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.
A cool thing with the Ohm Walsh speakers these days is that all parts of the driver, including crossover, is inside the can.
That was not the case with older Ohm Walsh speaks, like original Walsh 2s.
The crossovers were mounted separately in the cabinet. Upgrades from older Ohms to newer ones with self -contained drivers is a little more difficult at first (the old crossover board has to be removed or bypassed at minimum) but once you get to the new driver design, any aspect of the sound can be changed by swapping cans.
And the cans are the easiest part to ship to/from Ohm as needed.
A very clever, flexible and practical design for a company that lives on providing upgrades, tweaks and support direct to customers!
Yes, I have to say that Ohm is a very special company. And that remains true whether or not I choose, in the end, to keep their speakers.
I opened the box, and found, on top (the speaker elements are double boxed) a very long, Phillips head screwdriver, a very fancy, stainless steel, ballpoint pen with the Ohm company logo on it, and a note, signed by the president of the company, John, that reads:
"Thank you for choosing Ohm speakers.
We are sorry that you are having a problem.
Please accept this pen as a partial payment for being Ohm's field technician.
Your years of great sound is the main payment.
Good Listening!"
That's pretty special.
Anyway, the drivers are bolted down to a sheet of plywood inside the inner box. I will try swapping them out this weekend and report back. But I can't imagine another company going so far out of their way to make things right for a customer.
At the end of the 6moons review of the Micro Walsh Talls, there is a brief section with pictures about Ohm, the company.
You'll see that they work out of very humble quarters and do little advertising to keep the overhead low, make products that are practical and affordable and put the money only where it really matters to make better sound.
I picked up my speakers directly from them, and saw their digs... It's just like the pictures, and all of the guys who work there are super nice. While I was there, John was telling me that a certain microphone company uses Ohms, due to their neutral character (he wouldn't mention which company).
Years ago I remember someone remarked how John sent a tweaked pair of Ohms to accommodate their particular space requirements. I think the upgradeability is really a plus.
BTW, have you guys checked out the Ohm upgrade review that John Potis wrote? It also sheds some light on what Ohms are all about...
Thanks for mentioning that review. I just reread it. Potis I think does a great job of describing the Ohm "sound." If you want speakers that are etched, hyperanalytical or ultra-revealing, these probably won't float your boat. And it's because the Arros do lean more in those directions, I think, that this is such a difficult and interesting choice for me. I'll be very curious what the tweaked drivers that John sent me sound like. Again, let me emphasize (for anybody who cares!) that room positioning does really affect the tonal balance and imaging specificity of the Ohms. More to come...
"If you want speakers that are etched, hyperanalytical or ultra-revealing, these probably won't float your boat. And it's because the Arros do lean more in those directions, I think, that this is such a difficult and interesting choice for me."
I've been reading this thread over the past couple of weeks, as I recently started auditioning the Ohm Walsh 100-S3s in my 12x15 living room. I've been paying particular attention to the way the sound of the Ohms is characterized compared to other speakers, like the Arros that Rebbi describes in the quote. In my case, I'm comparing a wonderful pair of GMA C-1s, which I love, to the Ohms and I'm also dealing with the "trade-off" between the detailed, pin-point imaging of the GMAs to the more rounded, room-filling imaging of the Ohms. This experiment got started because my spouse has tolerated the look of the GMAs, but hasn't been happy about the space they take up and the way they look. I, of course, am willing to overlook everything about them and their impact on our living space because they sound so good.
But here's what I've come to realize these past few weeks. The GMAs do have a very small sweet spot, and I've been hogging that seat, which is the best seat in the living room. If I get home and wife or kid is already sitting in that seat, I have to sit off to one side of the sweet spot, which means I hear only the speaker on that side. Alternatively, I ask the person to move, which usually results in their leaving the room. The net result is often that everyone cleared out when I wanted to listen to music.
Since I've had the Ohms, though, I find that audio elements like imaging, balance, and depth are quite acceptable even when sitting to one side of the room. And the sweet spot is quite musically engaging, even though the sharply defined imaging isn't nearly as effective as the GMAs. Plus, and this is key for me -- no one leaves the room when Dad wants to listen to music! I find it's far more satisfying to sit around these winter nights in New Hampshire, listening to Beethoven, say, with my family nestled around me.
My wife prefers the lower profile size of the Ohms, so that's a net win.
And now for my main point (sorry to be so long-winded) -- what I've come to realize about detailed imaging and other audio attributes of speakers is that, in the end, they really do not reproduce the way that live music sounds to me. I do listen to live music pretty regularly, and what I've been paying careful attention to lately is that no matter where I sit in the theater, arena, or club, I really do not hear imaging. If I pay careful attention to the saxophonist who's playing off to the left of the stage, I realize the sound I hear is omni-directional! The tone of the instrument is, of course, real saxophonee -- which no stereo system can come very close to (although the GMAs really nail instrumental voices). But the "sound stage" and "imaging" are a figment of my visual imagination -- I see the saxophone player off to the left and trick myself into hearing hm "there." But if I close my eyes, I hear that he's not there; he's everywhere! Wherever I wander in the room, there he is, blowing beautifully, filling the house.
And that aspect of live music is one that Ohm understands. A small trade-off in fabricated imaging in return for pleasurable listening anywhere in the room. For me, they're keepers.
I agree with Winegasman 100%, live music doesn't have precise impaging, it has a more diffuse imaging like the Ohms or the Castle Harlech's I used to own with a top firing driver, and although the Ohms I believe are closer to live music some listeners will still prefer the very precise image that usually comes with a much smaller "sweet spot".
You're not the first to observe that imaging is more characteristic of good stereo than of most live performance. However, it does contribute to the illusion of live performers in the listening room. Strangely, I find that the Ohms do an excellent job of preserving this illusion - images have real "body" and hang in space. The only shortfall I've found is the lack of dramatic front to back differentiation that you find in many of the better minimonitors, for example.
It's a bit strange that lots of folks find the Ohm imaging "diffuse", while I don't at all. I definitely wouldn't ascribe this to omnis in general, because the MBLs are probably the best imaging speakers I've ever heard.
Marty
Ironically, many people have described the Ohms as very dynamic, while I find this to be their sole significant shortcoming. Maybe it's just me.
I'm grateful to you for your post... it's very helpful!
Have you played around much with the positioning of your Ohm's? I'm wondering if you've noticed the changes in tonal balance and imaging specificity that I have, in response to changing the speaker-to-speaker spread distance.
Also your room isn't that much larger than mine. Do you find the 100's to be well suited to that room? I thought that the bass out of the 100's might be too heavy for a room that size.
Don't apologize for being "long winded." I liked reading your thoughts!
My guess is the MBLs are imaging champions for many because they are more omnidirectional on the top end than the Ohms.
The Ohms use a single soft dome tweeter these days in the series 3 versions as I understand it from John Strohbeen. These are normally mounted to face inwards 45 degrees. The soft dome design provides good dispersion as tweeters go, but it is not omnidirectional.
With the Ohms, when listening on-axis your ears receive sound directly from the tweets, the timbre is brighter and the imaging tends to sound more "etched" like more conventional box designs. When not, the timbre is less bright and the imaging sounds less etched, but the imaging still holds up in terms of being able to localize instruments, recording lines, etc.
Mapman, Recalling an earlier conversation that we had on the subject of imaging of Ohms, omni's, and conventional speakers, FWIW I set up my conventional speakers so that the tweeter axis crosses in front of the listener position on about the same angle that the Ohm use. Interesting isn't it. Perhaps if Rebbi hasn't already tried this, he might find it interesting to do so with his boxes. BTW, this set up also solved some first reflection problems from side walls and ceilings that I had.
Rebbi, Yes. It only takes a couple of seconds and is instantly reversible, especially with small speakers. :-) But, keep the distance relationships between speakers and listening position more traditional...don't get them too far apart (mine are set up with the speakers about 9ft apart and my ears just over 10feet from the speakers.
Winegasman, This is another interesting comparison! Once I heard time coherent speakers, I had a tough time going back to most dynamic speakers. I listened to Meadowlarks and Vandersteens, and I liked how the music spilled into the room, drawing me in, instead of being fired at my ears. But like you said, the sweet spot can be small. The Ohms remind me of time coherent speakers, but with a sweet spot that allows more than one person to listen.
"Have you played around much with the positioning of your Ohm's? I'm wondering if you've noticed the changes in tonal balance and imaging specificity that I have, in response to changing the speaker-to-speaker spread distance.
Also your room isn't that much larger than mine. Do you find the 100's to be well suited to that room? I thought that the bass out of the 100's might be too heavy for a room that size." ------------------------------------------------------------ Positioning -- I spoke to John at Ohm about this too -- he said rotate the speakers from tweeters facing straight ahead (inner edge of speaker is then facing straight ahead) to tweeters facing each other (outer edge of speakers facing straight ahead), and listen for most preferred highs. He also said to experiment with distance from rear wall -- the speakers do well when close to the rear wall, but can benefit from some air behind them. (By the way, the lighter weight of the Ohms, compared to the GMAs, makes this experimentation much easier; the GMAs, heavy and on spikes, are tough to rotate.) Here's what I've come up with so far:
when sitting in old sweet spot, critically listening, I have the speakers pointed so the tweeters are crossing at about where my head is. I also bring the speakers out about an extra foot from the rear wall -- their resting position is about 14 inches from rear wall, so for full-attention listening they're just over 2 feet from rear wall. That extra foot really deepens the soundstage. I wonder if folks who find the front-to-rear soundstage of the Ohms compressed are keeping them too close to rear wall?
for non-critical or off-center listening, I orient the speakers as originally recommended by Ohm -- tweeters crossing in middle of room, fronts of speakers pointing straight ahead. If I leave the speakers oriented with tweeters pointing more straight ahead and then sit off-center, I find the width of the soundstage collapses and I'm hearing mostly the speaker I'm closer to. But, get this -- with speakers pointing straight ahead, I can sit in recliner that's directly in front of the left speaker and the soundstage is maintained! That's a great trick and has made everyone in the family happier, since if I get home when they're already hanging in the LR I don't have to ask everyone to move -- just point the speakers straight ahead and sit off to the one side and get great stereo soundstaging and pretty plausible imaging.
As for size of the room and the bass of the 100's, I couldn't be happier. I was debating trying the micro talls to save money, but knew I'd be always wondering about the extra oomf of the 100's, so I just went ahead and ordered them. I find the bass from these speakers incredibly satisfying, fully integrated in the sound, fast, and articulate.
Here's my homespun recipe as best I can describe it for best locating the Ohms based on my experience.
I find the sound overall is most balanced, focused and natural when the tweets are oriented so that two imaginary perpendicular lines projecting out from them cross just in front of your listening position.
Also, regarding best placement regarding soundstage and imaging, I go back to my observation in my Ohm f-5 review that the Walsh drivers act like sound projectors.
The imaging is best "focused" by placing these away from the rear and side walls so that reflected sound from each symmetrical location on these walls relative to the each speaker location arrives at your ears in the main listening location more or less at the same time, which is equivalent to saying that the overall distance the reflected sound travels is the same.
Regarding tonal balance, adjust the top end by orienting the tweeters accordingly and adjust the low end by moving the speaks closer or further away from the rear wall as needed.
Only much larger and more expensive speaks can match the overall lifelike presentation of the Ohms when set up properly, IMHO.
"Ironically, many people have described the Ohms as very dynamic, while I find this to be their sole significant shortcoming."
What amplification are you using, what is the room size, and which drivers in the Ohms?
Room size mismatch and difficulties some otherwise very good amps might have driving complex loads are the most likely culprits for less than stellar dynamics I have heard.
I've used 150 wpc Bel Canto and 200+ wpc TAD ss amps with similar results from my Ohm 100s - in a large room with dual Velodyne subs. To address your curiosity from a previous post, I'm now experimenting with KT88 (and KT66) based Prima Luna amps. So far it's plusses and (more) minuses, but I'll post further on this tube experiment when I've got 'em dialed in a little better.
Mapman, Thanks a lot for your placement advice. I think I'm awfully close to having the optimized positioning for my MWT's. Imaging is precise now and yet the sound "blooms" out into the room. Listened to Diana Krall singing "Let's Face The Music And Dance" tonight and it was mesmerizing. Donald Fagen's "Nightfly" sounded great, too. Very smooth and dimensional.
Which Bel Canto specifically? Is it a Class D? Does it double or near double power into 4 ohm?
Also it appears you've had the 100s for about a month. Very possibly they are not fully broken in yet? Dynamics on my Ohm 5's improved dramatically over time in comparison to when they arrived.
My 100s were acquired 2nd hand and were fully broken in when I got them prior to the 5's, so I had these for reference as the 5's broke in.
The Bel Canto amp is class D. You may be right about break-in or amp matching as the tube experiment is proving most interesting re: dynamics. Could be the switch to tubes or could be time passing, but dynamics are improving - at this point, I suspect it's the tubes. Before too long I'ff switch back to the TAD ss monos to get a better handle on causality. When I do feel confident about the results I'll start a new thread on Ohm & Tubes.
Marty
PS - Regarding imaging, your point about the MBLs going omni full range vs. the Ohm's crossing to directional high frequency drivers (aimed off axis) is well taken. However, the Ohm's directional tweeter only crosses in over 8K (it's really more a supertweeter in that regard) so I'm not sure that vocal images are really being affected significantly. In any event, imaging via my 100s has been great in every respect other than front to back layering.
I'd be willing to bet break in is a factor still at this point.
Imaging and dynamics improved significantly in my system with intro of the Audio Research sp16 tube pre, so I suspect some of what you hear is due to the tubes as well.
I'm curious specifically about the low end with tube power amplification versus the Class D, if it is full, extended, controlled, and balanced as well as dynamic with the tube power amp.
In one of my emails to John Strohbeen, he said that he preferred amplifiers with high dynamic power ratings into low impedences. He said that the MWT dips to about 4 ohms at the low frequency cut off, but it's above 8 most of the time.
Just a little more info from the field - When I switched from a McIntosh MA 6200 to my current Cyrus 8vs2, I noticed extended bass with a lot more control. I'm sure there are a lot of factors, but one that I keep thinking of, is the high damping factor of the Cyrus...
I'm using subs - so it's hard for me to say much about the low end. John S told me that the 100s don't fall below 4.8 ohms, so a tube amp might work well. However, quick impressions reveal that the tonal balance of the speaker shifts noticeably with my Prima Lunas (4 ohm taps). I'm going to try the 8 ohm taps next to see what happens. Stay tuned..
Marty
PS If I get the energy, I'll rewire for full range operation with my ARC VT-130SE amp. The ARC is balanced in only, so rewiring is a pain in the ass, so that's a fairly big "if".
It's not a thick metallic grille, but more of a thin wire mesh material with what looks like some sort of foam liner. And it's supposed to be acoustically transparent.
I assume that the "cage" is there to physically protect the driver unit. I swapped out the standard drivers today with the modified ones sent to me by John at Ohm and it was, maybe, a five-minute-per-speaker process: remove four bolts, lift off the driver unit, unsnap a plastic connector, and attach the new driver. It's all self-contained.
Tvad, I'm still figuring it out... the modified set of drivers sounds more detailed and "alive" than the original set... at least in an initial listening, but I want to fiddle with placement a bit and give them some time to break in before making that judgment. As for being a permanent owner of 2 pairs, it's not financially an option... one of them will have to get voted off the island, so to speak. ;-)
Mapman, What was done to the drivers? That's actually a very interesting question! When I spoke with John, he said something like (and this is a paraphrase from my unreliable memory), "We have a lot of room to play with that tweeter." The impression I got was that he wanted to "goose" or somehow play with the tweeter response. What he did, exactly, I'm not sure, but the difference is palpable right out of the box. For example, I have a Sheryl Crow greatest hits CD. The recordings are very processed, very "studio" sounding, and yet, very pleasing in their own, rock 'n roll way. The opening instrumental sequence of Every Day Is a Winding Road, begins with some noodling around on an organ (the notes seemed to float in midair... very cool) followed by complex bongo drumming coming from both channels, before the guitars kick in. The first thing I was aware of listening to this track, which I like quite a bit, was that the modified speakers really projected a sense of "fingertips slapping skins" on those bongo drums... I mean, they sounded great before, but now you could really make out the particular percussive surface being played. This was quite startling. Also, I was listening to The Goodbye Look from Donald Fagen's first solo album, which begins with a lot of Marimba and other percussion, and the sense of being surrounded by all those instruments was remarkable. By the way, for what it's worth, I was interested to see the construction of the drivers themselves. At the bottom of the drivers, you see what looks like a typical speaker cone like you might see on, say, a 4 inch or 5 inch midrange driver. Not knowing any better, it looks as if the driver fires downward into the speaker cabinet... I mean, it seems to have a rubberlike surround and everything. Of course, you can't actually look inside the driver, so you cannot see the cone shaped Walsh radiator. But I do wonder what's actually going on in there... Both on the old and new set of drivers, that bottom surface that looks like a speaker cone is written on with blue ink or blue paint. There is a date, presumably, the date of manufacture, along with an arrow pointing in the direction of the super tweeter. Also, each set of drivers is painted with the initials "JS" -- presumably, John Strohbeen. Also, the newer set of drivers each has the letters SP (presumably for "special") painted on it. Interesting...
I wonder if anyone has compared the Ohms to some of the Gallo Reference series. I just sold my Reference IIs, and I'm about to purchase some Reference 3.1s. It sounds like some 100-S3s may be a good alternative.
The CDT of the Gallo speakers is truly a magical transducer, and I was hesitant to sell the pair that I'd had for about 10 years, but someone contacted me and offered me the right price so I figured I'd try the new Gallos. This thread has me interested in hearing the Ohms though.
I was interested in and auditioned Gallo Ref 3's for my larger listening room after acquiring the Ohm 100's and prior to acquiring the larger Ohm 5's.
I auditioned the Ref 3's in comparison to the top of the line $11000 Quad electrostats. I liked them very much but the Quads clearly blew them away in most every way, at least when I heard them...there was no comparison as one would expect for the price difference. The Gallo Ref 3's did very well for their cost though.
I considered the Quads the reference sound I was shooting for and the Ohm 5s which were more in the price range I was shooting for refurbished. The Ohm 5's on my system are in that same league overall I would say but clearly with better dynamics and muscle.
I have not a/b'd the Ohms directly with either Quads or the Gallo' Ref 3's though.
Well, I've made a decision: it's the Ohms! I'm not sure which drivers I'm going to keep, the originals or the modified ones from John. But I've made a decision and the Totems are for sale on Audiogon as of today!
It was a difficult decision, but for me, the defining moment came last night when I was listening to an old LP featuring Dave Grusin and a bunch of other jazz musicians playing Vince Guaraldi tunes from the series of Peanuts television specials, on the old GRP label. (The album is called, Happy Anniversary, Charlie Brown!) I had had the Ohms set up in the system, and it just after listening to the third track on the album called, "History Lesson," I put the Arros back in the system, and felt a real sense of letdown: that huge, room-filling Ohm presentation just collapsed, and the Arros -- certainly no slouches in the imaging department, sounded "collapsed" by comparison. Additionally, there were times when the Arros sense of "detail" seemed to give way to a brightness that I found grating/fatiguing.
One of the things that this whole experience has definitely taught me is that while there are, certainly, speakers that are objectively terrible, a lot of what we argue about is a matter of personal preference. There are certainly things that the Totem Arros do exceedingly well -- for one thing, as the speakers have continued to loosen up, I have found their bass response to be astonishing, especially given their size. But if, like me, you find yourself starting to get hooked on the Ohm "room filling" sound, it's hard to accept something "less," even if the level of imaging/detail at times seems more precise.
"But if, like me, you find yourself starting to get hooked on the Ohm "room filling" sound, it's hard to accept something "less,"
You nailed it. Most Ohm owners including myself would agree I think.
If I had to chose 1 pair of speakers, I'd have to let all my conventional dynamic design speaks, including my cherished Dyns and Triangles and vintage Ohm Ls go for this reason mainly.
Good choice! I'm enjoying my 100-s3s more and more every day, as they "break in." I find that they seem to do piano particularly well, with compelling realism in both the delicate upper register and palpable authority with the lower register -- like with my real piano, I can FEEL the bass notes.
Winegasman, Glad you are enjoying yours, as well. As I mentioned, I'm still not sure whether I am going to keep the original drivers or the modified ones that John sent to me. Perhaps a pair of speakers like yours might be in my future, although I'm not sure whether the 100s would overwhelm my room, which is relatively small. Besides, having taken something of a bath on the cost of the Totems, I need to lay off my audio purchases for a while! Anyway, enjoy!
Rebbi - Happy New Year, and congrats on your decision. Although it cost you more $, that was great that you held on to the Totems and went through the demo process a little longer.
Like you said, so much back and forth (sometimes very heated) is just different tastes. But I think this thread was a great testament to Ohm's ability to really deliver - Totems are no slouches, I've heard them all.
If you can, please share some insights on the second set of drivers that John sent you, and let us know what you decide on.
Winegasman, the Ohm's ability to handle piano is something that I've heard from other listeners - there's even an old thread here somewhere that mentions it. Besides the room-filling sound, IMO, the crossover-less midrange really makes a difference for a more natural sound...
"Besides the room-filling sound, IMO, the crossover-less midrange really makes a difference for a more natural (piano) sound..."
I briefly suggested Walsh driver speaks for piano on another recent thread on the topic, but didn't go too deep into why.
The single Walsh driver covers most of the range needed for realistic piano from the low to mid-high range plus provides the sound stage needed to sound realistic. It is very unique in this aspect that lends itself particularly well for piano IMHO.
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.
