Just to confirm others opinions on OHM 5000 speaker placement, I have realized the proper placement in my room. It is 20X12X8. It has drywall and carpet. I have 3 corner bass traps and 4 acoustic panels. 2 behind the speakers and 2 above. The 3 bass traps sit on 2 apple crates a piece full of records. I have acoustic blankets in front of my windows behind my listening position and also across the hinged double doors. My twin Billy Bags audio rack sits between my speakers on one of the long walls. My speaker controls are set for small room, corner, medium perspective and plus treble. If I place the speakers closer to be walls the bass becomes boomy. I have tried the speakers on the short wall firing down the long part of the room. The bass is solid but the stereo imaging suffers and the two speakers sounding somewhat mono. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve read somewhere that the bigger OHMs need to be 9-12 feet apart to sound their best. This goes against the golden cube speaker positioning formula. Anyway I hope this helps with anyone who is new to OHM speakers and has a rectangular room. I could remove my rack from between the speakers but it would be a big move with me moving 1200 records out of the dedicated music room. if I removed my stereo rack would I get enough improvement to maybe make it worthwhile? The speakers sit out about 8 inches beyond it. Any thoughts or opinions welcome. |
Oh the speakers are 2 1/2 feet out from the long wall 9 feet apart. |
Sorry I just noticed your posts, @blueranger . I have my 2000s shoe-horned into a pretty tight space, so I cannot verify your 9-12 foot apart issue. I have some CD cabinets that are only about 6 to 10 inches from the Ohm caps. I do have them pulled fairly far into the room and away from the side-walls, and they are only about 6 feet apart. Could they sound better in a bigger room. Perhaps, but I doubt I will ever find out. They did sound pretty good at the Chester Group Audio Show last November, where they were in a larger, less cluttered room than mine, and further apart, around 9 feet, IIRC. |
I have discovered a trick with my 2.2000 s by using 3/4 thick felt under the grill in the inside rear corners I corrected the reflection off my 60 " TV screen that is placed in the center between the speakers . Using felt inside the grill controls dispersion of the driver . |
Engine, good idea! I might have to try that next time I try using my OHMs in my second A/V system where I have 2 flat surfaces in relative close proximity to the drivers, big screen between and slightly to rear and 6’ tall audio cabinet immediately to the right and rear of the right speaker. Inside the grille or outside the can could both work.
|
@enginedr1960 - As I have posted elsewhere, I find the reflections off my 60" plasma that is mounted to the wall behind and between my 2000s to be beneficial. I tried covering it with a quilt, but it sounded worse. I think part of it might be that my listening area is too small for the 2000s to breathe. The plasma TV gives the sound more bounce, so to speak. YMMV, of course. |
I also find reflections behind the speakers can be beneficial. I have large sliding glass door with vertical blinds behind my F5s in my main system. Opening or closing the blinds or doors changes the soundstage and imaging but not in a negative way. Open blinds provides a more central focus to the soundstage. Opening the door reduces bass energy somewhat. However no early reflections are ever beneficial. Thes have a smearing effect on all aspects of the presentation. Those are the only ones I try to categorically avoid. Others are integral parts of the resulting sound and can be tweaked accordingly as desired. |
Just a heads up and preview... The Ohm Walsh 2000s continue to amaze me. I am making progress in sorting out some system issues that have been plaguing me since last fall. Although I am not completely out of the woods, I have made some progress. Part of all of this was a serious upgrade of my amplifier. Once again, the 2000s have responded wonderfully to upstream upgrades. Even though I am using a temporary crossover to my subs that lacks transparency, I have been enjoying a huge, and I mean huge, increase in dynamic range, fine detail, expanded soundstage dimensions, clarity (especially in the treble range), extended decays of notes, better "continuousness" and a better disappearing act than ever before in the 9 years I have owned them. My system is now on an entire new level, and competitive with much, much more expensive rigs. I couldn't be happier, and I expect things will be even better once all of my issues are resolved, hopefully in a few weeks. I will post here when this happens.
I know John Strohbeen and the folks at Ohm want to demo their speakers with lower-priced gear at shows, since that is how most potential customers will use them, but, man, do these things really shine with better electronics. My preamp alone listed for ~30% more than the 2000s. The amp, if bought new, probably similarly priced. Not a penny of this is wasted on the Ohms. Really incredible. |
That is true of any decent speaker . The speaker is not the most important thing .
|
@schubert - I agree with you for the most part, but my previous speakers sort of hit a plateau at some point, where I felt that upgrades to my system, room, cabling, etc., were not really being reflected by the speakers. That's why I got rid of them and bought the Ohms. I felt that I had taken them as far as they could go. Surely there are limits to the mismatch (money-wise) between speakers and gear. You wouldn't put a pair of $40 speakers from Dayton Audio in front of a $50,000 system, for example. Sure, they would sound as good as they possibly could, but that isn't very good. Beyond a certain point, upgrading electronics begins to have deminishing returns with a given set of speakers. That experience is why I am so pleased with the Ohms, which do allow improvements in the system to produce better sound far beyond what I had thought was possible with them. That's a prejudgement I erroneously made based mostly on their price. |
Bondman agree with schubert but also know what you mean in the case of the OHMs specifically. I’ve been on a mission with many upgrades and tweaks in recent years to max them out and get the sound just right. Have not touched a thing in a couple years now and come home from dealers and show demos perfectly happy everytime. I did acquire a Chord Mojo DAC I use with that system sometimes now with Iphone or Ipad as source and that provides a slightly different windows on the music in every way compared to my older mhdt Constantine DAC which is also no slouch just different. I do enjoy the ability to hear differences in gear especially when it all sounds splendid. I’ve had the same experience in my second system (within its limits) with other quality speakers, Dynaudio, Triangle, even an old pair of tiny Boston A40s from the 1980s I refoamed a while back. |
@mapman - Yup, that’s just it: Before my system soiled the bed last September, I really thought it could not get much better than it was, even if it wasn’t perfect (at least not without spending major cabbage). And yet, here I am enjoying not a minor or incremental improvement from a $900 upgrade to my amp, but a major, transformative improvement. Very cool. |
What was the amp improvement?
BTW when I talk about maxing out, I mean the sound I can get in that room. The first choice I made was to go with the OHMs for that and then kept on tweaking from there.
In my second system everything sounds lovely but there are limits, errors of ommission and WAF mainly. |
@mapman - I have owned and liked an Odyssey Audio Stratos HT3 (with cap upgrade) - a three channel amp for the front channels of my combo HT/2-channel system since 2006.
Last September, the amp suffered a capacitor failure. So I sent (all 64 lbs. of) it in for repair and possible upgrade to Odyssey. For $900, I had the left & right chanels upgraded to full Kismet status, Odyssey's top line of amps. Sadly, UPS damaged the amp on the way back. Once that was fixed, I had issues getting my Vandersteen 2Wq subs with M5-HP crossovers to work together with the amp, which has a higher input impedance than the original Stratos. Apparently, an Audiogoner sold me a pair of the M5-HP crossovers which were custom made (without bothering to tell me this), and so they require different settings than do the standard M5-HPs. I have been working with both Vandersteen (Richard and Ray in the service department) and John Rutan of Audio Connection in Verona, NJ, to sort it all out, make sure the M5-HPs are working properly and properly set them for use in my system. They are on the way back from Hanford now. With a bit of luck, everything will be right as rain by the first weekend in June. |
It's an amazing thread! It took me a week just to skim through it ;-)
It's my first post on this forum, I hope somebody can advise me on a choice between Ohm Walsh Tall 1000 and 2000. Based on the info on Ohm's web site the room volume (somewhere 2000-2300cf) calls for the 2000s. However in my e-mail exchange with Evan at Ohm he said that they would recommend 1000s instead. My room is 8' high, 15' front-to-back and from 15' to 22' left-to-right . There's an irregular opening on the right, the right wall is really not there, it's a side of the stairs opening to the upstairs and the right front and back corners are parts of an open walkway. Most of the left side is glass. A large TV hanging on the front wall between the speakers. My listening/watching couch is against the back wall so I am sitting 10'-12' from the speakers.
For the amplification there's a Musical Fidelity A308 integrated (150W-8ohm/300W-4ohm) and an OPPO BDP-103d for source. I am looking for a 2.0 (preferably) or 2.1 setup for the music (mostly jazz and classical at low to moderate spl-s) that would also serve for watching movies (although movies sound effects are a lesser concern for me).
I like the smaller size and price of the 1000-s but are they the better fit for the space? As for the 2000-s, I like the idea that with the 8"drivers and larger cabinets it's less likely I'd need to add a sub and they are matching the recommended room volume.
Would there be a significant difference between 1000s and 2000s in such a space? Could the 2K be too boomy or 1K too thin? If I start a trial with the 1000s, how would I know that there's room to grow and I maybe missing an edge of the 2000s without trying both of them?
Thanks fo your consideration! |
I vote for the 2000 series. I have owned them before and they play well, but need a lot of power (at least mine did). My room is a similar size, but I settled on the 4000 series (4XO) as they deliver better bass.
The room recommendations are only estimates and actual listening is the key along with good component quality/power. When I had my 2000 speakers, I took them over to a friend's house and played them on a 500W/channel system; they sounded much better then with my set-up (300W/channel). Ohms love power!
|
Sorry, just drop in on this thread every now and then, so if someone has already brought it up, I have been watching Bosch on Amazon, based on a Michael Connelly book. And he (Bosch) is using Walsh speakers and I believe a Mc275 and turntable. Used to see the Walsh speakers at Fedco in southern calif, and coveted them. |
@blin116 - My room was on the cusp of requiring the 3000s, but the room volume for the 2000s overlaps with the room volume for the 3000s. I went with the 2000s, primarily for the cost savings. As you can read in this thread, this was nine years ago, and I am still quite thrilled with them. So, I would think the 1000s will work for you if that’s what Ohm is telling you. That said, while the x000 series has really similar sonics up and down the line, the larger models will offer deeper bass extention and somewhat better dynamic capabilities. Now, I also use a pair of subwoofers with my 2000s. Is it overkill? It depends. I am a bit of a bass freak (well, ok, not "a bit of" - I am a full-on, for life, unrepentant bass addict), so for me, the subs would have been kept even if I had sprung for the 3000s. So, of course, if you ask me, I would take the money you save on the 1000s and buy one, or better, two, good (I stress, GOOD) subwoofers. But I would surely wait for your 1000s to fully break in first. You may not feel the need for any extra oomph or extension in the bass.
And, if you really regret getting the 1000s instead of the 2000s, you can always return the 1000s and get the 2000s (although the shipping will get expensive).
Separately, you should think about deadening the wall behind your couch. Sitting against the back wall is never ideal, acoustically. Most Ohm users agree that "live-end, dead-end" works well. IOW, the front wall should be live, acoustically, while the back wall should be dead (or dead-er). I tried covering up my 60" plasma screen with a quilt, and ended up leaving it uncovered - the sound was better that way. These speakers are different than dynamic-drivers-in-a-box speakers, and respond better to different room treatments and positioning than those speakers. Keep that in mind as you break them in. And, please, allow them to break in. The changes are quite dramatic, IME.
I am powering my 2000s with 150 watts per side as well (although the subwoofers have their own amps, so the main amp is rolled off, first order, below 80Hz), and it is generally plenty of power. I did try out a pair 500 watt monoblocks with them at one point. They were marginally better, but not so much so. I stuck with the 150 watt per channel amp I had. But I may move up to a higher power amp someday. I guess the point is that these speakers will work with lower powered amps, and still sound really good. But, they will respond really well to any improvements you make upstream - whether that is better power, better source gear, even better wires. I am still amazed at how the Ohms allow me to clearly hear differences in upstream cables and gear.
In addition to the helpful folks at Ohm, we on this thread will be happy to help you if you have any other questions. |
Did OHM indicate the reason for 1000 rather than 2000 if the site indicates 2000 for that room volume and the room also opens up to adjacent areas? I would want to know if it were me.
The difference between 1000 and 2000 should be mainly bass levels in a given size room. Larger models might also be a tad more efficient if it matters in your case but I would ask OHM about that to be sure.
Floor type and interactions are another significant factor to consider. If your floors have a lot of give, as most floors in modern homes are, that affects the bass in that mid bass gets an artificial bump that can also obscure mid-range and detail to some extent. Isolation pads like Auralex subdude platforms solve that problem.
I use my OHM 100s which also have 8" drivers in a comparable sized open room area with excellent results however I use the sub dude platforms on upper levels. Not needed in finished listening room at foundation level.
|
Thank you all for the responses!
@mapman : I will follow up with Ohm to see what aspects of my room warranted their recommendation. Also, do I understand correctly that you use SubDude platforms under the 100s? My floors are now carpeted but that is going to change soon to hardwood, and the sonic aspects are not the primary considerations there ;-} I guess I may need some padding under the speakers when it happens.
@bondmanp : I like the idea that going with the 1000s now leaves me an option of adding one or two subs in the future to cover the low end extension (instead of sending the speaker back for a size-up). Ideally, though, I would love to not have to add more boxes to this room. And if Ohms handle the lows in mid-30-s nicely, it may be enough for me for now.
Another thought I got from reading multiple reviews and discussions. It's mentioned that the Ohm speakers sound best when they are fed lots of power. Will that "sweet spot" of power intake will be lower for the smaller model and therefore easier achievable at reasonable (not too loud) music volume? If that's the case it may mean +1 for 1000.
Both 1000s and 2000s have their sensitivity listed at 88db, so the same power level from the amp should result in the same SPL at the couch. Or am I having this wrong? |
Yes I use subdudes under my 100s when used in rooms on upper levels of the house. Its the floor construction (suspended plywood) that matters not the cover type. If you jump up and down and get any vibrations transmitted to items in the room then the subdudes should make a difference.
I think I read somewhere that the smaller models are less efficient than larger but if ratings are similar most likely not much difference with these two models specifically.
|
@blin116 - I defer to mapman on the efficiency issue. The way I see it is this: The Ohm Walsh speakers represent such a good value, that if you find you must upgrade elsewhere, such as your amp, it is well worth it, as these speakers will let you hear what you spent the money on. If your integrated has pre-outs, you can try borrowing a higher powered amp to see if you like the results. But you may not feel this is necessary.
My thoughts are that John Strohbeen does not want to present Ohm speakers as tweaky or demanding of a lot power or expensive electronics. And, to a degree, he is correct. As my initial review noted, the 2000s sounded quite good on an older Onkyo surround receiver rated at 80 watts per channel without my subwoofers. And yes, you can plunk them down in your room, play a little bit with toe-in, and off you go with good sound. But, and it is a big but, none of this means the Ohm Walsh series won't respond well to better electronics, tweaks, room treatments, etc. They will, and in spades. The good news is they are not tweaky in the sense that they won't sound good at all unless you get fancy footers, expensive gear, high-priced cables, or extensive room treatments. So one can do as much or as little as they like, and then just enjoy. |
Good summary Bondman. OHMs goal is to make good sound easy and affordable, not hard and complex. I ran them for many years that way not worrying about what could be done to make things better. In 2008 or so I decided to focus on achieving the best sound I could for me and after joining this forum, dabbling with some other options for a number of years and listening to all the various options, including QUAD ES, Magnepan, and other more conventional designs including B&W, Triangle and Dynaudio, I decided to give the OHM upgrades a chance. Everything else in my system changed after I got the upgraded OHMs in order to perfect the sound. Now it has been that way for several years now and I have enjoyed countless hours of totally contented listening regularly since. Its an endeavor well worth it if one cares, but with the OHMs and the ready availability of high quality electronics to run them these days, its not that hard for many to get the best sound they have ever had relatively easily. |
If you watch Bosch on Amazon you will notice he uses OHMs with what appears to be a McIntosh 275. |
@bondmanp : Your description of Ohms as being tolerant to less than perfect setups but at the same time rewarding the improvements is exactly what I am looking for now. The former quality will come in handy now, the latter - more down the road ;-) I sent a diagram and a photo of my room to Ohm and the response I got was: "...Yes, we definitely still recommend the 1000 for you based on your overall room size and your listening distance. The irregular shape of the one side of your room will serve to improve the acoustics of the space substantially -- particularly in the area of mid-bass clarity...." So based on that and not having heard a really strong opinion one way or another in this tread I am going to order 1000s. Thank you guys for your help! |
blin116 thanks for sharing that response. You are in good hands..
|
Just thought I'd start up this thread again to state that I have a set of 1000s coming in a few weeks. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the 1970s and loved them - they threw an absolutely magical 3D image. I have always regretted selling them when I moved in 1977.
Been through a lot of speakers since. Tried a set of Ohm 200s back in 2003 to replace the aging set of tri-amped trasmission line KEFs I used for a number of years but liked the Maggie 1.6QRs better in the room at that time. When we moved in 2006, the Maggies didn't work in the 13 X 14 room in the new house. I ended up with a pair of Spendor SP1/2Es which I really loved, but the wife didn't like the 70s boxes. So I then switched to the current set of GE Triton 7s. They are very good, but talk about a tight and small sweet spot!
I've got a difficult room as there is an opening behind the right speaker that has no door. I assumed omni type speakers were a lost cause due to the lack of symmetry. After recently talking to John at Ohm, he said the wall IN BETWEEN the two speakers is what's important. If that's the case, I may be OK.
So, here in a few weeks we're going to find out. I'm crossing my fingers that they'll do the trick and have the magic I remember (and, release me from the microscopic sweet spot.)
|
@mlsstl - Provided you and the folks at Ohm agree that the 1000 is the right Walsh speaker for your space, I expect you’ll be pleased. Just a few points: The standard current Walsh line are not full omnis like the old F’s were. They attenuate output somewhat in the rear to facilitate placement near the front wall. They can be ordered without this attenuation if desired (and I often wonder what my 2000s would sound like without this attenuation). Second, you must allow plenty of break-in time. The speakers will go through many tonal shifts as they break in, and full break in can take months. Thirdly, the current Walsh line use a conventional dome tweeter, unlike the F's, which were full-range, true omnis. This means adjusting the toe-in, which works backwards from conventional dynamic speakers, is important. Toeing in these Ohms will attenuate the treble output at the listening seat, and toeing them out will accentuate it. Lastly, I think the 1000s will have much of, if not all of, the magic of your F’s. They certainly have a wide sweet spot. Please keep us posted. |
Thanks @bondmanp. I'm probably still 3 weeks or so away from getting them, but plan on giving them every opportunity to become a permanent addition to my system.
As noted before, I had a trial run with the 200s back in 2003 or so and they fell just a bit short of what I was after. Trust that a bit more tweaking has been done since then.
I certainly plan on giving a full report when I've had a chance to live with them for awhile.
|
jwc2012 writes, "I've got a set Ohm Walsh 2XO cans in great shape that I thought I'd be able to find an old set of cabinets on which to mount them."
One option is to find a set of Allison CD-7 cabinets. The 2XO cans should just fit the top-mount opening for the 8" woofer, though the rim may require some bracing to handle the weight of the cans. (It's old pressboard, not MDF.) The internal volume is just a bit lower than that of the 2XO cabinet, though it's a sealed cabinet.
My understanding is there's no crossover external to the can, so it's just a pair of wires from terminals to the can. The Allison is hollow and unbraced, typical of the era, so adding some internal bracing probably wouldn't hurt.
Besides the later RDL based on the CD-7 design, I'm unaware of another similar size cabinet with a top-mounted woofer opening.
|
OK, the Ohm 1000s arrived Wednesday and so far I've got about 4 hours of listening from them. The 3-D image is wonderful out of the box, but still have some experimenting to do with respect to positioning. Plus, they need some break-in time. Way premature to give much in the way of a review, but we are off to a good start!
More to follow.
|
I understand the Ohm speakers are quasi-omnidirectional and was curious if anyone has tried some form of DSP room correction with them? I have an amp that does room correction. Congrats on your 1000's mlsstl I'll keep scanning the thread to see how you like them. |
@djones51:. although I don’t use it in stereo, my 2 channel system is integrated into my home theater system. In multichannel listening, I use a Pioneer receiver with MCACC. I have not had any issues with this and my Ohms. Except for the subs and the back surround speakers, my surround system is all Ohm Walsh, 2000, a Walsh centr and MWT surrounds. Works great.
|
Thanks bondmanp for the info. I have a micromega that has room correction and would be using them in a 2 channel system without subs. From what I understand of the Ohm is they reproduce a more 3-d image, I guess a larger 'sweet spot' and just wondered if room correction would actually work against this type of speaker as opposed to a more traditional front firing speaker. |
I've now spent about 12 hours listening to my new Ohm 1000s and experimenting with their placement in my room. This is not a dedicated listening room so there are limitations as to what can go where.
Right out of the box, the 3-D imaging was amazing. Even more so, it is extremely impressive is to be freed from the very small sweet spot that most other speakers have. For a long time I told myself that when I'm listening seriously, I'll be in that one spot that gives the best image. If I'm anywhere else, then I'm listening casually and imaging isn't that critcal.
I think I've been cheating myself with that view. The Ohms have removed the shackels. It is simply marvelous to be able to move about the room or sit elsewhere and have the music continue to image like a live ensemble, without the 3-D qualities disappearing or changing unnaturally.
The one thing that had kept me from trying Ohms in the past few years turned out to be a non-issue. There is a door opening (with no door to close) behind and to the side of the right speaker. I had thought that would screw things up badly for a quasi-omni speaker. However, after talking to John at Ohm, he said that shouldn't be an issue -- it's the wall between the speakers that counts. Turned out he was right on and the doorway does not seem to adversely affect the sound.
The other strong point is that acoustic instruments, and vocals in particular, are extemely well voiced. They are natural and accuate sounding and the tonal balance is outstanding. This, in combination with the gigantic sweet spot, makes the sonic image float eerily independent of the speakers -- very nice.
Interestingly, the speakers were a bit bass-shy out of the box. This is not something one expects from Ohms. However, in experimenting with the placement and running a few 20 Hz to 200 Hz frequency sweeps, I found the right spot that got rid of the mid-bass dip. It was just a matter of moving them about 2 or 3 inches closer to the wall behind them. Bass is now impressively solid and deep.
The only shortcoming is very material dependent. Some recordings have their vocals too closely miked (or used a rather "spitty" sounding mike), so there can be some brittleness on vocals in those recordings. That happens less than 10% of the time on the material I've played so far. Plus, between the break-in and experimenting with positions, this problem has subsided substantially over the past few days. I've still got some more work to do that may help this, but I do need to remember that I can't expect a speaker to fix the poor aspects of a recording.
Despite having a 120 day trial, I've already decided these are keepers. I have very eclectic taste in music -- classical, jazz, folk, pop, rock, and various other oddities. (Just picked up a CD of civil war songs along side some Ginastera and Pink Matini....) While I don't listen loudly -- 85 dB is about the maximum for average volume -- so far the Ohms are handling it all with ease. As you can tell, I'm pleased.
|
Misstl, glad to hear things are working out well. Enjoy!
|
Glad you're enjoying the speakers mlsstl. I have room problems as well my listening room is my living room which is why I have been researching the Ohm's. The amp with dsp has helped but these speakers might be a better answer. |
The Ohms were a unique and perfect solution for my very challenging L shaped main listening room.
|
@mslstl:. Glad to hear you are enjoying your 1000s. I doubt they are anywhere near broken in yet. Be aware that things may get worse before getting even better. I find that poor recordings are quite listenable on my 2000s, even if they are exposed as the lousy recordings they are. You may wish to experiment with cables, but only after the 1000s are fully broken in, in a few months. Those speakers will respond to every change you make upstream, and you will know quickly if a new component or wire is an improvement or not.
|
Always nice to see this thread keep on chugging along, and hearing from new people trying out Ohms. Fun stuff! |
I thought about starting a new thread, but it just seemed right to continue the discussion here.
I'm digging through my collection (almost 60,000 tracks) and throwing as much variety as I can at the speakers. You're right, it is fun stuff to check out a new set of speakers!
|
I just ordered 5 ads on the OHM speaker line from tbe 70s and 80s. Ohm F. 5 and others.i will blow them up or frame all 5 togather. Does anyone have an OHM I ad?? |
I think I have the flyer for my original Walsh 2s circa 1982 filed away. |
The old ads are good fun to look at. I don’t have an Ohm I, most of mine are Walsh series stuff. Keep watching the Bay, quite a few come up of various Ohm every now and then. Have to admit though, not sure I have seen one on the I Model....
|
All,
Coming in to this game pretty late... My room is 8X14 with a french door opening to the living room, and I'm always looking for a speaker that can make the room appear larger than it is. I'm about to move some Magnepan .7s today. I wanted to hear them, and they are excellent speakers, but they dominate the room. So, out they go.
I'm currently very happy with some Totem Arros and a Naim Nait XS2. Very engaging sound, but it might be nice to have a slightly bigger soundscape. I'm actually quite happy with the bass from the Arros in this room.
The question is, should I even consider the 1000s in this space, or is it just too narrow? I would be at 10-12" from the side walls, and the room can only be set up to fire down the length of the room.
If anyone has experience trying something this narrow with the Ohms, I would love to hear your thoughts. |
You might get by with Microwalsh talls, even smaller, more like Arro size I think.
Call OHM and talk to John Strohbeen. See what he says.
I use ohm 100s (slightly larger than 1000) in 12X12 rooms as close as 1 foot to walls to better effect than conventional monitors or towers of similar size in there.
|
After a number of emails with Evan I went ahead and ordered the 2000's which is what they recommended for my room which isn't ideal so you should get in touch with them leahy they will give you good advice. |
I'm enjoying my Ohm 1000s as I type this -- Murray Perahia is playing Beethoven's Piano Concerto No 1 and the sound is expansive. Ohm's do a wonderful job of capturing the scale of an orchestra in a concert hall.
My room is roughly 13 X 14 and the speakers are 7' apart from each other on the shorter wall, 10" out. (They started out 8' apart and 14" from the wall, but small changes make a dramatic difference. Experimentation is important.)
I had originally discounted the Ohms, because as a semi-omni speaker, I thought the wall opening at the right behind the speakers would play havoc with the sound. John Strohbeen at Ohm and I discussed this and it turned out he was quite right. I'd suggest you discuss your issue with him and see what he thinks. You may be surprised, as I was.
|
Thank you for all three replies - that all sounds very hopeful. My inclination is to try the 1000. The volume of my room, with 9' ceiling, is just over the 1000 mark, and excessive bass has never been an issue with any speaker I have used (Altec A7 and split 210 cabinets included). I'll check in with Ohm.
|
leahy, like has been suggested, talk with John at Ohm, give him as much detail as you can on your room size, shape, and what you want to accomplish with your system. He will steer you right between the choices, and how well any of them will work.
I would be inclined to say MWT’s could work very well, and they really do have very respectable bass. The 1000 improves on the bass end even more so, but depending on placement may prove too much potentially. But all that is my own thoughts at the moment. Ask the one who will know.
I think your current system with the Naim and Totem(I used a Naim Uniti with MW T’s for awhile) is a good one, if it works well, sometimes it may be difficult to upset things, but with Ohm’s very generous trial period, certainly worth a try, I say go for it. As Map stated, the MWT abd Arro are very similar in size, the Ohm being a bit taller maybe, but that is where the comparisons will end, they both do a bit different things sound wise of course.
Have fun, enjoy the music either way! Tim
|
