know that Ohm is confident that you care have a similar experience in your listening room.
Nice write up. Thanks for taking the time to report on your experiences. It is helpful to read a comprehensive finding on the Ohms. I'm still breaking mine in, but I do enjoy them everyday.
Hey man, great review! I've often thought if/when the time comes, I would move up the line to the 2000's. BTW, your comment about accuracy is one often associated with the Ohm sound. The hyper-etched detail en vogue today, which can be fun, often seems artificial and much too forward in the long run to me. I find the Ohm presentation more balanced with plenty of detail and loads of musicality, hence the reason I keep them. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Thanks for that well though out and detailed review. I would pretty much concur with everything said. The 10hz response was a bit of a shocker to me, but in a small room with optimal setup I guess extreme things are possible. To date, when it comes to pure enjoyment of music, I have always ended back with the OHMs.
Mapman, the 10hz was a shocker for me too however it is definitely confirmed with the Ohms has the Magnepans never measured like that with Dirac and I have measured the room with the Ohms in various positions around 5-7 times as I have EQ'd for each new "ideal" spot they have been moved into. Each time there is clear 10hz output that I can see that is at a level in the audible band. I have also posted some shots prior in the thread as well. Listen to various extreme low bass tracks definitely confirms this as I am just getting tons of room shaking bass that I have never experienced before. Also I have a +10 db bass hump around 45 hz that is being corrected. So I am wondering if the extra bandwidth and is allowing for the 10hz to be better heard since the hump is being cut down so heavily.
I do not recall reading of many confirmed cases EVER of home gear delivering down to 10 hz, even more so especially with the modern trend towards smaller speakers and drivers and for a cost that many might afford.
Its rare to hear any reports of anything useful happening below 20hz. That’s traditionally considered the useful low range for human hearing.
I can only say that the OHMs are very robust and have always taken any load I’ve thrown at them most effortlessly. My current Bel Canto amps are rated 500w/ch into 8 ohm, doubling into 4.
Modern digital room correction products like Dirac no doubt up the ante in regards to what one might throw at a pair of speakers. Also the best modern amplifiers are capable of pushing speakers harder and with less distortion than ever before. Power demands increase exponentially at lower frequencies. Most amps would still likely give up the goat trying to deliver a flat response at higher volume at those low frequencies as well.
So its just not something that one expects to occur very often but would certainly seem withing the realm of possibility especially in a smaller room with a robust amp and digital processing to reduce peaks in the lower bass region. Published frequency response charts of older OHM Walsh models that I have seen seemed to suggest the bass hump typically associated with most any ported design like most OHM Walsh models. Newer models with built in powered subs are acoustically sealed not ported I believe. Imagine what those might do even off many less robust external amplifiers used, including tube amps if preferred!
Accurus thanks so much for sharing your findings. You provide a lot of useful new objective information about the OHMs and their capabilities. Few people take the time and initiative to leverage them to their max and share their findings as you have.
Dirac is definitely moving up on my audio wish list especially as I move more towards using commercial computers as a digital music source.
Just to add my 2 cents I would say that the Ohm's make good recordings sound really good but their ability to make lesser recordings sound enjoyable is a trick too few speakers can pull off. What good are ultra high resolution speakers if they render 95% of your music collection unlistenable?
Polarin you nailed it right on the head. Not many speakers are able to pull this off. I noticed after I got my Ohms that when listening to my Magnepans I was being selective about my music selection and played tracks that I knew sounded good on the Magnepans rather than what I was in the mood for. I wonder how many other audiophiles are doing this unconsciously.
I had my first exposure to Ohm's recently and was quite impressed. Mapman was a gracious host inviting me over for a Saturday listening session to hear two different systems with Ohm speakers. The excellent bass and awesome dynamics have me looking at used Ohm's now. I also have a new respect for class D amplification.
Lance thx. I still want to do the return visit to hear your decware and other gear. It's been hectic and hard to getaway on weekends.
My plans to set up another system around tube gear keeps getting sidelined due to WAF. Now to make matters worse my new addition today is a hk onyx Bluetooth speaker that is very impressive sounding and is small with WAF out the gazoo.
acurus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. As an owner of 2000s, I concure with most of your impressions. There are some points I would add, though.
I would not assume that after 30 hours the 2000s are fully broken-in. They may be most of the way there, but mine underwent subtle changes for the first six months I owned them.
One aspect of the Ohms that seems counterintuitive is that, even while they make every recording enjoyable, they still expose the characteristics of each recording. What I mean is that the Ohms allow me to hear whether a recording is well done, like a Reference Recordings LP, or if it is a nasty, compressed, and bass-shy recording. The worst of the lot that I own is actually a great record, "Manic Compression" by Quicksand. As the title implies, it is congested, compressed and lacking in depth. But through the Ohms, I can listen to it, and through all of its faults, and enjoy it. But if one assumes that because the Walsh line is an omni that every recording will be a wall of sound affair with wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling soundstaging, one would be wrong. Some recordings place the vocalist at the ceiling of my 6' high basement. Some recordings sound as if the vocalist is sitting in my center-channel speaker, about 18" off the floor, even though there is no signal being sent to it. This is not the Ohms; it is the recording. Surprisingly, the Ohms will deliver the soundstaging on the recording - no more and no less. Perhaps the Maggies embiggened every recording. I would call that a defect, not a benefit. I don't want my speakers to homogenize all recordings, and produce a uniform soundstage that fits my room. I want to hear what the recording engineer heard. Ping-pong stereo should sound like ping-pong stereo, and great recordings (kd Lang - "Wash Me Clean") should explode into a wall of holographic sound. And with the 2000s, that's exactly what I get. But, to come full circle, the best part is that even those horrid pop recordings sound pretty good, less congested, more open and just more listenable than they do on some much more expensive rigs.
Lastly, I think the level of your electronics speaks volumes about the Ohm's value. You could have three pairs of 2000s for what you paid for your DAC! That's why I doubt I will ever replace my 2000s.
Last week I bought a HK Onyx studio 2 bluetooth speaker to add some portable sound to the house. Its very nice sounding and now my wife is pushing to get wired speakers out of her sunroom altogether, which is something I could probably live with as well.
So now I’m assessing options With no wired speakers in sunroom, I have two extra pair to do something with. I’m investigating trade-in options with JS . I might propose a smaller pair of light colored speakers in there like 1000s. OR maybe I could trade my two extra pair of OHMS (Ls and Walsh 2100S3) towards a 5000 driver upgrade finally perhaps.
Always something....
Its nice that all OHMs have pretty good trade-in value when the time comes to make a change. It really helps to make an upgrade or change more affordable.
accurus, nice write up! I'm also a former owner of Maggies and Ohms. My first serious speaker purchase was a set of Ohm Fs back in 1976 and I still have never heard a speaker that was quite as magical as they were. They certainly had their limitations, but the drawbacks pretty much fell in areas that didn't bother me.
I auditioned the Ohm 2000s several years back and almost bought them, though the Maggie 1.7s won out. They were just a better match for my room at that time. In any event, while the Ohms were very good and I could have easily lived with them, they just didn't have that magical sense of space the original Fs presented.
I'll second your comments that the finish quality of the Ohm cabinets is quite mediocre. They are at a price point that I would expect better, though that certainly doesn't affect the sound.
I also agree with your comments about bass -- the speakers are very impressive in this area. I found no need for a subwoofer for the purposes of playing music.
However, the main reason I no longer own either Maggies or Ohms is that after we moved some years back, my current listening room isn't well suited for speakers that put out a lot of energy to the rear. The back wall is asymmetrical -- solid on the left but with an opening on the right that cannot be closed. This plays havoc with the sound from such speakers. Front firing speakers pretty much solve this problem since the left & right side walls are symmetrical.
Once again, it proves that the choice of speakers not only need to match the listener's preferences, but also the room's.
bondmanp: Thanks for reading over the long review. On the issue of break-in per one of John's article at Ohm it seems like break-in occurs fairly rapidly but what he seems to imply is that a lot of it is breaking your ears and brain into a different sound. I hope the drivers can open up more as I always am for free sound improvements. :)
I strongly disagree with the idea that the Magnepans enhance the size of recordings or that even if they did that this would be a deficit. I accept Magnepan's argument that one of their biggest strengths is that they don't have a tiny dome tweeter trying to convey acoustics for an entire room. One could easily argue as Magnepan does that the only way to get room filling sounds done correctly is to have a dipole with a line array type setup.
Obviously different recording have different sounds and I think both the Ohms and the Magnepans do this well. I can't compare to your experience as I have over an 8 foot ceiling and I haven't had the 18 inches above the floor vocals. I think in your case that maybe due to the close proximity of the driver to the ceiling since the Ohms seem to have a lot of vertical air pressure. But I do agree that the Ohms are able to play a wider variety of music in a way that is more enjoyable.
Lastly on the DAC yes it was expensive, but luckily I got mine on a closeout from Underwood Hifi for $1500 so not nearly as damaging as the full MSRP. :)
mlsstl: I fully agree with you about the room being critical! I have been working with GIK Acoustics to get the last of the room acoustic pieces I need to finish up the room. I did some furniture moving per their request and a major difference was heard there. Frankly I think if anyone has a listening room they shouldn't even consider by expensive equipment until they look at atleast corner traps. People get hung up on by super expensive cables that cost about as much all the room treatment would cost and the room treatment will have the biggest difference on the sound by a long shot. I think by the time everything is said and done I will have about $2800 wrapped up in room treatment, but differences are dramatic both in measurements and subjective listening.
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.
