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.
Underwood HiiFi is in your zip code. They do a fairly brisk trade in used goods, so you might give 'em a ring. They also handle Bel Canto - an integrated I (briefly) used successfully with my 100s. If they have/can get a used one, it would likely be <$1K, though how much "<", I couldn't say.
Good Luck,
Marty
PS My comment re: 45wpc likely being a problem. It's always possible that a 45wpc has a wildly overspeced power supply and CAN supply adequate current. However, IME, that's pretty unlikely, which is why I said 45WPC is "almost" certainly a problem. Just clarifying.
Mapman, Thanks for the defintion on the whole current thing...I was just about to write looking for that when you explained how to look at it. All this discussion is making me think I need to come up with an interim solution on the power side. I already know I want to go for something higher end in the $2-4k range down the line but that is probably a year away. SO, I am going to have to look at what I can get in the $400-500 range used probably not new for the interim. I saw some stuff from NAD and Cambridge Audio on A'gon but I am guessing this wont pass the "current test". I will have to post and see what ideas people have....this is turning into an obsession.
I'd love to have the chance to try my Ohm 100's with another amp. I'm running mine with a Unison Unico 80 w/ch integrated, hybrid (tubes in the preamp section). It's sounding increasingly sweet to me, but I have nothing to compare the Unico to, really, so it's hard to know.
Yes, not uncommon with integrateds. More juice and bigger transformers produces more EMF that can create noise in nearby low level pre-amp sections, especially phono pre-amp sections.
Though I don't think integrated amps are optimal for the OHMs, there are some very well built and good sounding integrateds nonetheless. I suspect the Blue Circle is one of those though I am not intimately familiar with it.
John Potis raved in a review about a pair of Blue Circle monoblocks taking his Walsh 4 mkIIs to an entirely new level and Blue Circle is using OHM drivers in their new speaker line as well, so I think Blue Circle/OHM in general is a good match.
Mapman, I mentioned this before but I'll be using a Blue Circle BmPH 160 @ 8ohms, 240 @ 4ohms. So no doubling down here. I'll be using it with the Walsh 5 S3.
I know this has been covered here and elsewhere prior, but just a reminder that more watts will let you go louder but current is key to delivering smooth tonal balance top to bottom at low to typical listening levels in particular with the OHMs due to variation in input impedance at various frequencies (often referred to as a "difficult" or "complex" load).
A high efficiency, high current amp can be identified by mostly double rated wattage output from 8 to 4 ohms and then ideally from 4 to 2 ohms as well.
I'd been happily running the 100S3s for 7 months with my Cayin TA-30 tube integrated, at 35wpc. In earlier posts to this thread (much earlier!) I stated that I found the power fine and dandy for these speakers. And I did -- they sounded quite engaging, with good bass and wonderful voicing on voices, pianos, etc.
Well, last week I lucked into Yamaha separates on craigslist (M-85 amp/C-85 preamp) and I must say that while I have no idea what it means to say that the Ohms need more "current," I will say that the 240wpc M-85 is clearly driving these speakers more musically, with greater authority -- it isn't just volume, which in my 12x15 room I'll never be able to fully explore(!), it's the incredibly effortless performance the speakers now have -- peak music, fast bursts - they're just right there rythmically. Plus bass is more powerful, more musical, more distinctly focused in the soundstage.
So, while I still say that lower power will work with the Ohms, I'm now thinking they really do need more .... current?
45 wpc is almost certainly a problem with these speakers. In my (14'X23' - with high ceiling, open rear wall) room, the 122 wpc ARC VT130SE is operating at the margin. I'd be very happy with another 6db of elbowroom if I had it, so a 500wpc amp would be more my cup of tea. (Of course - YMMV) This might not address your issues re: timbre, but it will definitely allow more a dynamic presentation.
Sounds like a reasonable approach. My gut tells me that your Mac integrated is OK for the Walshes but that you will find you can do much better. The Walshes need current in addition to watts and most integrated tend to compromise in that area out of design necessity.
FWIW, before I upgraded speaks, I owned original Walsh 2's, OHM Ls refitted with basic Radio Shack woofers, Magnepans, and B&Ws all concurrently running off the same system but in different rooms just like now.
I decided to go the OHM upgrade route before going anywhere else. I was initially considering OHM upgraded OHM Hs (1 step up the old line from C2) in that these were always my favs and the price was very reasonable.
Then I was able to pick up my Dynaudios, which I always liked, for a reasonable price. These are excellent at what they do but not quite in the same league as some of the best larger full range models I heard around and my goal was ultimate satisfaction.
Then I decided to try my current Walsh 2's with the S3 drivers that I picked up for even less than refurbed Hs would cost used here on A'gon and tried that.
The S3s sound much different than even the original Walsh 2s or of course any box design, so I was not sure at first, but as things settled in, I never looked back. I liked what I heard enough to then splurge and I bought the F5 S3s from OHM for my largest room in addition to the Walsh2 S3s and Ls I already owned. Then my attention turned to tweaking the rest of my system to bring the best out of the Walshes.
My Walshs are retrofitted with the 100s3 transducers so per John S they are like buying a 100S3. I am guessing that part of the issue will be electronics. John felt I would be ok with the Mac but at 45 WRMS its just at the low end of what the paperwork says I should have. I will upgrade my amp in time but it will have to wait a bit having upgraded 2 pairs of speakers, CD, rack and a pre in the last 6 months. My wife has her eyes set on granite counters as a "higher priority". Until then I am going to focus on getting them broken in and setup correctly. BTW, Map, the C2s were upgraded with Ohms new woofer and sub-bass activator a few years ago and that helped in extending their life and bottom end. They may be a little bright but given my living room setup they sounded pretty good to me even when compared to some friends Rogers and Spendor speakers side by side. I may just have to get used to the sound of this kind of Walsh design. I am going to borrow a friends Mac tube amp and see how that changes things over the 4th weekend.
Actually, now over $30000 pair, up $10000 from last year.
Yikes is right!
Apparently, people are buying them and they were quite ear catching both times I've heard them. Transient attack was one of the best I've heard, yet they seemed relatively easy on the ear regardless. Not all recordings I heard struck me uniquely, but the piano and percussion in particular on a few remastered cuts off Billy Joel's "The Stranger" did.
Last time I heard them about a year ago, on the same system at Sound By Singer in NYC, using a high end VAC amp, VTL pre, and DCS Puccini player (all very pricey as well), the naturalness of massed strings in an orchestral work struck me as well and led me towards a few tweaks in my system as a result.
They are price is no object statement speakers with very high build quality and a useful reference as such I would say.
I haven't managed to hear Magico yet. David Weinhart Design in Bel Air (not too far from me) carries them and I've thought about dropping in for a listen. Truth is, I don't usually do that unless there's at least a passing chance that I'll buy something. Right now, I'm REALLY happy with the Ohm + Subs, so I've been reluctant to bother Dave. One day, I'll stop by to check out something he sells (maybe not speakers) and ask for a listen. 'Til then, I'll remain curious, too.
I don't know the W2s, but I believe that the paino timbre issue you observed isn't common to the entire Ohm line. Along with its unusual imaging capabilities, this was specifically the quality that most impressed me about my Ohm 100s. IMHO, the ability to allow a listener to easily identify piano type is usually a good indication of a speaker's timbral capability and, in this regard, I find the 100s awfully good. The "bell-like" tone of an upright is reproduced by my 100s in a way that sounds immediately real to me. With some other speakers I've heard (even some that - I'd say - sound "beautiful") this hasn't always been the case. Just MHO.
I recall the C2s having the brightest inherent timbre of any OHM speaker save perhaps the E, which was a much lesser speaker. Not sure what the OHM C2 upgrade does in this regard, though I am certain it extends the low end.
My L's have the OHM sub bass activator tweak and a custom Morel woofer upgrade I installed myself. These sound best with good SS amplification I have found. Until I upgraded my amp from an older Carver m4.0t to the current MF A3CR (higher Current), I actually preferred the Ls to my Walsh 2s (100S3 drivers)for certain pop/rock recordings. The MF is lower watts (150w/ch) but higher current than the Carver (360w/ch) was. The OHM Walsh speakers need this to really shine.
Also, the Walshes need to break in and are inherently less efficient than C2s I believe, so they do require more power to truly thrive. I am not familiar with your Mac, but it is possible that an amp that does fine with the C2s may not do as well with the Walshes.
Aside from this, the presentation of the Walshes is totally different than the more conventional OHM box designs. That will never change.
J - I started out with an MA6200 on my MWTs, then upgraded to a Cyrus 8vs2 and the speakers went up a notch in performance. Deeper bass, more detail... Surprised to hear Bill Evan's piano sounded tinny - his touch is anything but that. Plus, I always dig how the Ohms resolve piano.
Well after reading this for months I pulled the trigger on some Walsh 2s then had them refitted by Ohm. Set them up yesterday right next to my Ohm C2s. Very interesting. Not blowing me away out of the box but definitely good stereo separation, bottom end. Listened to a variety of things yesterday....Alison Krauss, Shelby Lynne, Diana Krall...all pretty good. Bill Evans...a little tinny on the piano sound. Hotel California...just ok. Tommy Emmanual-great acoustic instrument sound. Running off an old Mcintosh MA5100 integrated. Will work on breaking them in and finding the right placement. Not an ideal room as I have them about 15 inches off the front wall but there are shelves on both sides loaded with cds about 20 inches away. I will have to keep my ears open and maybe even run them off my separates later and see if there is an improvement. There does seem to be something of an "Ohm" sound but at this point the C2s seem to have more detail but less of a clean and low bottom end.
I picked up the recently recovered Monk/Coltrane recording from Carnegie at the Hall's gift shop. It is a real treat.
One of the most amazing sounding recordings I own on the Walshs is the "Classic Concert" recording with Mel Torme and company from back in the 80's.
I think it is at the end of "Round Midnight" on this recording where Torme hits an extended high note that seems to come from behind and above me off the Walsh 5's. There were a few moments sitting in the hall involving a celeste or cymbal of some sort where the high frequency sound did a similar trick while I was sitting a good ways up and back, front row, Dress Circle. It was very cool!
A while back I wrote a review about the Walsh 5's wherein I likened their soundstage to Carnegie Hall (the old hall that is, the one that the architectural genius Tuthill designed and built, before Stern and his nouveau renovators ruined it into just a 'good' hall), front mezzanine center to be exact. I performed at Carnegie and attended concerts there. The magical quality about Carnegie is the combination of tons of scintillating air, a vibrant yet critically damped acoustic, and astounding lucidity of instrumental and vocal articulations. In the old Carnegie, one could sit on stage rear and hold a conversation with someone sitting in the balcony without hardly raising the volume of one's voice. The Ohm Walshs recreate that magical acoustic space in my listening room. Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereos, as well as live recordings from Carnegie Hall itself, enjoy a special synergism with the Walshes.
I was in NYC recently and finally made it a point to attend a performance in the main Stern Auditorium at Carnegie Hall.
In the back of my mind I also had the unsubstantiated assertion I had read a while back on the net that OHM Walsh speakers were voiced to sound like Carnegie Hall. Could that be true? If so, what does Carnegie Hall Sound like?
I asked the ticket clerk at the hall to recommend good seats to listen from. I sat in the front row of the "Dress Circle" level, just right of center and well elevated about 2/3 of the way up above stage level.
The program included various chamber orchestras and choruses performing various spiritual pieces. It was a most enjoyable performance overall and I would have to give at least some credit to the venue itself for making it that.
I think Stern once commented that the hall is an instrument in itself, which I would have to agree with. The hall delivered fantastic clarity and detail to the performance. Soloists and percussion in particular seemed to smoothly and cleanly resonate within the venue. My eyes teared on several occasions.
So what of the assertion regarding the OHMs? I'll just say that I felt right at home, albeit on a larger scale, with what I heard and leave it at that.
One thing I found very interesting was that a lot of the sound that reached my ear was reflected from the rear stage walls. I say that because the sound of soloists performing at stage level seemed to eminate from a point that was a good 12' or more vertically over their actual location, a very surreal effect I do not recall ever hearing to this degree anywhere else.
Thanks for the nice comments. The media center unit was a kit from Crate And Barrel, of all places. It's handsome and solid as a rock, but the openings in the back for cabling are too few and too small... the cable situation in the back ain't pretty. If I can find somebody with the right tools, I may remove the back this summer and see if I can make some more openings in the back to neaten things up. I know some folks swear that the way cables are "dressed" affects the final sound...
It's more of a satin finish... maybe a bit more gloss than your standard satin. No, no upcharge. Black is one of their standard finishes, and it was my wife's preferred color. :-) By the way, sorry for the quality of the photo... just a snap from my cell phone!
Marty - I was thinking the same thing while going from room to room at the HE Show in New York. I went after owning the MWTs for a year or two and had a good barometer with some hours in on the Ohms.
The thing I walked away with was that the spacious sound of the Ohms is achievable with regular old cone 'n dome speakers... It just takes a lot more $... I heard some speakers that I liked (although many of them still sounded 'hi-fi' to me) but they were pretty pricey and the sweet spot was always small. The rooms are not great sounding, but I think the Ohms would be more forgiving than what I heard. I'd like to hear the Blue Circle Penny...
Marty, I don't think John does shows. I think they're content over at Ohm, quietly going about building speakers. The last I heard of John at a show, was RMAF in '07 at the Blue Circle booth. He was there getting consumer feedback on the Penny, before production...
I'm kind of a broken record (no pun intended) about this one, but I really love the original soundtrack album of the film "Princess Mononoke" (on the Milan label). For a beautifully recorded orchestra doing really good film music, you can't do a lot better. I even told John about it; wonder if he ever picked it up... it sounds luscious on the Ohm 100's, just glorious.
I was wondering what John demos with at shows (assuming that Ohm does shows). Any idea? I'd love to program one of those demos.
As to purist vs studio tracks. The Lindsey Buckingham tracks that wow me (you can add "Come" -with its monster guitar solo - from Fleetwood Mac's "Say You Will" to that list) are definitely in your second group, while the jazz that occupies most of my listening time generally falls into the first group.
For something else in that "purist" camp, you might want to try the new Allen Toussaint cd "The Bright Mississippi". A beautifully recorded set of N'awlins standards re-worked in a brooding, spare, but subtly more rythmic fashon than the originals. Woodwinds, horns, piano and a WHOPPIN' big bass drum.
I was talking to John at Ohm some time ago about this. He said that people tend to rave about the Ohm's soundstage presentation with two very different kinds of recordings.
The first is the "audiophile purist" kind of record -- single mike, lots of "hall ambiance" captured. On these tracks, you get a wonderful sense of space and air in the room..
The other, paradoxically, are WELL PRODUCED, heavily multitracked studio recordings, like "Graceland," "Brothers In Arms" "Two Against Nature" or "Rikki Lee Jones," where the engineers have deliberately put in "phasey" effects and used other tricks toward an artistic effect. In those recordings, the Ohms will totally take over the room and put you in the middle of the fireworks. ;-)
Actually, Rebbi's observation is consistent with one I find telling re: Ohms. Music featuring multiple percussionists just sounds different on these speakers. The track which really struck me was "With These Hands" by Alejandro Escovedo. Again, a wall of maraccas, congas, tom toms, etc. Don't know that it's "real" (strictly speaking), but it is convincing - and fun.
Marty
PS - Para, IIRC, Ohm's placement recommendation defines a square, so if you're sitting 6' away from the point midway between the speakers, you should expect the speakers to be app 6' from each other.
Ya know, Rebbi, if I posted every amazing moment I've had with the Ohm's, we'd be at 1000 responses already. They are THAT good, aren't they?
Mine seem to be changing character a bit. The bass is filling-out nicely. On some recordings, the treble almost seems harsh, but then mellows out. I guess I've never had speakers good enough to experience break-in until now.
The biggest improvment is moving them in closer together, but as I've written before, they seem ridiculaously close at under 5 ft. But, I can't argue with my ears or the imaging. Sitting nearfield as far as I do, at 6', could be the reason why.
Listened to Cowboy Junkies 'Lay it Down' this weekend. Used the vocals for placement and imaging. As much fun as I can imagine having moving speakers 1/4" at a time.
Listened this morning to the vinyl of Paul Simon's "Rhythm Of The Saints." Track 2 is "Can't Run But." Sense of ambient space is amazing; marimbas fill the air. Wow! :-D
Right now, I have the 100's about 33 inches off the rear wall, and from the inside edges of the plinths (not the most scientific measurement, I know) they're 6' 6" apart. They're sounding fantastic!
Now that I've decided to put the 100's wherever they sound best, and then move them out of the way when I'm not listening, so that they don't take over the room, I'm really getting somewhere.
I wanted to see how they'd sound a good 33 inches out from the rear wall, which would normally block the use of a recliner chair we have, but is fine while I'm listening.
Man, what a difference! I'm not sure if the difference is that they're so far off that wall (prior to now I'd had them only eighteen inches out), or whether it's that I'm in a more "nearfield" situation now, but the sound stage has gotten even larger, highs are airier, bass is much better defined, and image specificity is excellent. Oh, and soundstage depth and layering is better in spades!
I was listening to Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits today on vinyl and it sounded breathtaking... I couldn't stop listening. I'll report more, but I think I'm getting closer now...
BTW, I saw Porcupine Tree live on their FOABP tour in a small local concert venue nearby a year or so back and it was absolutely awesome! Strongly recommended
It was as loud as it gets, but very well produced and everything sounded phenomenal. It had to be otherwise it could have been very unpleasant at those db levels.
Glad to help spread musical enjoyment wherever possible.
I would not tune my system initially using Deadwing though(too much going on in general to be able to sort through things), but once you think it sounds right, Deadwing is as good an acid test as most anything. If it sounds good start to finish, I venture to say that almost anything else will also.
No doubt about Deadwing. My old Deftech surrounds could not handle it in multi-channel. I actually hooked up my Pinnacle towers to handle surrounds at that point.
My experience with Definitive Technologies was not good. And Deadwing more than anything else brought out their defects.
The MWT's seem to handle anything and everything. But I (painfully) have to wait a few more days before I can hook up my main amp. Maybe this weekend...
Thanks for everything, Map. Seriously. I feel that I owe you one for all the help you've been.
Believe me, there is a break-in period, both for the speaker mechanism, and the first time listener, with these.
BTW PT Deadwing is a very challenging album for most systems. When the system overall is clicking though, IT SOUNDS REALLY GOOD (kinda like Pink Floyd on Metallica's steroids)!!
I had a great experience last night, and it's making me re-think my belief that there is no such thing as a break-in period.
I was listening to Porcupine Tree "The Start of Something Beautiful" off the 'Deadwing' cd. I actually had too much bass, and had to attenuate a little. This is a first, even though I've listened to it at least 3 times previously. The soundstage and detail also seemed greatly enhanced. I think I have about 60 hours on them now, and must admit that the sound is improving- and not just a little bit.
Later that night, I convinced my wife to listen to the same track, and she was greatly impressed. She told me that she kept expecting the speakers to distort during the synth breaks, and was impressed with how clear and pleasant the sound was.
After we were done with the PT, she actually requested to listen to The Catherine Wheel 'Wishville'
So- even if the speaker improvements are more psychological than physical, the elusive WAF is increasing measurably!
thaks everyone for all the help, input and advice. My wonderful experience with the Ohm's is making me want to learn a bit more before I spend more money on future upgrades.
I just ordered Jim Smith's 'Get Better Sound' after reading a lot of positive reviews.
Hopefully, that and time will further enhance the experience.
Thanks a lot for the last couple of posts. I've been thinking that because these speakers are so easy to relocate due to lack of floor spikes, that I'm going to try moving them much further out into the room than is practical on a day-to-day basis. If I find a good spot, I'll just mark it with tape and then move the speakers when I want to sit down for some serious listening.
Mapman, I also have "sort of" an L. shaped room... although it's really pretty hard to describe unless I were able to actually sketch you the floor plan! ;-)
In any case, because my seating position is pretty much restricted to a particular piece of furniture (a day bed) in a kind of niche opposite the speakers, I'm a little restricted as to seating position. Actually, the 100s, being semi-omnidirectional, with their wide sweet spot, are great for a setup like this, because you get a nice sound pretty much wherever you sit.
On the other hand, the right-hand speaker is a mere 18 inches off the side wall, and I'm wondering if that isn't compromising the way the system currently sounds. It's NOT that it sounds "bad," but I keep thinking that I'm not getting the most out of the system. I'm going to try moving them WAY out into the room, and I'll see what happens... I will report back... ;-)
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.
