Check out this outstanding review of the Ohm MicroWalsh Tall SE in Stereo Times:
http://www.stereotimes.com/speak092409.shtml |
Bondmanp,
I like hearing Sheryl Crow on my 100's, too. Some of the tunes on her greatest hits CD sound wonderful there -- and I know what you mean about the engineers using "phasey" tricks to get the sound to do dramatic things. The bongos on "Every Day Is A Winding Road" sound especially great. :-) |
Update: Vinyl! Finally tried some vinyl on the 2000s this weekend. I have an original VG+ Fredereick Fennel conducting a Cole Porter song book, a Mercury Living Presence Wilma Cozart (pre-Fine) production. Sound was very good, very clear, and again, with marvelously true-sounding timbre. So far, truth of timbre seems to be the Walsh 2000's strongest attribute, followed closely by detail retrieval. Even on a mono copy of "Invitation to the Dance", sound was spacious and full (although of course not as widely-staged as stereo LPs). Perez Prado - "Prez" in RCA Living Stereo (older pressing but not a shaded dog), was dynamic and exciting, with great horn sound - not too edgy, but plenty of bite and blat. Drums were especially realistic on this LP. An Isaac Stern Mozart recording from the 1970's was less appealing, but I am guessing it was the LP, which seemed to have a miniaturized soundstage.
I then played a few cuts from some Sheryl Crow CDs that would give me trouble on the Vandersteens. Especially "Safe and Sound" - a terrific song, btw - would sound very congested and pinched during the louder passages toward the end of the track. The 2000s passed this test very well, pushing Crow's voice back in the mix a bit relative to the Vandersteens. Not necessarily better, but different, and this allowed the band to be heard more clearly. Soundstage on this cut should, and did, extend into the room. The producer uses phase to make some of the sound sound like it is coming right out of your ears. I heard this with the 2000s, but to a slightly lesser degree than the Vandersteens, which was a bit of a surprise. But the greatly reduced sence of congestion and pinchiness during the louder passages was a real home run.
I am expecting the support pads from Ohm soon. Once in place, these should stabilize the 2000s on my uneven floor, and I can revisit some of the tunes I've played.
I still haven't tried them without the subs, or dialed-in the subs for the 2000s, but I will. Just need time!
Rebbi - I use a Conrad-Johnson PV-11 w/phono I got here on the 'gon a few years ago for $800. I am very happy with this unit, and it will probably be in my rack for a long time. Keep an eye out for one if you are thinking of separates. |
Reb,
I think you can do it for $1500 and separates can deliver better performance, especially since you already have the separate phono pre-amp.
You could do a Juicy Music Peach + Musical Fidelity A3CR or something similar for about that. That would have been my choice at that price point had I not gone for the more expensive ARC pre-amp (with phono). |
Hmmmm....
Maybe I can take back that last comment about not being able to afford separates. I see, for example, plenty of used, tube preamps on Audiogon for not a lot of money... many under $700. What makes and models would you folks recommend keeping an eye out for in the used, tube preamp arena? |
Martykl,
That little Bel Canto S300 looks like a winner, and I've seen a couple of them go on A'gon for around $1000. I'll check back daily and see if one comes up here at a good price.
Mapman,
Separates may be the way to go, ultimately, but I don't think I have the budget for them at this time. :-( |
Rebbi, if you can wait for one to come up as they seem to, the VTL 2.5 is a preamp that's inexpensive used. I recently purchased one and mine is very quiet and has that tube sound with a dimensional quality. |
Audiogoner DarkMobius has offered me up some very reliable advice on multiple occasions and recommended these tube pre-amps in the $1K-$2K range to me a while back:
ARC, CAT, BAT, Modwright 9.0, VTL, Cary, Air Tight, Melody |
Rebbi,
For greatest potential improvement, I'd look towards the separates if viable for you. I doubt you could go wrong with Bel Canto for compactness or even Musical Fidelity or Classe (those would be leading contenders were it me). A nice inexpensive used tube pre-amp ( with SS amp is also something to consider. An ARC might be too expensive, but a VTL or JUicy, BAT, or several others I've researched and/or had recommended could be interesting. |
Rebbi,
I think that you can buy a new Bel Canto integrated amp in your price range. I've used this combo (Bel Canto s300 w/Ohm 100 S3)and it works very well. The S-300 offers a pre-out (if you ever want to add a sub), but not a power in (if you want to actively roll off your mains when you add that sub). Kind of a "glass half full".
The good news is that you might even be able to go with Bel Canto separates at/near your price point if you buy used. Check the A'gon listings. This set-up offers full (bi-amping or switching to a different power amp if you so choose in the future) flexibility going forward, and a stacked pair of small, matching Bel Canto chassis echos the uncluttered look of an integrated.
Good Luck,
Marty |
Zkzpb8,
Thanks a lot for the suggestions! I'd be looking to keep this under $1500 for an integrated amp... I figure I can still get around $800 for the Unico here on A'gon, which would take the sting out of the purchase price.
I was thinking of the C375BEE -- Sam Tellig just gave it a glowing review in Stereophile -- seems like a lot of bang for the buck. And I stopped into a local dealer who said he'd let me take it home overnight to see how it sounds in my system.
Never looked at Audio by VanAlstine but I will.
I spoke to Wally at Underwood. I don't know if he's still selling mods to the Unico. He's stopped selling Unison retail -- told me that the MSRP's had risen so much recently that they just weren't a good value anymore.
Bondmanp,
Sadly, no pre-outs on the Unico. |
Rebbi - I'm just throwing out ideas, others here might have better recommendations, but 3 things you could try:
1.An NAD - C -375BEE - (150W)
2.Switch to seperates - Maybe something like Audio by VanAlstine - you can put together a tube pre with a solid state amp.
3.Send your integated to Underwood hifi: http://www.underwoodhifi.com/mod_unison.html |
Parasound - Your idea is actually a very good one. First, I agree, it should aid in the burn-in process. Second, my comments would be more relevent if I listen to them full-range. That said, you've got to hear the Vandersteen 2Wq to understand how well they work. Completely different presentation from your typical home theater burp-box, and very easy to blend with one's main speakers.
Rebbi - I would certainly try some out to see if an upgrade is worthwhile. What kind of budget are looking at? Does your Unico have pre-outs? If so, you might consider a separate power amp, especially if you like the Unico's character. |
Hmmmm....
Let's suppose, theoretically, that a guy with a birthday coming up in a few months, who owned Ohm Walsh 100 s-3's, was toying with the idea of getting a higher powered integrated amp for his speakers. This guy currently has a Unison Unico, which is a tube-SS hybrid that puts out 80 watts/channel into 8 ohms. It plays plenty loud in this guy's small-ish room, but he's curious about what more power "breathing room" would do for the Ohms.
What would you suggest as a move up? Or should he just stay put? |
Bondman,
Good signs indeed!
"So, two discs, the same signal chain, and two very different results. I suppose that this is what is meant by good systems providing garbage-in, garbage-out."
No doubt the OHMs will not dress up bad recordings, but I do find they can most always deliver whatever there might be to enjoy in most any recording. |
Bondman- Any thoughts of running full-range into the Ohm's? In my (limited) experience it can aid in breaking them in and deciding at what frequency to cross-over the sub at. The Ohm's I have (MWT's) handle bass better than any speaker I've had above 40 hz. |
OK - day two. I didn't have the strength last night to fiddle with the subs or move the Vandys out of the way. I did toe-in the 2000s just a smidge, maybe 1/2" from parallel.
I watched a few tracks from The Best of Sessions at 54th Street (DVD - PCM stereo audio). This of course went through my cheap Sony DVD player and Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 prepro into the C-J preamp. I am very familiar with this DVD, and the extra detail from the Ohms vs. my Vandys was very impressive. Imaging was not as good as with CD, but that's likely due to the prepro. Some of the tracks, especially the Ani DiFranco cut "32 Flavors" gave me chills up my spine. Very engaging. Very encouraging!
I also played two CDs I just bought (never heard on my system with the Vandys, so can't compare). The first, "Sweet Heart Dealer" by Scarling, sounded terrible. Very digital, thin and bass-shy. I am guessing it's just the way this CD was produced. I did play a cut from Quicksand - "Thorn in My Side" that I know for sure is poorly produced, and while listenable, the 2000s did not make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.
Next up was another new purchase, "Begin to Hope" by Regina Spektor. All I can say is, based on what I heard on my not-yet-burned-in, improperly positioned 2000s with improperly set subwoofers, is, if you own Walsh speakers, BUY THIS DISC! It just clicked. Great timbre, huge soundstage, excellent detail retrieval, superb imaging. I was emotionally engaged through most of the disc, and there was that sweetness to the sound that was very appealling.
So, two discs, the same signal chain, and two very different results. I suppose that this is what is meant by good systems providing garbage-in, garbage-out. My Vandys, by comparison, seemed to homogenize music more, so nothing sounded really great, but nothing sounded really bad.
Two very significant observations:
1. I frequently nod off when listening to music in the evening. Not eye-blinks, but deep sleep disturbed only by my choking on my own saliva. This did not happen last night. Although I began to doze off a few times, the music startled me into an alert state almost immediately. This is a very good sign.
2. Typically, when I sit down to listen to music, I experience fatigue soon, and switch to a movie (I have a combo 2-channel/HT surround system). This did not happen last night. When the two CDs were finished, I did watch the DVD, but it was a music program in 2-channel stereo. Another very good sign. (I may have to cut back on my NetFlix subscription!)
Further updates to follow. |
Wow, cool, have fun, and keep us posted.
Yes, Ohm's customer service is excellent. John will do whatever it takes to make you happy. |
NIce, glad you're starting to break them in - LIke Mapman said, looks like you'll be tweaking for a little while, as they settle. Have fun... |
Bondman,
Fun stuff!
Sounds like you're on the right track. Getting a solid foundation to sit on is of course important for clean bass. I suspect also settings for best integration with the sub might change over time as the OHMs break in and as you refine the exact location of the speaks in the room. |
I did get my 2000s last night! :-)
The boxes were huge and heavy, with triple-boxing and wood and foam inserts. Good thing, too: UPS did their usual best to destroy whatever might be inside. They only succeeded in damaging the outer boxes, however.
I unboxed them (pretty easily), then unwrapped them. There were a few surprises. I have exchanged emails with John Strohbeen to address some issues, and John seems most determined to resolve everything to my satisfaction. For that reason, I will not be commenting on these issues at this time. Suffice it to say that John is dedicated to cadillac customer service.
My basement floor (carpeted cement) is not flat. The speakers wobble significantly. My Vandersteen 1Cs use a 3-point spike base, so this has not been an issue. Ohm is sending me some pads to level and stabilize the speakers, but until these are in place, I cannot fairly comment on the sound of the speakers. I also have to take some time and dial in my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers.
Conveniently, the ganged banana plug connector that was supplied with my Vandersteen 1Cs matches the spacing on the Walsh 2000 speaker terminals, so the switch was easy.
After listening to a demo CDR I compiled on my Vandersteen 1Cs, I switched to the Ohms. By this time, they had reached room temperature. The Ohms are 25.5" from the side walls and 37.5" from the front wall (I have very little room to move these closer or farther from adjacent walls). Note that there is a huge 55" SD RPTV behind (by about 10") and in between the speakers, and there are CD cabinets next to and on top of the RPTV. The rest of my gear is in my "System" link.
Space is tight, so for now, the Vandys are placed against the side walls next to the Ohms. This will be changed as soon as possible. Note that the signal from the amp is high-pass filtered, first order, below 80Hz, so it is down 6dB at 40Hz, and 12dB at 20Hz.
Initial impressions were positive. I could tell immediately that the 2000s were better than my Vandersteen 1Cs is two key areas: Timbre and flatness of frequency response. In some areas, the two are actually more alike than different. I am not very surprised by this, since both use designs that eliminate or minimize box and baffle colorations. I also heard a bit more detail with the Ohms, and there was more extension of soundstage into the room. The center image was better defined and more stable, as well as taller, than the Vandys. Most noticeable, however, was the elimination, on certain familiar material, of a tendancy for specific musical notes to jump out and obscure other parts of the music. I had always attributed this to room acoustics (which are far from perfect). But I guess this was due to irregularities in the Vandys' frequency response.
The 2000s are clearly less efficient than the 1Cs, as I tried for at least a general level match using a Rat Shack SPL meter, and had to raise the volume on the preamp roughly one to two "hours" on the dial. I still was listening at a comfortable 9 or 10 o'clock, however.
Naturally, the speakers are not broken in, and I have just begun the lengthy process of burn-in, positioning, dialing in my subs, and critical listening.
I will keep this thread informed, but for now, I am cautiously optimistic. |
Bondmanp,
Didja get your speaks today? :-) |
|
"Paul Mason" was a vineyard that used to have the slogan, "We will sell no wine before its time." |
Too bad about the delay, it'll be worth the wait, though.
Who's Paul Mason? |
Just in case anybody is wondering about my Walsh 2000 purchase, there has been a delay. First, the finish needed some extra work. Next, John Stohbeen felt, after listening to my pair, that the speakers needed some kind of an adjustment. Expected arrival date is now October 12th. Of course I'm a little dissappointed, but gratified that Ohm is paying such close attention to detail and quality control. The Paul Mason of loudspeakers? I'll keep you posted. |
Bondmanp,
Thanks for the tip. John Strohbeen must be thrilled; that's a rave review in anybody's book! |
Interesting the European Signature version has a tipped up top end. Maybe to make resemble the MBL sound more? |
So my 2000s are not coming today. That's OK. I called Ohm, and they held up the shipping, because upon final inspection, they were unhappy with the cabinet finish. They will be applying another coat of finish, and should ship on Thursday or Friday. I have no problem with this. I prefer that my speakers be as near-perfect as possible before they leave the factory. This would put delivery still within the delivery window I was given when I ordered.
Stereo Times has a new review of the Micro-Walsh SE by Frank Alles that is very encouraging. FWIW, his rooms, especially the larger one, are a bit larger than the c.f. range that the Micro-Walsh SEs are intended for. That would make Alles' only sonic criticism moot, ad far as I can tell. |
Bondmanp,
That is so cool! Keep us posted! |
Update: Ohm factory says my Walsh 2000s should ship on Monday, the 27th. Since I am one state over, I should have them the next day. Shipping on the 27th means that Jay, my salesman at Ohm, was spot-on when he told me that the speakers would ship in 3 to 4 weeks. Customer service is important to me, and meeting an expected delivery window speaks well of both Jay and Ohm.
More updates to follow. And, yes, I am cautiously excited! |
I know the C2s well. They are inherently brighter in tone than Walshes and most every other OHM speaker I have heard. People either like them for that or not. |
I dont think walls are the issue here. They are 20 inches from the front wall and 4-5 feet from the side wall. The room is pretty bright as there are windows to the side and behind me nearly floor to ceiling. I also get more highs when I use the eq in line so I think its the nature of the drivers themselves. And, again my ears may be too attuned to the box sound and artificial highs that are not natural to music. I think that Rebbi originally wrote of getting a different set of tweeters installed in his MWTs, from the 100S3 units. I should have that already so it may simply be that the speakers are softer and my ears overly sensitive. |
I have them setup per the "manual" with the tweeters oriented to the listener and the boxes more than 1/2 in front of the rack to the side of each speaker. I havent tried orienting them out. That could be interesting. The placement ahead of the rack definitely helped. Unfortunately, it is not the perfect room, if any is, and its not a dedicated audio room. However, the C2s I had setup before and the Spendor S3/5s setup behind the Walshs both have more highs. John did not and I understand that box speakers sound different. |
Good point also on the effect of placement relative to walls and corners on tonal balance and clarity Rebbi. |
A third vote for toe in. When I originally set up the speakers, I had the inadvertantly angled the tweeters outward instead of inward. For a few uncomfortable moments, I had that bad sinking feeling. About 30 seconds later, I figured out the mistake. This is fundamental to the balance of the speaker, even small shifts can be quite audible. It makes all the difference in the world.
Marty |
What Mapman said. Toe in and toe out will definitely affect the forwardness of the Ohm Walsh high end. Also, experiment with distance from the back wall. Too much bass reinforcement from near wall/corner placement can muddy the highs and mids. |
Joekapahulu,
Are the tweeters oriented towards your listening position? That will typically brighten up the highs. If you sit further back, you might need to toe the OHMS outward to point the tweets more towards your listening position. |
3 months into ownership have just upgraded the amp to an ATI 1502 @150 wrms per channel fed by an SAE preamp with Parametric eq. Definittely an improvement from the MAC 5100 and the old SAE amp which sounded pretty good anyway. Straight thru the Ohms sound pretty darn good tho' I keep wanting more highs? When I listen with the eq in I can get that. Emailed John and he advised to use the eq if I liked it. Also offered to build me custom supertweeter to achieve the sound I like basing it off the equ settings. A bit frustrated as I am wondering if my 50+ ears are just off and dont get the sense of true music sound or if others have also felt the Ohms a little lacking on the top end? I thought I saw some of that referenced previouslyl but the success of this thread now means its hard to find stuff in it. Anyone else feel the Ohms need a little more highs? BTW Walsh 2 w 10023 drivers. |
FWIW, today is the last day of my 120-day in home trial period. It never was an issue for me though, since from the first note they (MWT's)weren't going back.
The versatility of the speakers when it comes to placement in fascinating for me. For general listening and WAF considerations, they're about 9" from the rear wall and about 5' apart. But for powerlistening, moving them into the room to 18" from the rear and about 6'3" apart expands the soundstage and seems to give more 'presence' in the midrange.
I use a very, very cheap (but surprisingly good)sub for the bottom octave, crossed-over at 50 Hz. It works well in my small room, although with a larger space I know I'll need better quality and output.
In all, I'm very pleased...
-P |
I still mess with the positioning of my 100 S-3's from time to time. Moving them out from the wall about 18" more than they were previously tightened up the bass and opened up the midrange, i.e, the sound is more tonally in balance. I continue to play around with things like distance between left and right channels to see how that affects imaging specificity and sound stage width and depth.
The problem I have is that my time to just enjoy music these days is so limited that when I finally do get to sit down for a session, I don't have a lot of patience for "listen, get up, move speaker, go back, listen some more..."
I need an audiophile friend to lend me a pair of ears to work on placement! |
I have older ohm's and are used when bought. I am big fan of ohm walsh series along with magnepans. though different concepts, for my taste, I like having BOTH at the same time being driven by separate amps, in my case classic 90's carver amps and a must to improve any loudspeaker/amps at least system's lower than $10k is a DAKIOM feeback stabilizers like r-103, 203 or the newer models 253 and 263. I'm a believer of tweaking a system or part. In fact, I like the hobbyists and techs who do make modifications to existing systems that MAY need improvement. What I like about ohm's is that they are pretty versatile loudspeakers and can be played for music and movie with equal results. Other loudspeakers that are directional or conventional, placement, tweaking and good sound source is a must. OHM is user friendly, in other words, you don't have to spend mega bucks on amplifiers and HT receivers to make them sing. NO speaker system is for EVERYBODY, because no one has come up with a speaker box than can be remolded and mold back to it's original shape if you should alter it to your taste. I owned bose 901's in the 80's and I thought they were great for me back then, but room size, acoustics and source is the 901's downfall in most rooms besides it's unrealistic bass reproduction. I do not agree with their parts and design build, but their concepts of direct and indirect reflections I don't think any audio engineer would disagree totally. Ohm walsh series however creates better spatial imaging and realistic bass than conventional designs or strange designs like the bose 901's. The systems that are similar in concept as ohm acoustics is duevel, german physiks and decware rl series and of course MBL's, decware being the only company like ohm that are REASONABLY affordable to the average music lover. The rest is beyond normal income. To me planars and electrostats creates the most realistic reproduction of certain instruments like the piano and strings where as an omni directional design like those mentioned are more realistic as ensemble, group or combination of instruments being played, but individual solos I believe the planar and electrostat systems reproduce a truer sound. I have all the various designs except line source and horns which only elites can afford. But for those of us on a budget, ohm, magnepans, decware with the help of purchasing DAKIOM products/stabilizers will do WONDERS to your system however in expensive, but the finer grade of source, it's obvious your ohm's and maggies will show it's true potential. |
"I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of."
I don't think that is necessarily the case.
I've had my F5s as close as 4-5 feet apart and the soundstage extended from wall to wall, ~3 feet to the right and 12' to the left in my L shaped room (see my system pic) when I sit close enough to have a clear line of sight to the far left rear wall. If I sit further back, the soundstage is correspondingly narrower, depending on line of sight to the left rear wall.
Also, in my small 12X12 room, currently my Walsh 2s (100s) are a good 8-9 feet apart and at an oblique angle with the rear wall (due to tight quarters) and this also produces a soundstage from corner to corner along the rear wall.
I have found they actually work very well in tough rooms, with careful attention to placement and related system factors. |
Bondmanp, I think the distance is a bit of an issue but not too bad. I have my 5000's about 5 feet apart and about 2.5 from the side walls. Just don't have more space. I think my room is somewhat small for them and the soundstage could be bigger but the room is limiting that somewhat. Maybe in the future when I move to a bigger home....
Mapman, yes I'm using the McCormack DNA-500 amp and VTL 2.5 preamp. I still don't think I've maximized things. One thing I enjoy about integrateds vs separates is not dealing with extra interconnects, power cords and coming up with the right preamp for the amp! |
Question for Ohm owners: How far apart are your left and right speakers? Are you happy with the results?
I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of. The alcove in my basement is only 10 feet wide (the basement, however, is ~2800 c.f.). This means that, in order to get them away from the side walls, the Ohms will have something like 5 feet between them. Is this a serious issue with the 2000s?
I can sit anywhere between 3 and 10 feet back from the speakers, assuming they are about 3 feet in from the fronth wall.
Thanks, folks. |
Yes, I've never owned a parametric equalizer, but always thought them to be a practical and useful tool for tough rooms, particularly a quality one with flexible parameters.
This is the McCormack amp now correct? I suspect that is a very good match to the OHMs from what I have read. If the $600 (used) Musical Fidelity A3CR I acquired and still use did not pan out, a McCormick was a leading contender along with a few others, including the Class Ds. |
Hi Mapman, yes, I have new electronics with the Walsh 5000's. It's been a long process. Sent my drivers back to to Ohm thinking there was a problem with the highs but it was actually that the tweaks to the drivers I originally asked for made them too bright. The drivers were perfectly fine. John adjusted the drivers and that has worked out well. While the drivers were at Ohm I purchased a high current/high power amp and yet this hasn't been a slam dunk. In my room the bass has needed improvement and finally after settling of the new system has filled in nicely. But my limited placement options causes the speakers to be too close to the front wall and too much in your face. I decided to go with a parametric equalizer since my room has been a bit too small and cramped to really work well with lows and highs of the 5000's. After years of eyeing this eq on numerous online web stores, I saw a used Avalon AD2055 and purchase it; waiting to receive it and with the flexibility the 2055 provides I fully expect this to take the system over the top. |
Foster, any new progress to report in your setup? |
You have to admire the kind of honesty that would lead someone to discourage an "up sell" to an existing customer! Yeh, John S. is a down to earth person, and in my experience is not in the business just to make money on the next sale. I dealt with John by phone and email more than any other manufacturer and I like him. He treated me well, and more than fair. |
Hey, Guys,
I spoke to John Strohbeen a couple of days ago. Here's what I learned about the new Ohm lineup.
The new 1000 is indeed a new point in the line that sits between the old MWT and the old 100 -- the cabinet and driver are of an intermediate size between those two older models.
If you have an Ohm Walsh model that was built within the past year, more or less, it has the same, new supertweeter as the new X000 line, so the top end should be identical. (Presumably, my 100's fit into this category.)
Unfortunately, the 100's cannot be upgraded with the 2000 driver. The diameter of the 2000's driver is just slightly too large to fit on top of the 100's cabinet.
Ohm continues to stick with its goal of having each speaker in the line possess the same sonic character, just generating different volume levels for different size rooms. John told me that the 2000 will play somewhat louder than the 100, and that its low end may have a bit more authority, but other than that, it should be very close. He told me that if I'm satisfied with the 100's, there's no need to upgrade to the 2000's, especially since my 100's put out more than enough volume for my current room.
You have to admire the kind of honesty that would lead someone to discourage an "up sell" to an existing customer! |
