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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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".
"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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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!
Yeah, it's been an interesting process. I played some Steely Dan this morning before going off to work ("Two Against Nature") and it sounded astounding... you'd have sworn you were listening to some sort of surround system, not a two-channel stereo... that's how much the music reached out and enveloped the room. Yet, with the Ohm's moved farther apart, the imaging was solid and lost the "swimmy" or indistinct character it had before.
My set of customized drivers arrived by UPS today. I'll report back about them soon.
Rebbi - Sounds like you're really taking advantage of the demo process - not something you can do in a store!! That would make sense that you're getting more of the tweeter, with the speakers farther apart.
If the image sounds "focused" then you've solved the imaging issue. Worst case is very small changes in speaker location might fine tune it even further.
Room acoustics/flatness is another story. Though measurements and tweaks according can be an educational and productive exercise for getting the timbre that sounds best to you if you have the time, both Ohms and Totems are competing under the same conditions in the same room. That might be enough to make the call if you think you've spent sufficient time getting each to sound their best.
The other thing that I would suggest is you download REW and really work on the proper setup and placement of the speaker and seating position if you can play with that. Bare minimum you might see what is causing the difference and then you can certainly fix those area(s). You will be amazed at what you don't know acoustically in your room...
free download here:http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/downloads-area/ you can use a Radio Shack meter then get one of these: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/MobilePreUSB.html if you want to use a mic that uses Phantom power you can use many different mics including this one: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=248-625 (if you go this route you will still need a RS meter) or you can get this instead of the RS meter and it's VERY good: http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Galaxy-CM140-Check-Mate-SPL-Meter?sku=421162&src=3WFRWXX&ZYXSEM=0&CAWELAID=26028141
This should really help you and no matter what speaker you choose I would strongly suggest that you do this.
Good points. No, I've never had the chance... I need a block of an hour or two to just try one of those methods that you posted earlier, but I haven't had that kind of time. You do make a good point, though.
Yes, the sense that you can point to the location of the singers centered between the speakers, as opposed to things being "vague" is much better. The presentation is still different than the Arros (of course) but now that I seem to have optimum positioning for both sets of speakers marked out on the floor with tape, I can at least a/b them with a sense that they're both at their best in my room.
As I said, Brothers In Arms sounded amazing, and Supertramp's "Breakfast In America" (man, am I dating myself, or what?) also sounded great. Just wish had more time to listen.
I think my comments regarding soundstage collapsing applies only in the case of the adjustable Ohm 5's where I up the treble level using the switch on that model but speaker location stays the same. In this case I find the soundstage collapses somewhat compared to prior. In other words, if speakers stay equidistant, but tweet level increases (relative to the Walsh provided portion of sound spectrum) the soundstage may collapse somewhat accordingly.
With any model, moving the speaks further apart to get more direct exposure to the tweet should maintain a wide soundstage.
If the imaging sounds like it is in focus similar to the Arros correctly set up then I would say you have nailed it!
I tried moving the MWT's even farther apart, further than I'd ever have thought of placing them... several more inches from each other. The imaging has really come into focus and the tonal balance is considerably brighter, but the expansive soundstage is still there, only seemingly bigger. Brothers In Arms sounded amazing!
Rebbe, though I've never heard the Unico, based on my experience so far with the tube DAC, pre-amp and SS amp, I think the hybrid integrated is a very good place to be with the Ohms.
Thanks very much for your post. I think you've done a good job of articulating the issues here. I got to listen to the Ohm's a little more yesterday and I must say that the tonal character and image focus change quite dramatically when you adjust the distance between the MWT's. By pulling them farther apart and thus aiming the supertweeters to converge closer to your listening position, the high's are emphasized and the image focus becomes sharper. Now, I think I may currently have them a little too far apart, because yesterday it sounded as if too much of the sound was "stuck to" the speakers, which is definitely NOT the way Ohm's should sound... so I'll try moving them a little closer. But as I said, imaging definitely tightened up and the sound brightened when I moved them farther apart.
I, too, had mixed feelings about accepting John's offer, but I was so taken with his determination to please and make a sale that I agreed to give the modified drivers a try.
For what it's worth, my amp is a ss/tube hybrid, and I'm wondering how that affects my current results...
I drive my 100s with ss TAD mono amps, but I also own a pair of Prima Luna tube mono amps. I'll roll some KT88s into the PL and report back in a few days. All in the interest of science!
Marty
BTW, since I'm using subs, the Ohms should be a somewhat easier load and the chances of success may be better.
I recently have introduced some tubes in my DAC and pre-amp to the Ohms and have been 100% rewarded so far.
The Ohms have a difficult load to drive and are not ideal for tube power amps on paper, but I would love to hear about the results where someone has actually done this.
I've found the image focus is very good to outstanding when set up properly but the presentation is not the same as other designs that naturally image well, like good monitors. I can't say that it is better or worse...just different. To me , the imaging of the Ohms is more realistic if not as pinpoint which I like, but that is a matter of taste.
I concurrently own and run a pair of Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkII and Triangle Titus 202 monitors and have noted the similarities and differences from the more omni Ohms in great detail over the last couple of years.
Also the Ohms sound stage does tend to be naturally laid back. I have also found though that they seem to let the character of the electronics feeding them through more so than my Dyns or Triangles mainly because they are more full range and deliver a sound more in line with much larger and more costly designs, so the electronics used will have a big impact on how they sound.
I had a pair of 100's and didn't like the lack of image focus. I also felt like the center stage was pushed back when it should have been....well....more front-center to my taste. I talked to John at Ohm about this and he made a VERY convincing argument to let him send me another set of more 'forward' drivers with an extension of the normal 120 day audition. He gave me a lesson about speaker voicing and 'west coast' vs "east coast' sound. I was simply stunned by his professionalism and dedication. I decided, however, that I would refuse John's efforts as I knew I had mentally moved away from the omni directional sound and didn't want to waste any more of this guys time. I do recommend his speaks VERY highly and recognize that he is fighting for and earning every customer. Once I construct a second system, I'll be back to the Ohms if for no other reason than to keep a guy like him in business. For me, the truth is...I didn't really find the sound I was looking for until I got a tube amp. now I wonder what that Ohm would sound like with some KT88s pushing them!.
"I tried separating the speakers further from each other so that the tweet paths would intersect closer to my listening position, and it definitely affected the tonal balance... considerably brighter, and the imaging seemed more in focus... vocals centered solidly between the speakers, etc. I'm wondering if I've had them too close together?"
Sounds like it.
You can try a slight toe out as well and see what that does if needed.
If they're aimed at their normal 45 degree angle into the center of the room, are the tweeter "paths" supposed to intersect in FRONT of your listening position, or right AT your listening position? I tried separating the speakers further from each other so that the tweet paths would intersect closer to my listening position, and it definitely affected the tonal balance... considerably brighter, and the imaging seemed more in focus... vocals centered solidly between the speakers, etc. I'm wondering if I've had them too close together?
Do the tweets on the Ohms face your listening position when you compare with the Totems?
I'm wondering if the tweak is to reposition the super tweet to point towards you better in your listening position?
Ohm often repositions the tweet from the normal 45 degree forward/inward orientation for special purposes. For example, in their surround speakers, they orient the tweeter upwards.
Assuming the Dynaudio/Totem similarity in timbre, this might have the effect you are looking for if the tweets are not facing your usual listening position currently. When the tweets face me, the timbre of both my Ohm Walsh speaks very much resembles the Dyns, which are inherently more forward sounding while the Ohms tend to be more laid back, in particular, when the tweet levels at the listening position with the Ohms is lower.
The down side of tipping up the super tweet is that it does tend to collapse the soundstage a bit. Some will like this and some will not.
With the much larger 5's, there are 4 three way adjustments for the timbre for low bass, mid bass, midrange and highs that can be tweaked also. I've played with quite a few combos to hear the effect. Not the case with all other models though.
If the tweets are not facing your listening position directly as they would in a near equilateral triangle listening configuration, try toeing the speaks differently so the tweets face you directly and see what you hear.
Ohm has a reputation of taking care of their customers and getting a lot of repeat and referral business.
John Strohbeen is a unique guy. He doesn't fool around or beat around the bush from my few exchanges with him. A true MIT-trained engineer!
About 10 years ago when I was auditioning speakers for the first time in a while, the two that caught my ear were Dynaudio and Totem (can't remember the models). I ended up buying B&Ws instead mostly for the bigger, full sound than the other models in the same price range.
Now the Dynaudio Contours replaced the B&Ws. Then I tried the Ohm 100s. Then I decided to buy the big f-5s to replace my Maggies as well.
I parted with the B&Ws but find would find it hard to part with the Dyns. Luckily, I have enough rooms with in-wall speaker wiring to support multiple pairs of speaks.
A couple of days ago, I had all but decided to return the Micro Walsh Talls and keep the Totems. I just found myself drawn to a greater sense of "detail" and "transparency" and "airiness" in the Totems, as well as a sense that the imaging was more precise. I figured that the one thing I might miss with the Totems was the authority of the bass region that the Micro-Walshes deliver... the bass on the totems Totems sounds somewhat tentative or anemic by comparison.
I called John at Ohm to ask him about arranging a return. We spoke for a long time, and he questioned me about what I preferred about the Totems. He said that he had only heard the Arro once, and briefly, so he wasn't that familiar with them. Finally, he asked me to let him think about what to do and he would get back in touch.
John and I spoke earlier today, and he told me that he had prepared a set of modified drivers with the treble response slightly "goosed" in a way that might work better in my room and bring out some of the sense of detail that seems to be missing. "Audition the new drivers for awhile, and see what you think."
Whatever happens, these guys at Ohm are a class act... I can't imagine anybody else going to this much trouble for a $1000 pair of speakers. It's clear that John really believes in his product, and also, that he wants to do everything in his power to make his customers happy. I will keep listening and report back... stay tuned...
By the way, as an experiment, I moved the Micro-Walshes approximately 8 inches further out from the rear wall, and if I'm not mistaken, the imaging specificity seems to have sharpened up quite a bit.
By the way, Mapman, I think you probably hit the nail on the head when you said that the comparison between the Micro-Walshes and the Totems is not unlike comparing the Micro-Walshes to your Dynaudio speakers. I had actually auditioned some monitor-size Dynaudios myself (I think it was maybe the Audience 42?) and if my auditory memory serves me properly, the sound was not unlike the Totems: airy, detailed and a large, "etched" soundstage presentation.
Rebbi - you are definitely caught up in the trade-off-world... The Ohm's neutrality is what won me over, you'll have to decide on which speaker sounds more musical to you - and one that you can live with for the long term.
I base my gut feel above on the assumption that the Arros will play out against the MWTs similarly to how my Dynaudios play out against my 100s, more or less.
With more acoustic, less dynamically demanding material, sitting in the sweet spot, the Dyns give up nothing to the Ohms at least in my smaller rooms.
For larger scale, more dynamically challenging recordings, at more realistic listening levels, the Ohms not only rule but compete in a bigger league only with other much larger speakers.
Of course the Ohm 100s are somewhat larger than the MWTs, so that has to be considered as well.
Anyway...sounds like a win/win situation for you which ever way you go. Keep us posted!
My best advice is trust your ears to determine which sound you will live with most happily over an extended period of time with the music you enjoy.
No two speaks will sound the same with the same benefits and disadvantages. This is particulary true when comparing two radically different designs as is the case here.
Avoid wishing one did things the other does. Just listen to each on its own terms for as long as it takes and decide.
The Ohms will cost you a premium at this point so be sure you are comfortable with that as well.
Regarding speaker placement, I recommend carving out a few hours to tweak and listen continuously as much as needed until you settle in on what sounds best.
My gut feel is that the Ohm MWTs will do better on larger scale more complex recordings at more realistic listening levels particularly in a nearfield listening scenario, but the Totem Arros will be hard to better at the other extreme, ie lower to more moderate volumes, simpler more acoustic music types.
Hi, Gang, Sorry it's taken me such a long time to give you guys an update on my speaker adventures. I've been ridiculously busy at work and with family responsibilities... I'm finding myself in what you might call a bit of a conundrum these days. On the one hand, with my new phono preamp up and running, I'm having a ball digging back into the miles and miles of vinyl that I can finally play again. It still amazes me how wonderful those black discs can sound. On the other hand, speaker wise, I'm in a bit of a no man's land at this point... Both the Ohms and the Totems can make amazing music, that's for sure. What I'm not sure about is what I'm hearing, and although I know that ultimately, I'm the one who has to enjoy and live with the system, I find myself wishing that one of you guys lived in my neighborhood so we could get together and tweak this thing! Here's the thing: the Totems seem to have the edge over the Ohms when it comes to a sense of detail or transparency. I just find myself noticing details in the music, with some tracks, that are getting lost or muffled when I am listening to the Ohms. Now, the question is: is what I am hearing really "transparency," or is it more like an upper frequency tilt in the Totems? And are the Ohms, by nature, more "neutral?" I have read in some reviews that in the Totems are a bit "hot" out of the box, but that this "sizzle" settles down as they break in. In this regard, I am also not sure whether I am hearing all of the midrange clarity that the Ohms are capable of delivering. I'm not sure exactly how many hours of playing time they have on them -- I haven't been clocking it -- but I'm guessing it's not much more than 25 hours or so. So, by any measure, the Ohms should still have some opening up to do, correct? By the way, I think I read one person post in Audio Review.com that Micro Walsh Talls sounded as if they were playing from under a pillow until they opened up, at which point, they revealed all kinds of additional detail. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether I have either set of speakers optimally placed for imaging purposes. On some source material, the Totems present a very "etched" or precise sense of each voice or instrument in space. By contrast, at least as I have them placed currently, the placement of instruments with the Ohms can sound a bit more vague, for lack of a better term. As I've been switching the speakers in and out, I have used some pieces of tape on the floor to mark what has seemed to me to be the optimized position for each different set of speakers, otherwise, obviously, I'm not comparing apples with apples. But, again, I wish I had one of you with an experienced set of ears to help me with this task of speaker placement. I would like to add, that, in general, the Ohms present a "fuller" or "meatier" sound, especially in the bass note regions. Interested in your thoughts and advice...
Good to hear of your success with a similar set-up. My Velodyne SMS provides 6db/octave of low cut for the mains at 80hz - so I'm filtering the 100s in a similar fashion to the way Ohm filters the Sat 100 model for use with Ohm's own subs. This was the set-up John at Ohm had recommended for a room of my size, but I couldn't accomodate the large footprint of the Ohm subs. Therefore, I subbed in the SPLR subs and off I went!
Marty
BTW - The SMS-1 provides room analysis, PEq, and a very versatile high cut x-over for the subs. The thing is amazing!
Martykl great updates! I too use dual subs with my 100s and the results are fantastic. I am using separates and added some of ACI's passive filters to take out low bass from the mains. This opened them up even more.
My space is app. 14'X24" with a cathedral ceiling and an open rear wall (no wall, just a railing behind the listener), a much larger volume than Map's. Despite this, the 100s produce very good, remarkably extended bass - stand alone. IMHO, the overall performance of the speaker - in my space - improved dramatically with the subs. Measured bass response via the analyzer in the SMS-1 went from very good, if just slightly raggedy here and there, below 100hz and dropping sharply at +/- 33hz, to just plain flat to 25hz. Look, I'll be the first to admit that this measurement isn't the "be all and end all" of bass performance, but in my case it reflected what I was hearing.
Incidentally, for Para's stated desire; priority on bass without a sub - I'd also check out the Vandy 2 and the LFT. On his other note about liking the flexibility of later adding a sub, I'd stick with the Ohms. It may be the omni radiating pattern, but these thing mate with a sub like nothing else I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with the 100s stand alone, it's just that I'm way more impressed when they're coupled with subs - at least in a largish room like mine.
In my case, before acquiring the newer Ohms, my Triangle Titus 202 with sub was one of my references for great integrated bass.
I run both Ohm 100s and 5s in rooms of appropriate size without sub and have zero concerns or reservations regarding bass. That's their trump card over the Maggies they replaced as a matter of fact. I will say that in my larger room, the only shortcoming of the 100s compared to the 5s in in the satisfying bass department, but in the 100s current location, a 12X12 room, zero issues there.
Also, I recently replaced my old SS Carver c-6 pre-amp with a new Audio research sp-16 and the improvement in low end can be heard clearly with most any recording of any quality. With good quality recordings, I don't think I've heard better and I've auditioned quite a few systems of late looking.
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.
