bondman, here is the quote from one of my earlier posts.
"Ok, the jury is in.
The Walsh 4s win.
After much listening and knob twisting, there is now no doubt.
The W4s have more definition and are more transparent.
I was able to turn the bass up a notch on the tone control which gave it enough kick to satisfy me.
The defining test was listening to the intro from "Money for Nothing".
The drums had much more tone and roundness compared to the W2.2000 speakers which sounded flatter.
At that point I couldn't go back.
Now, what to do?
It looks like a pair of Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers will be for sale soon.
Or, I might relagate them to garage duty."
What surprised me was that I contacted Ohm about the issues and they just shined me on. They were pushing the line that it must be the room. This ignored the fact that I did a direct comparison between their 2 speakers in the same location.
I think that to assume all Ohm-Walsh speakers sound the same and are all voiced alike is to ignore the realities of production. A human is assembling them from parts sourced from who knows where. My 2.2000 upgrade speakers, with 6 months of break-in, never got better. As soon as I auditioned the 4XOs, the game was over.
|
Interesting.
The advantage of XO models (compared to other originals like 1,2,4,5) is that they are advertised easier to drive and more efficient which is certainly a factor that might influence results positively in many cases.
I suspect they are likely more efficient than comparable newer 1000 models but have not verified that.
As a sidenote I also recall reading something from JS in his OHM site blog I think that indicated smaller models in a line are less efficient than larger ones, which would seem to make sense.
Also be certain not all OHMs of a particular model or line always sound alike. The sound heard can vary widely for many reasons. Being omnis/radials, room acoustics IS a particularly key factor as always. Amp used, quality of source and all the other usual culprits (including operating condition) can come into play as usual. Its a team sport. Speakers alone make no sound.
Also worth mentioning of course that Walsh 4s are quite a bit larger than 2.2000 and I am a steadfast believer that size always matters when it comes to speakers and their ability to put out large or sufficient amounts of good sound.
Another point is that as I recall with X000 series prices did go up in general for speakers of a certain size in the line so you get a smaller speaker (with advertised better drivers) for your money. That's where refurbs, sales and trade-ins can really help though.
|
mapman, based on your speaker timeline, my 4XOs are of the series 2 variety. The Ohm website lists the manufacturing date range as late 1980s to early 1990s. If Ohm had made improvements up through the current series (which my 2.2000 are), they should blow away the "old" 4XO version.
I used an amp with sufficient power (Parasound 1500) and increased the volume during the 2.2000 testing to compensate for the efficiency difference which isn't huge (2 dB).
The problem that I am talking about is the inability of the 2.2000 speakers to reproduce sound that is clearly there in the 4XO speakers. Speakers typically don't create sound, they reproduce it from a source. So, if the source is the same and sound is missing from one set of speakers then something is wrong with the speakers.
It seems to me that trying to rationalize missing sound on the "room" when two sets of speakers share the same space is a stretch. I'm happy to be proven wrong as I would rather have both sets of my speakers play well.
I also think that trying to discount actual users expriences as spurious by comparing them to what was reported in a magazine years ago using a different set of speakers isn't the last word when discussing what is happening today.
I like Ohm speakers. The engineering genius of Lincoln Walsh is appreciated. When actual users report on the possible failings of the Ohm manufacturing company, I think it is important to talk about it. Ohm makes a profit constructing speakers; they need to hear (are you listening JS?) what is going on with their product and how their customers are reacting.
|
t8 you would know best. . I would expect the two to have differences in sound to go along with the different driver size, cabs and age. That’s about it. If gen two rather than gen one then that is a step in teh right direction IMHO.
|
Finally some action on the thread...lol
I think the big surprises for everyone is the Walsh driver falling of so early.
The opportunity for me to take a closer look at each driver is pretty much
exclusive in the whole scheme of things IE no one else has done it as far as I have seen
around the net. The extension of the tweeter is weird, looks like a filter blocking the signal.
I am ordering up a new cable for my signal generator to see if that's an issue.
I did take the switch circuit out yesterday and I'm going back to work on it momentarily.
Im sure cleaning up the wiring mess and removing the switches will greatly improve imaging and dynamic response. One odd thing is that the signal is inverted right at the signal input
so I will test that out....
Till then.......🇸🇪
|
Soooooo.....
The thought I had was, what would happen if I bypass the Ohm X-over and insert my own
that I built for another project.
The X-over is a simple 8 ohm (wrong impedance) cheap parts that I used for testing
and voila' my friends!! It worked like a charm, not perfect as It need to be a 4 ohm impedance unit, but never the less it works.
I'm surprised every day and It's a blast, can't wait to continue with some more testing.
More to come soon my friends....🇸🇪 |
peterr53, keep up the good work.
Very interesting.
I am seriously thinking about looking at what is under the cans of my 2.2000 upgrade that has issues.
|
Also, peterr53, if you would like to test the fall off of another set of Ohms, just let me know (I'm in SoCal).
|
...50 pages, wow. I guess there's 'life' in Walsh's after all. ;)
Guess I'll just have to keep tinkering....*S* |
T8kc just email me and we can work something out.
Tomorrow is designing day, as I'm seeing my mettal guy on Tuesday. Everything is taken down to its molecules, and I figured out some more secrets of the beast....lol
aExcitement in the air....🇸🇪 |
So it's Saturday and I'm suppose to do some pre tax work for the CPA but I'll do that later...hehehe
After holding of on digging in to the crossover board, I finally said
"to hell with caution" and removed the the whole board...barabing
It is amazing how complicated and convoluted the whole design is.
The switching network can not do anything positive for the audio signal. No oxygen free copper as far as the eye can see and plenty of HMG.......Hot melt glue lol
So all that is going bye bye, a new design for the tweeter modules
with micro adjustability for time alignment and the Rear tweeter will have a volume control. The top plate where the Walsh driver is attached will be made from a sandwich of aluminum, and rubber and I'm decoupling the plate from the cabinet as much as possible.
So........that's it for now.........🇸🇪
|
I posted some new system pics today. Same ohms except Ls got a room promotion. |
Thank you for showing your cool system.... |
I went to visit peterr53 today and found out something interesting about my Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers. They need more than the 200W/channel that I am currently using (Parasound 1500). When we hooked up the speakers to his 1,000 w/channel system, the sound I originally expected came through.
We played the sample I use (intro to Money for Nothing - Dire Straights) with some revealing drum whacks. They sounded correct. Now I know why my 4XOs sound good with the same amp; they require just enough power from the amp. Funny how threshold situations can cause all sorts of confusion. So mystery solved! Now I have to start the search for more amp power.
Peterr53 has already outlined his system here, but hearing it in person is amazing. His subs (18") blow away any I have heard to date. The whole house shakes and you think you have been punched in the chest by Mike Tyson. Very viseral and impressive.
He previewed an action movie and the added bass really made it an experience to remember; better than the local cinema sound for sure. He claims 8 Hz and I believe it.
I can't wait to hear the finished product of his Walsh 5 modification.
|
Good morning my friend...
Its always fun to meet new forum member in the flesh.
Tate was kind enough to bring his 2/2000 and at a precursory listen
I was pleasantly surprised. Tate left the speakers for me to do some
deep deep testing and some measurements when I get a chance so we'll find out
how they measure in a few days......
The Ambien is asking me to lay down the iPad before I say something I'll regret
in the morning...🇸🇪 |
t8kc - Very interesting post about your 2.2000s. I feed my 2000s with 150 watts per side (Odyssey Audio HT3 w/cap upgrade). But, IIRC, Mapman feeds his big Walsh's with 500 or 1000 watts per side (Bel Canto).
I think mine sound good with the mere(!) 150 watt amp because I cross them over (1st order) at 40 Hz to my powered Vandy subs. I did once have a pair of 500 watt mono blocks from Arion Audio for a demo in my system. They sounded great, but I was hard pressed to hear any big advantage over the Odyssey Audio amp in my system (again, which includes powered subs).
But if you want a good-sounding amp with plenty of juice, I would recommend a trial of the Arion Audio - http://arionaudio.com/. It appears they offer some sort of in-home audition program, and owner/designer Mike Kallelis is a terrific guy. |
t8kc, no doubt the more power and current the merrier with most OHM Walshes. At least if one wants the top notch sound possible with them.
I came to that realization early on when my current Ohm Walsh encounter started in 2008 or so and I think I have repeated it many times here over the years and will REPEAT IT AGAIN HERE. :^)
As I mentioned XO are more efficient (Xtra Output) so less amp needed for top notch results I would expect.
Also I find my larger OHMs in larger room benefits more from throwing the kitchen sink in terms of power and current at them but both do benefit.
OHM is not "high end" in its marketing and has sold many speakers over the years at prices that the average consumer might afford. Subsequently many OHMs have been used in underpowered or lesser systems over the years and full "high end" potential not realized. Many owners have no idea what they can do and most probably do not care that much until they actually hear the alternative.
500 w/ch Bel CAnto ref1000m amps I use (see system pics) are a great place to start used.
FOr something new I would look at 300 w/ch Peachtree or newer Bel Canto ref600. Maybe even d-sonic or Class D audio if budget is tighter.
I’ve run mine of good quality highly regarded 180 w/ch SS amp with no negative feedback and more limited current delivery. Meh in comparison.
BTW "cheap" or poorly made speakers would not hold up well at high volumes with 500w/ch thrown at them. My F5s never show any sign of strain or compression and I have probably not even hit the limit with them.
The worst thing to do ever is crank up an underpowered amp into clipping which can happen sooner than one might expect in many cases and before clear effects on sound is actually heard. Clipping is public enemy # 1 for good sound and is not talked about here these days nearly as often as it should be. An amp clipping also has greater chance of causing damage to any speakers.
|
mapman & bondmanp,
One option would be to buy a second Parasound 1500 (used) and run them bridged (mono). This would give 600+W/channel. First, I have to check my home wiring to make sure enough current is reaching the amp (doubly true with 2 amps). The never ending quest...
I am very happy that the 2.2000 upgrade was successful. It was getting depressing that maybe it was a waste of resources.
For now, I will chug along with the 4XOs until I can improve the system.
|
Sounds like a plan, t8kc. Keep us posted. |
t8 one advantage of Class D is ability to leave them on without running up the power bill.
My circuit breaker generally goes if I power up both ref1000m amps at the same time. I do one then the other and both are generally left on (as per manufacturer recommendation) from there unless I will be away for an extended period.
Once powered up I have never had the circuit breaker go when playing and I go pretty loud sometimes.
I have had other Class A, Class A/B amps flip the breakers in the past when running. |
An other alternative is to keep my current amp and add a powered subwoofer to unload the low frequencies (>80 Hz) on the Ohms. This might allow the 2.2000s operate on the current amp power while extending the bass range down into the mid 20 Hz area.
Any thoughts on that idea?
|
Hey Tate.....
Its almost 1:30 and I'm up, I played around just for fun with the 2/2000's and the first reaction was holy shit these are very hard to drive.....As I have a numerical volume control
and I went waaaaaaaaay further then any speaker I own for the same volume level.
The other thing is the way JS told you to aim the speakers is wrong, way wrong.
Just this little of moving the speaker about makes for a much better experience.
They also like to be back from the back wall 6' worked great. So I think you need a minimum of 500 ponys to get them to sing properly.
I also lifted them up on some books to see if the base was better.....yes
And I think you get better midrange energy emenating closer to ear height.
I will try to get some measurements tomorrow, but I have to see my metal guy
for some laser cut parts asap...
Its coming together nicely.........🇸🇪 |
peterr53: I have my 2000s on Sound Anchor cradle bases, mostly for stability, but they did help overall with imaging and cleaned up the sound a bit.
t8kc: The subwoofer option works for me. I am a big proponent of dual subs for stereo, however. Ohm makes a subwoofer, and I cannot say enough good things about my pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs with MHP5 battery biased crossovers. I actually owned the subs before the Ohms, and a seamless blend with the Ohms was crucial. In fact, had the 2000s not worked well with the Vandy subs, I would not have kept the Ohms (that's how much I like the subs). When you add the 300 watts per channel of the subs to my 150 watts from the Odyssey amp, you get pretty close to the 500 watts per channel mapman uses (I know the 300 watts are not driving the Ohms, but, still, it's interesting). I reviewed the Vandy subs here on Audiogon if you want to read more. They have a unique crossover architecture, and are designed for corner placement (why other subs are not, I will never understand). I guess it depends if you are a bass-freak, like me, or not. The 2000s put out a decent amount of bass down into the mid-30s, I would guess, but there is no substitute for a pair of ballsy powered subs.
But if I had the cash, I might go for the gold with both the subs and a bigger power amp. Nevertheless, I am content with my system as it is, even though I know it could always be better. |
Subs always make perfect sense. You just have to get the setup right in your room (with or without subs). Bass is typically the hardest thing to get just right due to room acoustics. If its not, it greatly impacts everything you hear, not just the bass.
|
Morning guys...
Subs (2) are a must, no if's and but's about it, but I have to say that 2/2000
are hard to mesh with the subs properly. I will try to play with phase and a lower
x-over to see if that helps. Bondmanp is absolutely right about getting them up from the floor with stands.....a must.....🇸🇪
|
Need to get floor interactions under control right up front as needed with bottom ported OHMs in particular. Isolating pads is an option to raising. Auralec SubDude platforms work well with my 2s (see sunroom system pic). Keep in mind if you raise the Walshes too high so your ears are below the cans when listening overall tonality will be negatively affected.
FWIW I’ve used subs with my smaller monitors in the past but never felt inclined to try with fuller range OHM Walshes. I don’t doubt getting the two integrated just right could be a challenge in many rooms. I know Bondman and Martykl have both gone that route with success though.
|
Hello I was following your thread with much interest . I am a owner of a pair of Walsh 2.2000 speakers . I have had my speakers modified by Ohm I had the cabinets shortened to 13 " and sealed like Ohms satellite style . I place my speakers on top of a pair of REL Q201E subs in stereo . I installed a signal line CAP in my VTL100 tube mono block amps to cut off the LF @ 50 HZ . To get the bass right in my room I use a DSPeaker Antimode 2.0 . I find ths Walsh driver sounds much more articulate this way. To get the sub crossover just right I am using a Mini DSP 2x4 for that purpose . I find the Ohm speaker has a lot to offer if used right . I have mine 2 feet from the wall and 7 feet apart on the long wall . I have not heard many systems better them mine but would like too. |
enginedr1960, that's a very interesting approach! I can easily see where that tight physical configuration up front could pay dividends.
|
enginedr1960: Thanks for the post. Sounds like a very cool rig. I love the DSPeaker, and was tempted a few times to buy one at audio shows. But I actually have a seemless blend with my subs and it is impossible to point them out as a sound source. Like the Ohms, the music just hangs there in mid-air, as if no speakers were in the room. Lovin' it!
I dio have a Pioneer AVR for watching video (my system is a combo 2-channel & surround setup), whch has the MCACC room EQ feature. Although the AVR is nnot in the signal chain for 2-channel sources, I can easily hear the improvement infrequency balance that MCACC calibration makes when I listen to music through te AVR. But the cost in transparency and other aspects of the sond are too great. Fortunately, my room is pretty good in terms of acoustics, though far from perfect. In fact, I have tone controls on my preamp and rarely use them. |
The mod on the speaker removed the inductor and switch on the binding post cup . The driver is wired direct to the speaker cables. The subs are on IsoAcoustics ISO -l8r200 stands 4 " tall the tweeter height falls in at 36" from the floor . The best thing about the Ohms is they are coherent . The Mini DSP is a great inexpensive tool for sub adjustments $ 105.00 @ Madisound |
Evening gents or ladies.... Finally got home from the metal shop and made some changes to the 2/2000. Found them to heavy in the bass as they were sitting about an inch or so from the carpet...yikes. Found some footers lifting them up another 3/4" and put them on my concrete platforms. Much better and there's still some midrange suckout that bothers both Tate and my self. The marking for direction was off big time, so I rotated the Speaker so the tweeter was aimed at the seating position. Wow better intelligibility, soundstaging and overall more fun. I think the speaker would sound way better crossed over at 80hz and have the subs pick up the heavy work. As they are they suck HP like mofo's almost in Apogee territory...lol I attached an image of the velocity stack now I just need to make it flush with the bottom of the speaker. I also came up with some F1 tech I want to add (I'll show it when speaker is done). I also have a very cool way to de-couple the tweeter module from the main body of the speaker......🇸🇪 https://www.flickr.com/photos/147883144@N08/32258881340/in/dateposted-public/ |
After hours of listening to the 2/2000 I figured something was wrong
with the bass and I needed to investigate further. The first thing was a monstrous air leak at the Left speaker mounting plate. This was fixed with a simple liberal helping of high viscous super glue.....
At this point I would have thought the problem would have been fixed, so I ran frequency sweep and found a weird hump at the lower frequencies on the Right speaker.....what the heck could it be?
Fast forward to this afternoon and after some inspection I found that the bass port tube had dislodged it self. Good and bad I guess, but I did get a chance to look at the innards of a 2/2000.....hehehe
5/8" particle board on the sides and bottom panel. As for bracing
it had 2 fir braces that looked more as holders for the stuffing then bracing. Two third of the bottom cavity was devoid of anything.
If Tate wants me to fix the tube I'll be happy too.
So back to the 4/5000...
I decided to remove the bottom panel take out everything and start over. first I need to dampen the wall of the cabinet in a proper way,
I will most likely use 1/4" aluminum, noise dampening sheeting and
wool stuffening. Bracing will be either Some mdf/ aluminum mix or
carbon fiber profiles available to me. I figured I have so much time invested why not do it right.....yeehaw 🇸🇪 |
Peter look into epoxy granite . its used in CNC machine bases .The new Ohm speakers are built out of birch plywood
|
It's funny that you gave some technical help as I was sitting and looking for ceramic ball bearings for part of my build (thank you McMaster). I also have looked in to this paper epoxy countertop material that's incredibly dense and easy to machine with carbide tipped tools. I am also planing on doing a little YouTube video series
on the build up, should be fun.
Im hoping to get started tomorrow with some video clips talking about some of my ideas and what I'm expecting from the build up.
Then in to the shop cutting the bottom panel out remove all the poor bracing from Ohm and plan on something new but looking like something you would find in a 800 series B&W. I might make a false wall on the outside panel. Fill it with dry sand to dampen vibrations.
The top mounting plate will be a sandwich of 3/16" steel and two sheets of 1/8" aluminum dampened with proper butyl rubber sheeting and glue. And to add extra stability to the whole part I'm adding 1/8" thick water jetted carbon plate.
If I had some more cash I would laser cut 1/2" plates to add even more stability..... 💯
Hope you guys are excited to see what can be done to make this
speaker amazing...🇸🇪 |
Can I ask you folks that own or have heard the ohm speakers how they really compare to others? I am at a toss up between getting the Pendragon theater speakers or an Ohm setup with 1000's across the front and the mini Omni surrounds for a 5.1 system in a 16x16 size room with plenty of power from a Sherbourn 7/2100 amp.
i ordered the ohms a week ago and am having second thought as I will wait about a month to get them and have never heard them anywhere. My mind tells me since it's an older design, are they really going to sound that good. I had the chance to hear the Pendragon towers yesterday and was pretty impressed.
I may be thinking too much about this, but I had my last system for about 18 years and I know it's a long term thing for me.
Btw, I had paradigm studio 40's before.
Thanks in advance for any advice! |
tuthman, this is a very simple and fairly quick response. Ohms and the Pendragon are very different in design and sound, not an apples to apples thing. I will say that Ohms work wonderfully in a home theater type setup(As well as 2-channel). I have used them in this situation and loved what they did. Hopefully, you have the ability to try your Ohms in your setup, and ability to return them if you are not completely satisfied. John offers a great deal this way. I have heard the Pendragons once, and while not my cup of tea, at least I didn't think for me at the time, I would say only your ears will tell you if either one of these, the Ohms or Pendragons are what you are looking for. Home demo is the best, your room, your gear, your ears! |
Peter if I were to dampen my cabinets I would cut some square wood glue and screw them in the corners . level the cabinet and pour in the epoxy it would take four pours . And if you want a liquid butyl rubber you can use Permatex the right stuff . |
tuthman - If you want to skip the many posts I've made about my Ohms, let me just say this: As an active member of my local audio club, I hear a lot of speakers. Major brands, DIY, you name it, in almost all price ranges. It is extremely rare that I walk away from a system, whether in a member's home, a retail store, or an audio show, wishing I could switch my Ohms for what I just heard. In almost every case, the few speakers that made me want to abandon my Ohms were far more expensive than my Ohms.
I have not heard the Pendragons, so I don't have an opinion on them.
My system is a combo stereo/home theater setup. I have 2000s up front, an Ohm center, Ohm MWTs (bought used) for the surround channels and a pair of Paradigm Atoms for the rear surrounds. I am very pleased with the sound for both 2-channel and surround use. Note that I have three subs: A pair of Vandersteen 2Wqs, one each for the 2000s, and an old Def Tech powered sub for surround use and LFE (I run the front L/R as full range and the rest as "small").
I always admit that my system could be better, but not without dropping a lot more coin than I can afford. I would give your Ohms a chance. I too had to wait for delivery, and seven years later, I am glad I waited. The Ohms blew away the Vandersteen 1Cs I had before the Ohms. Please remember to let them break in for a while. They will undergo significant changes as they break in. As for the Ohms being an older design, they have been refined over the years, and, IMO, good speaker design has not changed much in recent years. Aside from CAD, the laws of physics remain the same, and a good speaker is a good speaker. This is not like digital technology that is constantly evolving. And Ohm owner-designer John Strohbeen is a master at voicing loudspeakers, which is as much art as it is science. That I was able to get the level of audio performance I got for the money I spent still brings a goofy grin to my face, especially when the system is fired up and I am in the zone. Music is my drug of choice, and my Ohms deliver it right into my veins.
Lastly, remember, you have four months to return them. Take your time. I doubt you will be dissappointed. |
Well said bondmanp I have a system very similar to yours and feel the Ohm speakers brings out the emotional response to the music . My system gives me goose bumps on great recordings . The better the source the better they sound . |
I really appreciate the advice. It gets me more excited to get them. I know there was a reason I wanted to give them a chance in the first place.
Any experience with the sat 4 they make?
I am trying to decide if I should get those for the back two surrounds as they will be closer to the seating position as I will be pretty close to the back wall. |
tuthman - I haven't heard the sat 4's, but the long range plan is to replace the back surrounds with small Ohms at some point. Remember, they also come with a 120-day return option. OTOH, in my system, the Pioneer MCACC room EQ I use for surround sound does a good job of smoothing out any gross differences between the Paradigm Atoms and the Ohms. Honestly, if I was starting from scratch, I might skip the surround back channels in favor of Atmos channels. But financial realities mean that I am largely done for the forseeable future. |
Hi enginedr1960...
(And it looks like the tread is getting some action).
The idea is to keep the cabinets dimension on the outside the same,
but the inside will be remotely nothing like Mr. Walsh had originally designed. So basically what I'm making is a box in a box. Between the two walls there will be butyl rubber and sand. Due to the the way I'm stiffening the cabinet walls I will have to compartamentalize the sand pockets but I might drill holes between the layers. It'll be bitchin I promise. Any down side to all this? Yes the speaker will be way heavier, but hey that's OK with me. Next project this morning is
Tate's 2/2000 I'll take pictures and post them later....
As one of my favorite YouTube personalities say when signing of...
Keep your d.... in the vice ;) 🇸🇪
|
So after an afternoon of working on the 2/2000's I found a few reasons to cheer. I took em apart as one of the paper tubes were loose which set up some strange frequency issues/ chuffing which sucks. After looking at the sparse wadding, loose paper roll and a cabinet ringing from no sound deadening, I asked Tate if it was OK if I could do some changes, he declined but I felt that he had loaned me the speakers so I did some anyway......Sorry bud lol
So I installed the velocity stacks, sound deadening/ polyfill, caulked the air leaks. I realized that there was a switch on the x-over played around with it for a while and......Voila' I also rotated the "Can" so
the tweeter was pointing towards the listening position.
So why isn't Ohm doing this to the speakers is beyond me, now it's sounding fantastic with great imaging proper midrange and overall
a great speaker.
Dont give up, anything is possible if you try hard enough......🇸🇪 |
The Question to ask is who did the 2 to 2000 upgrade . I had my Walsh 2s upgraded by Ohm every thing was done wright they made new top plates for the 2000 drivers which are larger than the 2 drivers and the tweeter orientation was correct . |
Hey....
Did you look inside the cabinet?
As far as I know (but Tate can tell you) he got all the parts from Ohm
with the markings for direction of tweeter etc.
what I did is totally different, and if it would be my own speakers I would have gone further. But again the speakers are on loan from
Mr. Tate :)
I did play some very dynamic music running my subs and my wife absolutely loved and it was disco loud and still pleasant...
As far as for the Walsh driver read my previous take on them and
looking at these I'm spot on.
Nothing beats a drum....🇸🇪
|
Hi,
Yes, Ohm sends out the speaker cans already assembled. I installed them as per the directions with the orientation already marked on the base plates. It wasn't possible to see inside the cans so I couldn't check the position of the tweeter as it corresponded to the sticker on the base plate.
I wasn't happy with the sound and complained to Ohm, but they gave me the usual run around about fixing the room and a longer break-in.
I guess it wasn't just me who thought there was something wrong (thanks Peter).
Maybe we can have a listening session this weekend so I can enjoy the speakers at last. Now I have to start looking for some system upgrades before the 2.2000s replace my 4XOs.
|
With those kind of answers for issues, you do have to question who is running the shop on a day to day basis. Much can an should be done when you charge $1200 for an upgrade. I would include a new
bass port tube, Polly fill and maybe some cabinet braces to glue in.
And how about the switchable x-over that no one has mentioned once ??
Just a thought, time to go to bed gents....🇸🇪
|
Wow - just saw on ebay a pair of NOS(!) Ohm Walsh 3X0's. $750, plus shipping from TX. Boy, if I had the money laying around.... |
The one thing i feel would be a addition to the upgrade would be to mark the tweeter center line on the top of the can and use edge clamps to hold it down so you can rotate it to aim them as needed.. As for the bass adjustment switch on the binding post cup I discovered that when I wanted to change my binding posts to something better . This is a interesting thread the Ohm Walsh speaker has the potential too be not just a good speaker but a great one. |
I'm up early as I'm itching to demolish the inside of my 4/5000, buuuuuuut I have to see
my Dr. for a torn shoulder ( something ) this morning that I got when I was rear ended a few months back.
If they really wanted to figure out a way to rotate the basket (can) without having to
make all sorts of new holes it would be so very easy......
Make a main ring that's bolted to the speakerbox, have multiple threaded holes in a lets say
30 degree arc either way. The speaker will fit inside the ring grove.....rotate bolt down.
You can have these rings cast so the cost would be minimal in the whole scheme of things
thread the holes as needed and powder-coat/paint to match driver or chrome as a beauty ring.........Your welcome.
There are no problems only solutions.....🇸🇪
|
