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.
If you want to experience the non pareil imaging and soundstaging that the Walshs are capable of, you need only purchase and listen to any of the many excellent Mercury Living Presence reissue CDs. While I have Reference Recordings, RCA Living Stereo, Everest Ultra-anolog and Chesky CDs that sound excellent on the Walshs, the Mercurys are consistently in a class by themselves.
My understanding is most if not all of these are produced using a simple two channel process that lends itself optimally to enabling near-point source omnidirectional designs like the Ohms or Morrisons in particular to produce a lifelike reproduction of the soundstage.
I have the title "Preachin the Blues" on this label and it works quite well.
I also have Lindsey Buckingham's "Out of the Cradle" CD and that also is quite good.
Martykl, Just listened to excerpts of the tracks on Amazon and it sounds pretty trippy. I'll order it. Any other pop or other music you've heard so far that seems to show off the Ohm's well?
You really should get hold of Lindsey Buckingham's cd "Under The Skin" and play the track called "Show You How" (then play the rest of the cd, it's terrific). The Ohms create a sense of space filled by individual voices that will undoubtedly get you "gleeful"!
Marty
Disclaimer: This isn't audiophile style reproduction (it's clearly processed sound), but it will make you smile.
There's certainly a sense of glee when you sit down with some music you haven't heard in awhile, plunk it on the 'table with your new equipment, and are blown away by what you hear. So it was today when I came across a copy (unopened... how'd that happen??) of the “Nick Of Time” LP by Bonnie Raitt. Cry On My Shoulder, a song I like a lot anyway and hadn't heard in years, sounded amazing, just amazing, through the Ohm's. It's not so much a matter of “this sounds just like live music“ (although Bonnie's voice did sound awfully good) but more like, ”ah, so THIS is what the engineer was getting at!“ Electronic keyboards floated delicately out IN FRONT of the speakers, with Bonnie centered and set back between the speakers. I was pretty mesmerized. Okay, let me know when you start getting sick of these gushy posts, but I'm really loving these speakers. :-D
Replacing the old Carver pre-amp with the new Audio Research Sp-16 has really taken many CDs I've listened to recently to a higher and most musical level more in line with some of the very high end systems I have heard recently!
The sp-16 was a major improvement out of the box but seems to have opened up even further of late. The paperwork that came with it indicated it takes several hundred hours to open up fully. Wow!
I think you were the person who recommended the Charles Dutoit recording of Holst's “Planets.” I was listening to a bit of it tonight on the Micro Walsh Talls and wow.... I was so taken in by the sense of concert hall space... golly! :-) And James Taylor's voice on “October Road” was also beautifully rendered in space. And Buena Vista Social Club.... My, oh my....
Mapman, Yeah, I agree, about pianos sounding terrific on the Ohms. I have some Diana Krall with well recorded piano that the Ohms reproduce extremely well.
Zkzpb8, Thanks! And happy new year to you, too. I'll let everybody know what I decide about the drivers. What's a little confusing is that there are a couple of added variables in the mix, now. First, the amount of break in time that one pair of drivers has had over the other. Second, John mentioned (and I think it's correct) that speaker placement for the new drivers may be different than for the older ones. By the way, my impression is that what he's essentially done is to provide the kind of high frequency boost that some of the larger Ohm models provide via a switch, but that the Micro's do not.
Jwtrace, Great.... maybe John will just comp me on the upgrade to the 100-S3's! LOL! For all the publicity, that is!
OH, and check this out: I put the Arro's up on Audiogon, and they sold within about 5 hours! Even better, they sold to someone local who picked them up in Austin and paid cash. I was so dreading having to pack them up, especially because the plinths that the spikes go into attach to the bottoms of the speakers with something like Blu-Tac, and you can damage the finish when you try to detach the plinths. So not having to deal with the hassle of shipping was a blessing.
Mapman... By the way, the fellow who bought the Arro's was replacing a pair of Dynaudio Audience 52's, I believe. He was driving them with a Naim Nait amp, which I've heard is what Totem uses at show demos for electronics, so it should sound wonderful. He was very pleased!
"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.
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...
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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. ;-)
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.
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'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".
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
