One thing I find interesting too, is that I keep hearing that the CLS tweeter/super tweeter supposedly comes in around 5-7 khz depending on what one reads. Is this really true or just here-say? I often wonder how the large main drive of the CLS could fill that frequency gap in enough to sound right. Just one of those things that makes me wonder. Again, the Ohms sound good, so who am I to question?
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
Mapman - I don't want to sound like I am bragging, but both in this case and at Ohm's room at the Chester Group Show in NYC in November, I preferred my system by a significant margin. In the case of he doubled Ohm Fs, I could see how they might be a bit smoother and more relaxed than my 2000s (a lot more cone surface area). But as good as they were, they could not match the bass output of my Vandy subs. Also, the turntable feeding the Mark Levinson preamp and Marantz receiver was not operating perfectly (a long story that I am not at liberty to discuss). I think there also may have been issues with one of the four speakers (a blown fuse may have been replaced during the day). Add to that the unfamiliar source material, vintage SS low powered amplification, and rather small room, and it wasn't a legitimate comparison. At the THE show, I thought the 1000s were just okay. Hotel room acoustics weren't helping, and although the Peachtree integrated had enough juice (150 watts X 2), the Sony DVD player used as a source (into the Peachtree's DAC) was not exactly a high end front end. They sounded good, and impressed a lot of show goers. But to me, they fell a bit short of my own rig. As Paul McGowan of PS Audio would say, maybe I am just acclimated to my own rig. But I think I have the whole system dialed in pretty well. The funny part is, I haven't put a lot of effort into it. The 2000s are positioned where the room dictates - there aren't many options for placement if I want to keep them away from front and side walls. I put up some foam panels, but I had even more up and took some down. I think I could use some diffusion, but that's pricey, and, for now, on hold. The Vandy subs I just plunked in the front corners as per Vandersteen's recommendation. The only tweeks are mass loading on the subs, my 3-point Sound Anchor cradle bases for the 2000s, and some foam speaker cable supports. I also credit the Odyssey Audio amp. At the same meeting I heard the Ohms Fs, I also heard KEF Blades. I've heard the Blades numerous times, including at the Wiesfeld's home, and never was too thrilled. This time, they were really good. Not, "take my Wilsons and give me these" good, but better than I'd ever heard them before. Guess what amps were powering them? Odyssey Audio Stratos Monos. "Only" 180 watts per side, arguably a bit low-powered for The Blade, but the sound was really good. Bottom line: I'd rather be lucky than smart. I have sort of stumbled into what I consider really good sound in my home. Sure, I did some research and listening, but I made a lot of educated guesses and ended up with I think is excellent system synergy. |
Back again... My 4/5000 is of the latest iteration as far as I know. As for frequency extension/ super tweeting...it's all fairy tales and wishful thinking. The tweeter JS is using as the top of the line tweeter is a plastic peerless tweeter (4ohm) that can be bought all day long for $13-$15 nothing special. The Walsh driver will tweet up to about 2.25khz then fall of as per the chart I attached. This is not a bad thing as long as you X-over the tweeter low enough to make up for the difference. My idea to use a ribbon tweeter that can be crossed over below 2k with not to steep of a filter, maybe 12db or so should work very well. I also have some ideas how to mechanicall adjust time domain. I'll attach an image of the raw tweeter driver in a bit.... Heja Sverige.....🇸🇪 |
Well, it’s a plus to get at that response even out of a seemingly fairly conventional 12" driver mounted like that I suppose. It covers fundamentals of most musical instruments including voice but harmonics to a more limited extent. X000 series advertised evolution not revolution in the sound so I can’t imagine versions prior would be that much different in approach though the originals were not nearly as good sounding as those that followed. 7khz out of any driver like that seemed a stretch but who knows. That figure got in my mind somewhere along the line but do not recall the exact source. Its possible smaller drivers in smaller models go a bit higher I suppose. If so, I’ve not noticed much difference in teh end result to date when comparing 100S3 (8" driver) to 5S3 (12"). I think it would be accurate to say conventional 2 way designs with smaller drivers are more common. I can’t think of any quality 2 ways that use a 12" driver other than these. Most are 3-way or more. I’ve always been a fan of as few drivers as needed to get the whole job done. The sound is almost always more coherent sounding to me that way. In the case of teh CLS drivers, I suspect the ability to mount the tweeter physically where it is relative to to driver is a big contributor to the time coherency which might account for that aspect of the Walsh CLS speaker sound compared to many others perhaps more so even than the driver crossover frequency. |
Here's some new images... The tweeter is the 4/5000 unit that was removed, the quality of the parts are abysmal, plastic housing, hot melt glue...yikes Same tweeter was in the center channel, with that said you have to congratulate JS for making such low cost parts sound the way they do. I also attached an image of the CC after I was done with it believe me it looked nothing like in the image. And it sounds great, no comparison. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/CC%201000_zpshlk96p6o.jpg.html?o=1 http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/tweet%20back_zpsa2wc3rk1.jpg.html?o=1 http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/tweet%201_zpsyzspyxd5.jpg.html?o=1 |
If you took a look at the Walsh 12" driver you notice that a lot of the driver is covered by the basket casting, they tried to mitigate the issue by adding foam padding and some sticky 3M tape on each leg of the casting. I think if they could find a casting with thinner legs I'm sure it could sound even better. Just look at the original F driver or the German Physics driver..... Just a thought. Always ask questions......🇸🇪 |
Peter don’t know. I have dynaudio speakers with top notch build including highly regarded isotar soft dome tweeter. They are sitting unused at present. Guess which speakers in the same setup I find completely satisfying to listen to? just goes to show there is more to making good sound than expensive highest quality parts. |
Thanks Bond for sharing your experience with the double F's. If nothing else it must have been fun to actually see them and witness them working, even if not the most ideal. Also, thanks for the info on the CLS tweeter crossover point, it really isn't too important for me to know, just my own musings or thoughts about it all. While I claim no expertise on how Peter mic'ed and set up his frequency sweep, weighting, scaling and all that, it does look to me like the output of the main driver while reaching that 2.5 kHz figure and beyond, it would appear it is a good deal down in db/output. It would be interesting to see an accurate sweep of both main driver and tweeter just to get an idea as a wholistic snap shot. Again, I apologize for my ignorance on what I may or may not be seeing here! In the end though, it matters not how it measures, or how cheap the drivers or parts are, or how crummy it all may be put together overall, if it sounds good, then it is good! Just goes to show you how much can be rung out of these parts and build if one knows what they are doing! Anyway, again, just my own simple minded thoughts here! Thanks Peter for your sharing too! Appreciate your time and efforts! |
Well for one example I’m pretty sure hot melt glue is acoustically inert and I know it is not expensive and does its job (holding things together) well. Plus its all normally out of sight. I use the gun I bought to fix loose braces in my old Walsh 2s for things around the house all the time. Smart or cheap? |
Love sharing... No doubt is how the pie taste, cheap perfectly cooked ingredients makes good pie. But amazing ingredience fresh from the garden, perfectly cooked with an amazing latticework cap is so much better, both visually and taste wise. When you start to charge big money for a product a certain level of workmanship will be expected by most people. For instance... You are building your client a race engine, he's expecting forged rods and Pistons, Ferrea valves and a camshaft that's been ice hardened. But you have found a way to make the engine run great on cheap parts and because of that you just made a ton of money.... pending on that the client doesn't open up the engine.... Now to be honest I do engineering work, and my forte is to find a better way to make the Mose trap..trap I.E. even if he used the best parts I would have tinkered away to make it better, that's just me... As for the frequency sweep it is an indication on what's going on, maybe not the last word but close enough. The Walsh driver is wonderful and capable, and if you like the omni directional style of presentation hard to beat. Adding a rear tweeter in phase with the Walsh driver is a must, but a volume control must be used to balance the presentation. The ribbon is a revelation giving you the missing imaging capabilities of other designs....a must. Question everything......🇸🇪 |
Peter I think JS goal as I read it is to give great sound for reasonable cost. Not build a race engine. Every engineer has a different vision. Also a business must make a profit and ohm has been around and us based in Brooklyn for many years. So it's a model that seems to work and hopefully continues to. I will say prices have gone up in recent years but still us made. I paid less than half of list for my 5s with sale price and trade ins a great deal for the sound. Granted there are many good speakers at ohm retail prices these days but nothing like them. |
I could see the benefits of the hot melt glue to attach the braces to my old cabs. Would help absorb vibrations I'd think. In some apps more of s convenience perhaps but a very effective one. Looks would be one downside but out of sight out of mind I guess. Maybe John will read this and adapt some of your ideas. I'd love to hear the esotar tweeter in my ohms personally. |
Mapman - The 7 kHz roll-in for the tweeter, IIRC, was mentioned somewhere on the old Ohm web site. Next month, I will be hearing the German Physiks speakers, which use a Dick's Dipole Walsh-type driver for all but the low bass frequencies. No tweeter, just like the F's. In fact, a dealer told me the inspiration for the German Physiks was the Ohm Walsh speakers. The designer wondered what could be done with fewer cost constraints than Ohm was under. They do roll off above 18 kHz, but I see no reason why the Ohm Walsh drivers can't go higher than 2 or 3 kHz. The beaming you would get from a full range, forward radiating 8" driver should be ameliorated by the Walsh omni radiating pattern, I would think. I would bet that listening to Walshes without the tweeter would not be as treble-less sounding as the graph suggests. That said, just looking at the Fs is instructional. It has no tweeter, but the tall cone shape of the driver suggests it can reproduce higher frequencies from the narrower portions of the cone, near the top. Current Walsh drivers appear to be conventional, shallow cones that lack the tall profile of the Ohm F drivers. Hence the super-tweeter. That John was able to adapt the Walsh principles to a design using conventional drivers speaks volumes about his ability to design speakers, and to keep costs down, which is probably the reason for the change in driver design. And, I fully agree, the proof is in the listening. John simply knows how to voice speakers. A production version of what Peterr53 is going to end up with would probably be priced in the $20,000 range, or more. Peterr53 - While I have no doubt the Ohms can be improved by using a higher quality tweeter, I do question the wisdom of moving the crossover from 7 kHz to ~2.5 kHz. One of the things that makes the Ohm Walsh speakers special, IMHO, is that there is no crossover in that critical 2-5 kHz range. Very few conventional speakers that I have heard with crossovers in that range sound good to me in the upper mid/lower treble range. But with your digital crossover, you will have total flexibility to dial in the crossover as you feel it sounds best. |
peter I appreciate that but I am getting the sound I want and no time or interest in dabbling inside my Walshes at present. My goal when I got back into this stuff several years back was to find the right speakers first and do whatever needed to get exactly the sound I wanted from there. My path was from OHM to Maggie to B&W and back to OHM in my bigger room over the course of about 25 years. I’ve done many tweaks around the speakers to get exactly the sound I wanted since I got them almost 10 years ago now (wow). I will say the sound can vary widely based on all the typical suspects that affect how speakers sound and what I have now is in another league from when I started. Many ways to skin the cat. Maybe if something heads south, but I gotta say that I’ve owned OHM Walshes since 1982 and the only issues I have ever had were the internal braces on my original Walsh 2s come loose inside and have to be reset. Those speakers did move around the country in the back of my car a lot in those days. I am more settled now and my current OHMs mostly stay put. I did refabric the hoods of my old Walsh 2s as well using a beige colored loose wove wool fabric mainly to please my wife aesthetically. Those were part of teh trade in I did for my current F5 series 3. |
peter, Are those folded ribbons the same or similar to those used in Goldenear Aeon speakers? I have heard those. Much different top end from any soft domes I have heard. Very polite is the term I used to describe the sound. I could easily live with a pair of the Goldenear Aeon speakers in the right room. I find the OHm Walshes quite easy on the ear and not fatiguing though they can go somewhat that way in some cases. But not nearly as much as my Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII or Triangle Titus monitors. I recently acquired BelCanto C5i Digital Class D integrated amp in my second system. None of my speakers have any sign of hotness or edge ever with this amp. Its the first I've owned (and the newest with latest greatest technology) that I could say that about. It would be interesting to hear a good speaker with folded ribbon tweeter on that. Many factors that contribute to sound. My very first "good" speakers (Criterion) had Heil air motion transformers. I bought these when working at Lafayette Radio circa 1977. I was a newbie then and liked those over other speaker brands sold with other tweeter types. Problem was they would always blow out at modest volume even off 40 w/ch lafayette integrated amp I had at the time so I dumped them after about a year (for OHM Ls I heard at tech Hifi). I'm sure the modern equivalents are much superior. There are many speakers from those days I would bet could sound in another league these days with modern digital and amplifier technologies in play. |
Good morning Bondman and everyone else...... The Walsh driver is not crossed over at 7k, look at the frequency sweep (pink noise) there's just not enough energy to go past 4K let alone 7k. I will hook up one of the drivers today run a sweep as is, then I'll use the parametric equalizer to see how far I can push the frequency extension. It'll be a fun excercise..... The other thing is the tweeter used is not a super tweeter. A super tweeter would pick up after the regular tweeter drops of, let say 18k and above. Espresso my drug of choice.........🇸🇪 |
Mapman: Lafayette Radio!!! I worked there one year in college, 1982-1983. They were already owned by Circuit City, but still doing biz as Lafayette Radio. I was in the store on 45th St. in Manhattan. That street also had a number of other hifi stores. Peterr53: You are correct about the "super-tweeter" definition. But consider that different models of the x000 might go a bit higher before handing off to the tweeter. And, again, I remember that the old Ohm web site did mention something about a 7kHz crossover (actually, just a resistor on the tweeter, as the main driver rolled off naturally above 7 kHz). A very rough phone app RTA showed that my in-room response did indeed tilt downward as the frequency rose. I actually expected this, and I am quite pleased with it. I do not feel as if I am missing anything in the higher frequencies at all. They are just a little subdued, which makes the system listenable for hours and hours with no fatigue. Could they be better? Sure. That's why I am following your posts so carefully. While I could never do what you're doing, I might pay someone who can to do these things. A bit of a risk, but if the results are as significant as you suggest they might be, maybe it's worth it. |
peter I don’t do surround sound but from what I have seen most surround speakers do not perform as well as mains unless I am mistaken (size and lower cost per reflects that). I would expect same with microwalsh surrounds (more limited) versus mains (more full range but less bass than larger models). I would not take measurements on one as representative of the other. There is a size and cost difference isn’t there? |
Bondman I worked part time at Lafayette Radio in Lancaster Pa. It was located in a strip center outside of town (Two Guys was anchor store) and moved to Park City Center for a brief period. When it closed the location became Radio Shack store and I then worked there for a few years during and a bit shortly after college. I also worked PT at Tech Hifi during school in New Brunswick, NJ. |
But....but come on now, same driver smaller housing should not change anything but the bass....right? Cant imagine they changed everything in the X-over for the tweeter only. with that said I did previously remark on the hilarious $2 paper tweeter from 1970 and how bad it sounded. I did replace the tweeter with a modern design soft dome tweeter that doesn't break up at higher spl's. I still run some sweeps again for the hell of it should be interesting... Back again soon....🇸🇪 |
I don’t know. Just saying I would not assume two different models are equivalent sound wise unless known otherwise. The devil is always in the details. I’ve never heard anything but positive reviews of MicroWalsh talls. Don’t know what might be different with shorts or surrounds. Also John is known to customize for customers liberally as needed or desired. It often can be very hard to distinguish one OHM model from another. There are many variations out there. I bet he would at least consider using a custom tweeter type if one requested. The main thing he seems to care about is that the customers are satisfied. I’m sure he’d offer up his opinion of ups and downs with any particular variation, maybe even if not actually doing the work. |
Mapman you might be right, but all I can report on is what I see and how I feel about the product. I applaud any manufacturers that keep production in the USA. With that said there's many other American manufacturers that build locally, source locally that still make beautiful cabinetry, excellent drivers, and still stay in business. Next post measurements.......🇸🇪 |
Good evening Ladies and Gents.... It's good to be semi retired, plenty of leisure time allowing me to fiddle around with the speakers (just don't tell my wife). So....I got a mixed box of chocolates my friends, some great and some not to much. The first image is the stock Walsh driver all by it's lonesome with nothing but pink noise... http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpsomfobhuk.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=8 Look at that! The graph shows a nose dive of epic proportions. Honestly not much to write home about and not much to show for beyond 2.25k. This did surprise me tremendously but the proof is in the pudding. So it must be a way to spunk it up a bit!! So I hook up the parametric EQ, I start to boost a bit at 1k with a gentle curve up to 10k... you can actually hear a bump in the treble nothing big but it's there. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpszqddvox5.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=9 I'm Swedish, but the American way is the next move....Crank up the EQ to the maximum 1k through 20k bam boom thank you brother, we have liftoff...kind of. Check it out! that's a pretty good bump, but would it sound better with music? I'll try that tomorrow. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpsrguwha7h.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=7 I'm going out for dinner so I'l post more later....Swedish Flag |
The fortune cookie said: Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes... So after an eye opening first part of the test we must now figure out how the drivers work as a whole. I have tree different tweeters to test the stock tweeter, a soft dome tweeter I had laying around and the ribbon tweeter that was my test unit for further evaluation. As you can see there's two traces on the frequency sweep, the bottom one is the active sweep and the upper one is the actual paused graph. The first unit was the stock "SuperTweeter" This was a pleasant surprise, and you can see why it so pleasant pretty flat with no surprises anywhere in the frequency band. Now this could also be interpreted as safe, boring, and un-exciting. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpspgkcxtbf.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=6 This frequency sweep is the no name tweeter 8ohm which is totally wrong as the stock unit measures 4ohm. It's a roller coaster but I didn't expect anything other than what you see. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpspgcrafiz.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=0 Now to the Ribbon tweeter, This unit sounds great, sparkly but not etched or edgy, the problem is that it's a 5ohm unit and the lowest usable frequency is 3k or so which is very obvious as it starts to dip around......3k. I am replacing this unit with something that can be X-over around 1.5k-2K and with the electronic X-over I can make a smooth transition between the two drivers. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpsw91rq7bm.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=5 Next I will try to play with the stuffing to see if that makes a difference. I might also try to bypass some switches to see if freeing up the drivers from the switching network makes a difference. Hope you guys enjoy the testing phase of my quest for better sound. Can sound be creamy?...........Swedish Flag |
Peter, thanks for all this engineering work. It is fun to "see" what is going on with these speakers. I concur that the mid-range can be attenuated in the Ohm-Walsh speakers. My 4XO speakers sound good, but the mid range needs some boosting to sound balanced. I have no trouble with the bass or treble. |
I’ll take the first stock Flat cheap tweeter I think. You also should do some off axis measures if that matters for you. I’d like to know how the folded ribbon compares in particular. Also have you seen the audio frequency response chart online? That would be helpful for assessing frequency deviations at certain frequencies with ear sensitivity at same and also how those relate to various instrument frequencies heard in music. |
How do you make five hours fly by fast..... Man I love fiddling with stereo equipment. The smell of hot tubes, transistors and power supplies brings back memories from the mid seventies when I was a spry teenager. I walk by the stereo shop on the way to school everyday and finally I decided to enter the inner sanctum of my dreams.....Ahhh that smell from the tubes, transistors and power supplies were intoxicating and with that the beginning of a lifelong quest for better sound. When I started to take apart 4/5k's it really wasn't because I didn't love the way they sound, but because I took apart the Micros. The shock seeing the mess of a badly built speaker with parts so cheap rattled me, so my curiosity was peeked and the 4/5k project took a on a life of its own. Today was an eye opener again, but in my infinite wisdom I decided to use a different software to measure the frequency response. The software is great, but transfer the graphs in to a file that a human can see was another matter. So I am going to have to take pictures of the screen and then post them as soon as possible. What new things did I learn today? How about the speaker measures better with more dampening in the cabinet. A little bit of EQ will go a long way for perfection. No output beyond 2.5k on the Walsh driver. A non resonant cabinet sounds better. And much more. I manage to massage out a perfectly (or close to it) frequency response. The ribbon tweeter sounds and measures great even when I'm over 20 degree of to the side but not as great vertically. I also believe an electronic X-over is a must for this design if you want to squeeze out maximum performance. So that's how I manage to spend five hours nerding out on drivers, EQ's and acoustic sound dampening.......🇸🇪 |
Here I am with some more info to add to our arsenal of knowledge and understanding about our beloved Ohm speakers. It took some extra time to pull together additional charts to show what really is happening through the frequency sweep. I always suspected the Walsh driver to be great but not fantastic in the upper frequency region. After looking closely at the Walsh driver the conclusion must be that the application is brilliant, but not the latest in resolution or frequency extension. The Walsh driver works like an “F” driver but nowhere near it’s extension in the treble region, and if you are really honest at all, there’s very little difference between a front firing woofer/midrange driver and the Walsh driver. The difference is a removed dust cap and some tacky glue on the lower (bass) part (for damping I suspect). The 360 degrees off radiating sound is certainly one of the appealing reason for getting the Ohm’s. Let’s take a look at the different readouts. The first will be a 3D plot that shows both time and frequency in a dimensional way. The brighter the sweep is the more energy is emanating from the driver, you can also see valleys which are low energy areas. These measurements were taken at approx 15 inches from the drivers so I don’t think the room boundaries made any difference at all. The driver was the original soft dome tweeter, no extra EQ the only difference would be that it’s not confined behind foam, paint, perforated steel and speaker cloth I.E. no CAN. (4 layers) Image one: The Walsh driver no tweeter. Volume would be at about mid 80db, loud but not overly so. The bass frequency is a seams a bit on the plump side and then a suddenly a drop in energy way earlier then expected. (wideband Pink Noise). https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/D26z27
Image two: Here you have a full frequency sweep allowing you to really see what’s going on, and suddenly it drops of the cliff at 16k. (wideband Pink Noise). https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/b1976f
Image three: Walsh with stock tweeter, no EQ, padded cabinet but no OE padding which would consist of a 3 inch layer of re-constituted (shredded and glued together) denim, fluffy Dacron and an upper layer of netting separating the fluffy stuff from the Walsh driver. The graph confirms the 3D plot, very bass heavy and then it falls of pretty fast. These measurements were taken approx 1meter from both drivers. Frequency sweep 20-20khz https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/WrD31L
Image four: Walsh driver, stock tweeter, EQ and complete stuffing. 20-20khz Wow look at that curve, so much better…Way better and more midrange/treble energy. And the bass is under control. Very little smoothing as I really like to see all the ripples warts and all. The EQ was used with a tender touch nothing heavy handed. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/8Y1zqV
Image five: (white trace) Walsh driver stock tweeter, no EQ, light stuffing 20-200hz https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/7fGU4j
Image six: (yellow trace) Walsh driver, stock tweeter, no EQ, complete stuffing 20-200hz A small but clear difference if you look closely, a slightly flatter curve, but remember this is a very small slice of the whole frequency curve. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/5ffK60
Image seven: Walsh driver, ribbon tweeter, EQ and complete stuffing 20-20khz As mentioned earlier the impedance value is 5 ohm’s on this tweeter, so that will certainly add to some compatibility issues. But looking at the curve it’s pretty darn good and I think with some additional tweaking I could have done more. Below you’ll find an additional image of the same setup but 20 degrees off axis. https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/k4b4M0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/shares/b5016x |
Peter I don’t understand what’s going on with the gradual roll off shown with tweeters in play. I’ve never seen that in any speaker. Charts of 2nd gen OHm walsh speakers from later 80s I have seen in the past were more typically flat, nothing that unusual. NEwer versions are supposedly not so radically different sounding. EQ should not be needed to that extent. Do you have baseline plots of the speakers originally for comparison? Could there be something wrong in the crossover at this point? Is it even known for certain speakers were in good working order to start? What prompted you to take them apart? This is very interesting but the relationship between what is measured currently versus originally in properly working speakers is not clear at all at this point. |
Hi Mapman.... I used multiple software versions to see if there's some issues but nothing is changing, if anything it's showing about the same readout from test to test. Go back in my posts and I have mentioned the 2.5k drop off many times and there's nothing beyond that number. Nothing wrong with the speakers, as a matter of fact I mentioned how much I love them, but I'm the fiddling man and with that most everything get upgraded. There was nothing wrong at all, both measures the same (what's the chance both are screwed up). I do think people expect more then the Walsh driver can deliver. I just deleted those pesky (lol) switches very interesting and man does he use cheap wire in the switching network....🇸🇪 |
Here you go, the original measurement of the Walsh driver... http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpsomfobhuk.jpeg.html?sort=4&o=8 |
From Jan 17, 2008 Stereophile review of Walsh 5 speaker: " I was sure that a 1/3-octave frequency sweep would reveal an aberrant frequency response, but I was wrong. In fact, from about 500Hz to 20kHz (which was as far as I measured), the Walsh 5 was almost ruler flat when measured on the supertweeter axis. There were the usual dips and peaks in the in-room bass response, and the bass was down 4dB at 25Hz—in complete accord with Ohm’s specifications. The source for the coloration remains a mystery, therefore. Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/ohm-walsh-5-loudspeaker-page-2#BMwfiIR8TJXhr0v8.99" aftewrwards (from OHM site) : Stereophile Magazine called the Ohm Walsh 5s: "one of the best American box speakers made" Years ago Stereophile Magazine reviewed the Ohm Walsh 5 speaker. Their conclusion back then was that current model had some unique qualities and was on the "verge" of greatness. |
" I was sure that a 1/3-octave frequency sweep would reveal an aberrant frequency response" That doesn't sound like someone who does a lot of testing! A 1/3 octave resolution is as corse as my software allows to go and I would never use that for serious testing. It's kind of using 10000 iso for portrait photography or gravel instead of sand for a foundation not to smart. Look at the readout, it gives you a feeling for whats going on but thats it. This readout was me watching TV, not testing. http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/peterhorvath6233/media/image_zpstgppmvnp.png.html?o=0 |
There is a huge discrepancy. That is flat response measured and judged one of the best speakers of its time by a leading publication in the industry and yours is way out of the ballpark for reasons unknown. Yours do not look like anything I’ve ever seen measured from any decent pair of speakers working properly. Something is wrong. I doubt it will matter that much but try 1/3 octave on your gear maybe and then apples and apples comparison can at least loosely be made. If not comparable then I do not know what to tell you other than your measures and those from Stereophile are radically different for reasons unknown. |
Mapman being a fanboy is one thing, but questioning and seeing plenty of frequency charts from 2 different software packages and still think that some thing is wrong (two separate drivers looking identical) is a little silly. I have been in the audio industry for years although I'm retired at this point gives me some background to say what you see is correct. Never said I had to make large corrections but the Walsh driver does what it does and not one bit more.... |
My engineering experience tells me to believe what you actually measure and not what someone else tells you. Also, many magazine guys, in all fields, are typically writers first and technicians last. And I have first hand experience on that one. Believe who you will, but in the end it is the result that matters and not the conversation that gets you there. I love my used 4XOs, but was mightly disappointed in my new walsh 2.2000 upgrades so there is a variance in quality. |
Thank you t8kc.... everything I have done it has been on the up and up as I really don't have a dog in the fight. (just a bit) this is suppose to be for fun not a Paine in the rear end.... I started to deconstruct the spaghetti switch box, and finally removed the switcher late this afternoon. And I will replace all the nasty cheap stuff with copper or silver (all of them) and I'll replace them with WyreWorlds new OFC copper as I do care? I have capabilities of measuring FFT and laser interferometry if necessary. The top plate is now floating on top of the cabinet held down with wing nuts. The plan is to make a constrained layer part with aluminum, silicon sheets and Finnply, this should be a exciting next few weeks. I might even construct a 10 inch F clone from some very cool materials as I was privy to at my last job in material sciences... 1/3 octave is like driving a Beetle, my preference would be a Porsche Gt 3 RS that allows much much higher resolution...🇸🇪 PS. The McClaren 650 S is even better, lighter and cool as..s#*_! |
Stereophile has been doing and publishing these measures for years so I would not discount them totally. peter you should talk to JS then to figure out what is going on. Or maybe someone else here with expertise in this area could comment. Obviously your results apply to your speakers only. But there is nothing to indicate they apply to any other pair so you should be cautious in public there. I personally suspect you have a crossover issue at this point but I am no expert. JS could help you much better. I am an engineer and have image processing background but not an audio engineer. 1/3 octave as I understand it is essentially a low pass filter that produces a more generalized output. That would be useful to enable a general comparison between data sets filtering details that matter for exact tonality but not for that initial purpose. In any case you need apples and apples measures to compare at all. 1/3 octave apples apples comparison is only one possible with data and tools available at this point that is apples/apples. It would show general response with enough resolution to determine if two general response curves are similar or not. From what we know so far I would predict they continue to be radically different with yours still showing large gradual dropoff all else staying the same. The review mentioned a small tonality variation detected. It was not clear to me if that was detected by ear only or supported by other measures done but not mentioned. John Atkinson surely has/had good ears but I I would still hope the latter. Also these were original OHM 5s reviewed. I had original Walsh 2s, same gen Walsh drivers and I a/b compared them to my newer series 3 models when I got them and I can attest that there were significant midrange tonal variations and the originals were nowhere close. Stereophile may have been generous with their assessment and not published unflattering info perhaps knowing JS would attempt to address which he did starting in series 2 models shortly after. |
Without comment on the accuracy of the graphs supplied here... I’ve measured my Ohm 100s with several software packages (including, among others, the custom designed, high-Rez Studio Wizzard package and Audyssey pro). I have never seen anything like the roll-off under discussion here. Different speaker, different room, different measurement hardware/software/operator = different result. Whatever has resulted in the graphs published here should not be extrapolated to the Walsh/Walsh-like drivers that Ohm employs across their line. |
Peter regarding the earlier charts of walsh driver alone, which surely must be different than stereophile reported results on the entire original Walsh 5 speaker, there is no data elsewhere to compare with so it is what it is. There is no way to know know if it is normal for these speakers or not. That can never happen with a single sample in any case. But if your complete speaker with tweeters in play roll off as indicated, I am willing to bet there is something wrong with this patient. Stereophile indicated virtual flat response to 20khz measured with the original Walsh 5's from early 80's tested. Data presented as I understand it would seem to point to the crossover in that my understanding is all measures were done with drivers connected to crossover. If it is the crossover then the walsh driver alone measures might be affected as well. No way to know that for certain though with the data available so far that I can see. Unless I’m missing something I’d suggest talking to JS and see what he has to say. |
I think but am not certain that 4XOs are original gen 1 Walsh drivers like Walsh 2s but made a tad more efficient for easier mating to amps. I have not heard latest X000 generation but my working assumption is that most OHms gen II or later sound more similar than different whereas gen 1 is much different. Mine are both series 3, one gen older than latest. OHm walsh series/generations are as I recall: originals 1,2,4,5, and XO variations (5s were subject of the Stereophile review I referenced above). series 2 circa late 80s series 3 circa later 90s X000 current and around for at least 5 years or so now I think. Each series historically appears to get a revision/fresh up every ten years or so. |