Darn Apple spell checker changing my words again.
Accurus us of course. Not accursed.
Accurus us of course. Not accursed.
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
I will restate what I said before: The magic of the Ohms, whether walsh designs or not, is from John Strohbeen’s skill in voicing loudspeakers. While there are times I wonder about modding my 2000s (cabinet bracing, upgrading tweeter, etc.), I am loathe to mess with John’s handiwork. I just don’t see why I, who know nothing about voicing a speaker, would be able to improve on John’s design. I know, John was working within limited cost constraints, but even so, I doubt I could improve on his desings. sudont: I agree with Mapman. I have a pair of Micro Walsh Talls as surround channel speakers, and except for a bit of bass extension and macro dynamic ability, they are essentially identical in sonics to my 2000s. Ditto for my Micro Walsh Center. And they are actually a slightly older model, too. AND, IIRC, the 2000s use an aluminum driver, and the MWTs do not. Again, it comes back to John’s talent as a speaker designer and voicer. |
I basically agree with what Bondman just said. Here is my recent experience comparing various Ohm speakers. Ohm-Walsh 1 Nice sound, but lacking bass; if I didn’t compare with a Walsh 2, I would have been satisfied. I used it with a subwoofer for awhile and this helped. Ohm-Walsh 2 Better than the 1s, but these blew out when I upgraded my amp. Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 Fresh upgrade to fix the above blow out issue. Really a step up all around especially after break-in. Huge bass and nice upper end. I do feel that the voices seem a bit muted. Ohm-Walsh 4XO I had to buy these as they were in mint condition and the price was right. They seem livelier then the 2.2000s. More open, but not quite as much bass bias as the 2.2000 upgrade. The cabinets are huge; my wife thinks I have lost my mind. The bass sounds just as good, but it is more muted. I also noticed that the 4XOs are more efficient (91 dB vs 88 dB) and they definitely don’t require as much turning of the volume knob. I plan to run the 4XOs for a while and the switch back to the 2.2000s for a final comparison. BTW, the Walsh 4 cabinets are much better (and heavier) than the cheaper Walsh 1 & 2 models. I like the casters too. |
Ok, the jury is in. The Walsh 4s win. After much listening and knob twisting, there is now no doubt. The W4s have more definition and are more transparent. I was able to turn the bass up a notch on the tone control which gave it enough kick to satisfy me. The defining test was listening to the intro from "Money for Nothing". The drums had much more tone and roundness compared to the W2.2000 speakers which sounded flatter. At that point I couldn't go back. Now, what to do? It looks like a pair of Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers will be for sale soon. Or, I might relagate them to garage duty. Anyone interested in the 2.2000s out there? |
I'm sure you'll have no problem selling them. Where I'm at is, I decided that I don't like the way the speakers look with the grills on. They sound better without the grills as well. I've been looking around, trying to find some nicer-looking wing nuts to replace the ones on them, or similar type of fastener, and am wondering if anyone else has done something along those lines? I have also been thinking, wouldn't it be cool if the cans rotated a little? Let us say, forty-five degrees from front/center? That way the cabinets could sit nice and straight, while you aimed the tweeters where you wanted. Of course, I have no idea what it would take to build them like that, but something about that round can makes me think of turning it. And, of course, it offends my OCD to toe the cabinets out, or in an uneven way. |
Big news!! Ohm will be at the Chester Group New York Audio Show in November. Why is this big news? Because John Strohbeen told me himself that he eschews doing these shows, as he rarely has enough time to get the setup where he wants it to be. I intend to visit the show and hope to finally meet John in person. To me, he is one of the great designers of speakers in the industry. If you are able to attend the show, especially if you would like to hear Ohm speakers properly demonstrated, this is a rare opportunity. |
That is some news. Would love to go but would be a challenge. We’ll see. Have never met John in person either that I know of, but would really like to. He was owner of Tech Hifi chain back when I worked there in college. That was where I had my first exposure to OHM speakers (alongside many other popular lines of the time). I sold many (all box models, no Walsh) back then. Even the conventional box models of his that made up most of the OHM line in the day were the best sounding there to me. Also the best value as I recall in many cases. |
I'd expect original Walsh 4's to have more output capability and ability to deliver in a larger room. 2.2000s not as much but be better in detail clarity imaging (result of newer 2000 driver) and maybe tonality top to bottom in a suitable smaller room. These are two different size and generation models, apples and oranges as OHMs go, so anything is possible. I had original Walsh 2s from 1981-1998. I kept them initially to compare side by side to the Walsh 2 series 3 models I acquired back then (and am still using). I was looking for new large speakers at the time for my largest listening room and after a lot of listening and investigation of options I decided to give OHM a chance This was an apples/apples comparison in regards to speaker size and output capability. The newer series 3 drivers were superior in every way. I traded in the original Walsh 2s towards my larger F5 series 3 models that I also still use in my main setup. The Walsh2 series 3 were so good for what I payed I ended up keeping them around as well. |
I’ve found that ability to sound good in rooms that are more challenging for whatever reason to be particular strength of the OHM Walshes. They can work surprisingly well close to walls and corners I find, as advertised, especially when compared to true omni speakers. The room I put my newer Walsh speakers in is a larger L shaped room. They replaced planar and conventional more directional box speakers in there neither of which worked particularly well. But the Walsh speakers tend to just place the music naturally into whatever room they happen to be in. A very unique attribute that many might consider. I find a main main key to good sound with OHM Walshes in particular in any particular room is to address floor interactions when needed, especially with the bottom firing ports on many Walsh models. Isolation platforms like Auralex Subdudes I use with my OHMS when on suspended plywood floors solve the problem. |
I wonder how many "Ohmies"-or even those not necessarily Ohm lovers, managed to get to the NY Audio Show this past weekend? Anybody get to visit the Ohm Acoustics room and visit with John S. and listen to his setup? Am curious as to how well it all went down. I managed to catch a couple small snippets from my google searching, but nothing of much substance. Hopefully maybe some others will chime in at some point. I do think it was a good thing(Hopefully) that John decided to attend, if nothing else to get more exposure, although I wonder if he/Ohm really needs it, and also if anyone in the mainstream audio nerdophilia really cares? Anyway..... |
I went on Sunday. What a kick to meet John in person! I told him how his speakers bring beauty into my daily routine. He set up a pair of Walsh 1000s fed by a Peachtree integrated (150 watts/side, internal DAC), and used a $15 DVD player as a source. The sound was good, and the fellow in front of me bought a pair on the spot. My son-in-law, who accompanied me, almost pulled the trigger as well, until he called my daughter, and that was the end of that. But the rooms all suffered from an upper bass boom, and Ohm's room was no exception. I wondered aloud if moving the speakers a little further into the room would be better, but John's assistant said he had trieed that, and the positioning was as good as possible. I played a track from a PT CD that sounded lovely, lots of transient detail with no etch or excess brightness. John also brought a lot of potted plants along (I am aware of their desireable acoustic properties). One of the simplest setups at the show, and one of the best sounding, except for the systems that DSP'd the room boom out. When you factor in the prices of the gear and speakers, I think Ohm's room was a standout. To me, though, John is a legend in this business, and it was a thrill to shake his hand. |
Bond, glad you went and got to experience the setup, and also to meet John in person. Would love to have gone, but not close to NY, and work was beckoning anyway. Shows can be tough, but figured Ohm might be a bit easier to place in those rooms and get reasonable music out of them. Nice to hear an account of how things fared, thanks for the note! |
Bass hump. Ouch! That’s the first I’ve heard that issue mentioned there but not uncommon. I might have brought a pair of Auralex subdudes along to set them on like I do at home on my second level (mine have no built in plinth underneath even). The Stereophile guy seemed mainly unable to handle teh "ambience" as he described it talking about reproducing original acoustics captured in a recording in a different room. Yes that’s exactly what the OHMs do that many do not and yes t can be hard for one to wrpa their ears around initially as well if not used to it. Many just want to hear the speakers not the room or at least that is what tehy are used to doing everything possible to take the rom out of teh equation. Unfortunately rooms are a reality and one has to find some way to deal with it, either use it or fight it or usually some effective combination of both practically. He did not say much else about the sound other than acknowledging the large sweet spot. Maybe the bass hump got him as well. John had an article on his site prior talking about the challenges of exhibiting in a hotel room so maybe he scouted in advance and had a premonition regarding the challenge. Room EQ would certainly be a great asset in a case like this but not something most will apply at home so not fair really in that sense. Trump went I heard and said it was all rigged. Just kidding.... |
Here is a link to the coverage Stereophile gave the Ohms. http://www.stereophile.com/content/nyas-2016-day-one-jim-austin#32si0iLbhryvqxkY.97 I wasn't there to have a listen, but I have to say that I have never heard the "abundance of ambience" that he was talking about. One comment that did strike me and I wish reviewers would learn to acknowledge and identify their own listening bias is that laser sharp imaging that so many seem to want in hifi today that is not what "real" music sounds like. Laser sharp imaging is an artifact of stereo speakers and is a design choice and not a sign of quality or increased desirability. I have seen folks slight Magnepans before for a lack for a lack of razor sharp imaging. Yet again if you look at Magnepan and Ohm's marketing material it is about recreating live music. Most speakers are not about recreating live music. |
Interesting that Austin seemed to equate extended highs with excess, or unwanted ambience. The Ohms are anything but tipped-up iin the treble. I think they might even be a tad rolled off in the highs. To be sure, the Ohm room did not sound as good as my own system. I have a better front end, better acoustics, better amplification, and I have dialed them in as well as my space permits, including giving my 2000s more space than John had in the hotel room. In my fantasy, John Strohbeen visits my man cave and opines on my system setup. I bet he might have some positive suggestions, but I also think he would like what he heard. |
My Ohms were dialed in pretty well in my room. I continued to fiddle with placement, but consistently returned to the same position time and time again. Honestly if I were to fault the Ohms it would be a tendency to have instruments sound like they are radiating directly off the tweeter, a lack of full resolution like a ribbon or Heil driver, and build quality which is just not up to snuff for a speaker at the price of the Ohms. I have seen other internet direct vendors build speakers for less than a quarter of what I paid for the Ohms that are built twice as well. An abundance of ambience would not be something that I would suggest. There were recordings that sounded large or chambered, but it was the recording and the same effect was present on other speakers in my room. I continue to wonder how could my Walsh 2000s would sound if they were built to more exacting standards. |
The sound of either pair of mine is totally detached from the speaker. Cannot tell where they are exactly with eyes closed. They never show any signs of strain and no noise that should not be there no matter how loud played off 500w/ch amp. So based on the overall quantity and quality of sound delivered, I’d have to say they are very well built and hard to match in their price range based on that alone. Both of my pair use older refurbed pyramid shaped cabinets. Perhaps that helps. |
I don't think the "ambience" that the author referred to in the linked article was speaking to excess treble or brightness. I think he was likely referring to the sense of "body" or "weight" created by off-axis reflections in the omnidirectional dispersion (ambient energy) of the Ohms. I think some people also describe this as "reverberance". Mini-monitors often have that bright and "lean" presentation that highlights recorded detail. My guess is that this writer had that in mind when describing what he found missing in the Ohms. That type of SQ rarely sounds musical to me, but I admit that it can be more revealing of the recording. In one sense, it's a fair point - because that's not the obvious strength of Ohm speakers (IMHO). However,..... His point about "listening through" the ambience and his idea of the "recorded room" sounding confused in the "actual listening room" are kinda old school audiophile philosophy. An abstract idea of "accurate" SQ over convincing musical reproduction. I want to argue the point, but - why bother? In another way, I don't want to argue the point...because it's not IMO a right vs wrong thing. Listening "through" the music is part of the audiophile experience for many purists. For some folks, I guess it's the whole hobbyist's raison d'etre, but I personally find it tiresome these days. To to each their own, I guess. |
Looking at the Stereophile photo of the Ohms in-room positioning, I find them to look a bit oddly toed. Although Ohms are fairly unfussy, this still looks a bit strange. Also not getting a bit more spread between the speakers could have possibly helped some. All of this of course me saying and thinking out loud-without me even being there, mind.....Okay, will get my coat now.... Regardless, I am still glad John and Co. did do the show, and hopefully good came out of it. If nothing else awareness that Ohm was indeed still alive and well! I can surely see though how a show environment can be tough and quite taxing. |
Frazeur1: I questioned John's assistant about the positioning. Mine are toed in as well, but not quite as much as the show pair. He replied that they had spent a lot of time positioning he 1000s, and this was the best they could do. I know for a fact that one fellow bought a pair of 1000s, taking advantage of the show special discount. I wouldn't be surprised if he sold a few pairs. As for letting everyone know Ohm is alive and well, Ohm does do a fair amount of targeted web advertising. I think the press coverage, overall, was positive, and will be beneficial to Ohm. |
Mapman, I have the newer cabinet in my Ohms. From what I can tell the older cabinets seem to be far better constructed than the new ones. When I replaced a can that was damaged during shipping I posted some photos of the interior of the newer cabinets. Honestly it is pretty low quality including the use of a cardboard tube for the bottom port. I don't think many $3k sets of speakers would use similar "technology." :) |
Full disclosure: I am a rather "visual" person having made my living as an advertising photographer for decades. For me, the visual design of a product plays a role in how much I enjoy that product. One reason I decided to audition a pair OHM 2000 speakers was their relatively unobtrusive and appealing shape. When they arrived I was dismayed by the lack of craftsmanship that was evident in the construction of the enclosure, particularly the look and "feel" of the veneer. Strictly DIY, I thought. I was surprised at how amateurish the finish work was. I might have kept them if I’d loved how they sounded in my home, but I did not "fall in love." Furthermore, my wife, who is generally disinterested in my audio pursuits, simply could not listen to them. We’ve had Magnepans, and now have a pair of MMGs, and she (and I) much prefer their sound, even if the MMGs are not the prettiest , nor certainly the best-sounding speakers on this or any other block. Yes, the OHMs have more bass. Eventually, and with a nod to all things aesthetic (again, for me), I purchased a pair of Sonus Faber monitors, which are lovely to behold, and not at all "bad" to listen to. :) I get almost as much pleasure from looking at them as I do from listening to them. :) The way they portray detail is damn close to some electrostatics I’ve heard but without any sense of the "clinical." This is simply one man’s take. I really do "get" what the OHM thing is. They’re just not for me. If one loves how they present music, I’m sure it would be relatively easy to overlook the mediocre level of assembly craftsmanship. |
ps: Out of curiousity, how long did you audition he Ohms? What about the sound prevented you from "falling in love"? TIA. I do agree with about Sonus Faber, and I have enjoyed Sonus Faber speakers whenever I have heard them. The (rather pricey) pair at the show last week was one of the stand outs. I might have put the Venere 2.5 in contention had they been available in late 2009 when I began my speaker upgrade search. |
Visual aesthetics and the appeal of that aside, there are a couple of kinds of effects cabinets can have on the sound that I can think of: 1) ported cabinet resonances usually at bass frequencies these are usually designed (as is the case with most but not all OHM Walsh) to extend flat response lower but if not done right can result in low frequency bumps in response that would normally be considered undesirable. From what I read, J. Strohbeen goes to great lengths to get this and the porting aspect of the cabinets right and I’ve never seen any data to the contrary. There is a relationship between cabinet design, port and resulting frequency response but in this case sound would not emanate from the cabinet itself. The biggest OHM 5015 models, that JS touts as the best OHMs ever in all regards, with powered subs built in are actually sealed because powered subs eliminate need for the port. I do not doubt his claims on those. 2) If cabinet construction is not up to snuff or defective, then I would think resonances would cause clear noise to be emanating from the cabs due to resonances. Vibrations might normally be felt when touching the cabinets even when things are working exactly as designed/planned. Some speakers are designed to have totally inert cabinets, others not. Not sure what OHMs design take on this is exactly, but I know the "sound" of the cabinet is taken into account to deliver the desired sound. Regarding quality of port materials and other aspects of components that go into the final product, I know JS leans towards delivering a particular high quality sound for more affordable cost. He will clearly choose to use less expensive materials whenever possible if they can do the job well as intended. he may even know of some advantage to using material like cardboard. Cardboard is a relatively inert material sonically for example. When it comes to sound inert is good usually. So it may look cheap but do its job in fact quite well. Other speaker makers, particularly those targeting the high end mainly (not OHM) may choose to only use certain materials that will be regarded consistent and appealing to the target market. OHMs approach is clearly very "blue collar" . That’s one of the things I like about the company in particular. They target the best sound possible for the least cost. it will always be different strokes for different folks as evidenced by the variety of solutions people choose to fulfill their music and related needs. With my OHMs, I find room acoustics particularly potential bad interaction between OHM Walsh bottom port and floor to be the most problematic thing to address effectively somehow for true high end sound. In general I think the OHMs sound best when effectively isolated from floor interactions, as is the case with all speakers I own but bottom ported OHMs perhaps an even greater issue to address than with others. I can find no clear faults in regards to the overall sound once the potential floor interactions are under control in my system. I hate to use the word but to my ears its dern near perfect with absolutely nothing offensive ever coming out except perhaps in the case of some of the very loudest and dynamically clipped newer digital mp3 recordings out there and those usually exhibit themselves in the higher frequencies that have really little or no cabinet dependencies with the OHM Walsh design, certainly less than most conventional box designs. That alone may be why perhaps JS is able to not have cabinets built like a tank like some other high performing box designs like Dynaudio and Sonus Faber typically must rely on. I have never encountered it at all as an OHM Walsh owner since 1982 (quite an achievement only a good quality product could accomplish) but if I hear noises or sound coming from the can that are clearly not part of the music, I would suspect some issue inside the can that needs attention and perhaps send them in for a look. That would be the exception due to some issue though, not the norm, at least in my experience. |
"ps: Out of curiousity, how long did you audition he Ohms? What about the sound prevented you from "falling in love"? TIA." Hi bondmanp: About 175 hours. During break-in I would play them at about 75 -85 db and leave the house while I ran errands. My wife is blessed with an extraordinary pair of ears- I'm envious. She could not listen to the speakers, even at low volumes. She found them strident. She did not pressure me to return them but was happy when I did. I also realized that as much as I thought I'd like the soundstage that OHMs produce, I really did not, preferring more precise imaging (some might say this is "musically artificial"). My Sonus Fabers give me that. Perhaps I'm being too critical with regard to fit and finish- but I could not get past the appearance of the veneer on the OHMs. A career as an advertising photographer can do some funny things to a person. :) The rest of the speaker was solid. As I said, I'm pretty sure I "get" what Mr. Strohbeehn is doing, and I have enormous respect for his abilities as an engineer. He was a complete gentleman when I told him that the 2000's simply were not for us and he approved the return. I do not in any way intend to disparage his company nor his products. If I have done so, I regret that RE: Sonus Faber, I come from very blue, blue collar roots and my drug of choice is still beer, but in some things I have expensive taste. I purchased both pairs of my SF monitors used. Part of the enjoyment I derive from Sonus Faber is visual. |
ps I’ve heard Sonus faber and often considered owning a pair for much the same reason. I find the tonality of SF and OHM when done well to be somewhat similar. I have a pair of Dynaudio Contour monitors I run as well. Has the Danish rather than Italian aesthetic but I consider them to be a gold standard of good hifi sound for their size and also with excellent build quality like good Sonus Faber. I acquired them prior to my current OHMs to see if I could settle on a smaller monitor. If the bass extension was just a tad better, and the overall presentation just a bit more lifelike to me, it might have happened. Who doesn’t like beautifully crafted things? Still always different strokes.... Cheers and Good Listening! |
One of the things I have enjoyed throughout this very lengthy thread, is that there may be differing opinions on the sound, the quality of build, many things in general about Ohm, but it seems to stay very civil. In this day and age of folks hiding behind the almighty computer, this is nice. It is good to hear differing opinions, yet not get smacked for it! The knowledge base in this thread has been very good, and very helpful for many I would say! |
ps: FWIW, my 2000s continued to break in for about 6 months, although I cannot tell you exectly how many hours that was. "Strident" is the last thing that I would call my 2000s. I don't doubt what your wife was hearing, but it seems odd to me. I do think that if there is any range in which the 2000s miss a step, it is in the 7-8kHz range where the tweeter kicks in. I would say that this range is at least as good as many competing speakers in that range, although perhaps no better. martykl: Long Live the Man Cave! Stacks of black boxes with lights, ugly racks, wires everywhere and my 2000s. All in the basement where nobody cares what it looks like, only what it sounds like! frazuer1: Totally agree with you about this thread. Mapman: Exactly. Your post took the words out of my mouth (or the keystrokes out of my hands). |
bondmanp: Thanks for sharing your experience with the lengthy break-in period for your 2000’s. In retrospect, perhaps I was too hasty when I decided to return them. Hmmmm. Darn it, why didn’t you call me? :) You’ve got me thinking.... So now I have a question for myself, how well would a completely broken-in pair of 1000’s do in a small 11’ x 13’ room which is open to the living room and partially open to the kitchen?. Not looking for high volume nor accurate presentation of larger orchestral works of course. It’s premature for me to even be considering this, but I’ve got a lot more yesterdays than tomorrows. :) These days, I don’t play my system that much when my wife's at home anyway. I may give the small OHM’s a try if I find a used pair at an attractive price. RE: man cave. If I were back in my rock and roll days, or maybe just a couple of decades younger, I’d probably love one as you described. The posters in this thread have uniformly maintained a level of civility that is refreshing. Thanks to all. |
ps-my opinion only, but I would think the 1000's would be fairly ideal in that space. I had a pair of MWT's in a space a bit bigger, was still surprised at how well they sounded, not lost in the space at all. Obviously a little bass limited perhaps depending on exact listening position, but wonderful music. All depends on expectation level maybe? |
I've found that Ohms can handle surprisingly large spaces, well in excess of recommendations. I have a pair of OW 2000s in a 15'x30' combined living and dining room, having had the 2s and 2OXs before them. (None of these models could be described as remotely strident--Ohms have a well controlled high end that steadily improved with each generation, but did not result in that hyper-real artificial etched imaging sought by many audiophiles.) The room is significantly larger than Ohm's recommendation for the 2000s (the 3000s are the recommended speaker size). Yet, they fill the space wonderfully well from the highs through the low bass. The only problem I had was a need to tame a boomy bass that resulted form my bare hardwood floor over a crawlspace. The downward firing port made the floor vibrate like a giant drum head. Placing the speakers on granite slabs was very helpful in cutting down the boom and tightening up the lowest frequencies. This accords with those pointing out floor interactions as often in need of correction. |
Hi guys lurking a long time and a owner of a set of 4/5000 with the pyramid cabinets. Included in my 9.2 system I have an Ohm center, and matching Walsh satellites. As an Video/Audiophile I did have need for deep, deep infinite baffle bass when needed so I built a set of subs with four 18" drivers rattling everything including my neighbors false teeth. As a self inflicted dyi person that can never leave anything alone (ever) ;) I had to fiddle with the center channel as it really kind of sucked. Ineligibility was incredibly poor (JS did make some changes to the crossover) I was still very unhappy but figured it would break in at some point but never did. Tried different cables ran Audessey but no avail it still sucked. At one time I was almost strong armed in to change the speaker by my wife as she couldn't understand some of the dialog ( me too). Finally my curiosity got the better of me and VOILA' the perforated can over the drivers were removed........Dang that's all I can say, by now you might figured out that all the speakers fell under the knife!! Before I continue, I will start from the end... I now think I have something very special that sounds fantastic, were I felt no connection to the music and movies I now have Air, Transparancy, Intelligebility, amazing Imaging and sound staging wider that any speaker I ever owned. I also have to say that JS is a very nice guy who will take care of any issues I ever had imagined or real... So anyway back to the center ch, I also fashioned up a horn like device around the now naked driver. It seemingly helped to throw a more intelligible sound field, BUT it wasn't right, it started to sound compressed and weird. Out went the horn and snip, snip..... The tweeter went in the pile of never to be used again parts. As a previous owner of Maggie's, and a few electrostatic speakers the idea of adding a planar ribbon was incredibly hard to resist, yes a planar ribbon tweeter, but it had to be small enough to fit within the 3" or so measurement height wise as I did want to re-use the grill cover. Parts Express had the perfect driver (after cutting away part of the flange), that met the requirements. KAPOW dang and holy cow, now I can even understand weird British accents and my wife is very happy indeed. To match the fullness of the 4/5k I added a parametric equalizer to the mix to fatten up the sub 1k frequencies and smoothing of a small 2k room anomaly. I will have more coming and if it's possible I will post images or a YouTube video in the next few days...🇸🇪 Stay Tuned... |
peterr53 - Wow! You answered one of my nagging questions: How would Ohms sound with a ribbon tweeter? So, we have to ask, which tweeter did you use? Is it a folded-type? I have really liked most of the Heil-type folded ribbon tweets I have heard. While the Ohm tweeter in my 2000s is good, I have long felt that it is not the strongest part of the design. I am helpless and hopeless when it comes to DIY, but I know some people who are quite good. Not sure I want to put my Ohms under the knife, but, you never know! BTW, I like my Ohm center, in stock form, just fine. I sit pretty close, (~9 feet), and have a stand that aims the driver and tweeter right at my ears. But I do not doubt your own experience. |
| Post removed |
Among whatever other differences there might be a ribbon tweeter would be significantly more directional than a soft dome. That alone could make a difference in regards to intelligible vocals especially depending on room acoustics. I would wonder if it if it affects the size of sweet spot for music as well?. |
Back again... Bondmanp If you did hear my changes you would be blown away. Suddenly I have total and utter Transparancy and speed, could it be better? Yes I could I wish for more dynamics, but the Walsh driver is tiny and can't hang with my fronts...Wish I have more space to expand the unit to a larger one. By the way, it looks like the tweeter is the same as the 4/5k's 1" softdome tweeter. I'll get back to the driver and my thoughts in a bit. Now to the surrounds.... I have six spread out as, front heights, surrounds and rear surrounds enveloping me in a lovely sound field. ********************************************************************************** If you don't want to hear anything negative please scroll past the next few sentences. ********************************************************************************** As I previously said I took the can opener to all (9) of my Ohm's and I had no idea what to expect, but what I found inside the Walsh Satellites was.......shocking and absolutely sub par, total diy a mess of proportions that was way below the worst I ever seen. For some reasons Ohm thinks that out of sight is out of mind (I will not post any images) but let's say that hot-melt glue was liberally applied to the point of glue dripping everywhere like stalagmites In a horror movie. The Walsh driver looks cheap and the paper tweeter is an incredibly cheap ($2-$3) retail driver, two out of six had collapsed dust caps. As this is a $700 a pair of speakers, there's no excuses for this kind of horrible craftsmanship and I hope someone at the factory take this to heart and make some changes. ************************************************************************************** After getting over over the shock, I decided to replace the tweeter with a $17 Dayton ND25-FA-4 unit. To remove the crap paper tweeter I had to break lose the glue with an exacto knife and a sharp chisel and un-solder the driver without trying to ripp out any caps or resistors that were hot-glued to the tweeter. Installing the tweeters was easy peasy and I was able to aim the tweeters to my required situation due to a slopping roof line. Result: Smoother tweeting all the way around, with more air and refinement and less stress at high levels. Now we're talking and I feel much better about my investment. PS. I still had to use hot-melt glue.....lol Just got a few Robert Shaw CD's in mail so I'm signing off for now and I'll get back to the big boys in a bit....🇸🇪 |
It’s true aesthetics don’t matter and are out of sight and mind inside those cans. A nice design advantage for sure. Even hot glue can be used to good effect apparently since you don’t have to look at it. I suspect it might even have some useful damping qualities sonically but just a guess. French speaker maker Triangle uses paper for bass drivers in their speakers which are some of the fastest and most detailed around for the money but those are in plain sight and made to a higher aesthetic standard as well accordingly. If the sound is not up to par for the money then that’s totally different. I still run Ohm Ls with paper tweeter over other newer much fancier and expensive models from other brands. Ribbon tweeter would be nice there I’m sure. Paper ain’t fancy but can sound surprisingly good. Of course a lot of cheap bad sounding speakers have used paper and other tweeters over the years as well. Did the the center channel speaker use paper tweeter also? I’m a two channel only guy so can’t really vouch for anything when it comes to surround sound. Did the surrounds all sound similar bad or were issues with just some? You should ask JS why he uses paper tweeters in the surrounds other than for the fact they likely help keep manufacturing costs low. I find it hard to believe he would use bad sounding parts in his speakers. im pretty sure he does not use ribbon tweets because ribbons tend to be highly directional which is not the Ohm Walsh thing. |