Ethanh,
I'll try moving the speakers further out from the rear wall. The cabinet the components are in is about 19" deep, anway, so we're not talking about them being way out in the middle of the room at 2". I thought the Arro was supposed to be flexible regarding room placement, but I know that every room is different. |
Hi Rebbi,
I also have the Totem Arro. I use them with a 35 watt tube integrated and an Onix XCD88 player that, incidentally, is supposed to be internally identical to the Music Hall CD25. Imaging and soundstage are definitely the Arro's forte in my system, and the room placement is not optimal (I have them about two feet from a side wall and one foot out from the front wall, no toe-in). I also use crappy cables almost exclusively. Still, I do notice that the soundstage is enhanced at the expense of bass response if I move the speakers at least two feet into the room and away from side walls, so that may be something you should try out.
I bought mine used, so I can't give you any advice regarding break-in.
FWIW, I found that swapping out small signal tubes usually nets noticeable effects regarding soundstage and imaging, so this maybe something you should consider experimenting with. |
Hi, Everybody,
I'm baaaaaaaack! ;-)
Well, I'm finally getting to listen to some music!
First of all, I sold the PS Audio Elite Plus amp to a very nice person on Audiogon who really wanted to replace her father's old Elite Plus that had breathed its last. Lucky break for both of us! That gave me several hundred dollars to throw at a new amp, and I picked up (get this) a Unison Unico, 80 w/ch tube/ss hybrid for $800, again on Audiogon. My first tubed gear, ever.
So now I have the Music Hall CD 25.2, the Unico, and some old Monster Cable interconnects and way-too-long Monster Cable Powerline 2 speaker cable (all cables from the 1980s).
I know that the system, especially the speakers, aren't anywhere near broken in (Totem recommends at least 100 hours of break in time for the Arro) but I can give you all some initial impressions.
The mids so far are just lovely... recorded vocals sound more like human voices than I've ever heard in my home. James Taylor is "in da house." ;-) Bass extension on the Arros is pretty astonishing, given that puny 4.5" driver. As has oft been reported elsewhere, the thump of the bass isn't going to loosen your fillings, but the NOTES are "there," and well defined. Bass guitar sounds like a stringed instrument, and nothing feels missing. Pretty amazing.
Soundstage and imaging... well, that's kind of a disappointment, so far, which is weird given that that's what these speakers are known to do particularly well. Vocals hang in the air between the speakers like they should, but there's not much action beyond the boundaries of the speakers themselves. Is it the crappy cable, room placement, newness of the speakers, or some combination of the three? Anyway, that's a work in progress, as I continue to tweak things. I'd LOVE advice on how to get the most out of these speakers, and how to dial them in for best imaging.
Analogue: still waiting to hear from SOTA about what repairs/upgrades to my old Sapphire they recommend. |
Ok then.
I was thinking you were so enraptured in beautiful music, that you forgot to report back... I just made some changes to my system, so I'm also in new toy mode... Have fun with it! |
Zkzpb8,
They're still in their box! :-( (This is how you know I'm a dad with a small child!) But I've nearly assembled the shelving that the new system will live in, so I hope to get 'em hooked up this week!
I'll report back soon! |
Hey Rebbi -how are the Totems working out?! |
Thanks for the kind words! |
Tawaundabomb,
Thanks for the kind words. This thread certainly went on longer than I'd expected, which is a tribute to the generosity and passion of all the respondents. Really, as I said earlier, I did get a complete education in contemporary speaker trends from this thread! It's been over 20 years since I've been involved in High End Audio, meaning that I'd never heard of brands like Totem because they didn't exist the last time that I was actively following the scene.
By the way, to give you an idea how active I'd been before, my greatest claim to high end glory was having a letter to the editor published in TAS and commented on by HP somewhere back in the 1980's. :-)
Anyway, thanks again to everybody for their sage advice. |
Tawaundabomb,
I think the original Walsh 2's are the speaker that has exposed the most people to the Ohm Walsh sound over the years. They used to be sold via a significant dealer network through the 80's and had a lot of exposure. Then Ohm went factory direct only in the 90's I believe with the series 2 and now series 3.
The thing for those who associate the Ohm sound with original Walsh 2's to remember is that the newer series are a much improved beast when it comes to accurate imaging. That is a fact.
I auditioned Ohm Walsh2 series 3 speaks in my house in detail against my original Walsh 2's, Dynaudios and Triangles before taking the plunge on the Walsh 5 S3s as opposed to a larger full range box design.
The Walsh pseudo-omni soundstage is different from most all conventional box designs, as has been discussed, but the imaging accuracy of the Series 3 is in the same league as Dynaudio and Triangle I can assert. |
Rebbi,congrats on the purchase of the Arro,a trully special speaker,and congrats to you with the help of Mapman and everyonelse for the best budget speaker thread I've seen on any forum for about 2 years,it should really help future buyers if they read this thread.Now let me say a few things about the Arro's and the Ohms,im 34 years old and I can remember my Dad buying the Ohm Walsh 2's back in 1983 along with a Carver Ma-200 cube amp(I think thats the model number)Nakamichi tapedeck and a Shure Cartridge for his Benjamen Mirachord and there started my love for audio,my dad had a really nice Pioneer Quad setup with some Realistic speakers that sounded good,but When the Ohms came into the system along with that new power,things changed dramatically and i stopped going out to play so much and I started learning about audio.I was so intringed on how real to life the Ohms sounded.
Now firmly a audiophile with a burning addictive love for this hobby, but i was getting burned out on a budget its only so far you can get in this game and I was tired of speakers sounding like speakers thats until I ran into the Arro's and they casted a light on the music similar to what i heard and loved from listening to Ohm Walsh 2's growing up,but without its lack of pinpoint imaging with a gigantic soundstage with more detail and a much better more honest topend.The Arro is that good,but another thing that seprarates it from the Ohm's is it not only loves current but it will tell on eveything electrical in your house they are a built in circuit breaker,I have never heard a speaker so sensitive to everything upstream,they are not ruthlessly revealing,but they make suggestions,and its very wise to listen to them in the in the long run.
The Arro's have been my education on what I dont want and more importantly on what i dont do want.Stay away from anything bright that is the 1 thing that they will smack you across the face with they make more than suggestion on this matter,so if your amp is bright you will know in a heartbeat and it wont be pleasant.Lets not forget their great bass extension,they go low but they wont play uber loud and it doesant have the impact of larger drivers but whats there is very precise 1 thing about them thy are not light thru the upperbass on up they are as meaty ass it gets from 200 htz on up.The Arro's are like the great Quads in so many great ways and in 2 not so great ways, they have that lovely tone and super soundstaging and imaging,which is in that group of top tier of speakers yes talking anything,but like the Quads they dont play super loud and they dont have great bass impact,the only 2 bleamsihes on a All-time-greats record and a future all-time-great.I got rid of the Arro's ultimatly because of those 2 cavets but with my listening learning curve having improved by leaps and bounds since that time,I really regret it since Im now making a career out of my hobby,good luck in your partnering gear with the Arro,its not hard to take 17X2 pounds around to audition your amps,let the Arro meet them before you do,when it chooses its mate you will be in sonic heaven. |
Rebbi,
Can't offer much here. I am not crazy about the phono stage in my integrated amp, and am looking for an outboard replacement myself. Mapman's suggestion of the Bellari VP129 is one I am considering.
Reviews can be found here:
http://www.lpgear.com/Bellari_VP129.pdf
http://www.lpgear.com/TASBellari.pdf
I am also looking at solid state models from Creek, Rega, Pro-Ject and Cambridge, but the Bellari looks like the best bet. |
If your cartridge is MM, the Music Hall Bellari phono pre-amp seems reasonably priced. Never heard it though. |
Knownothing,
Actually, Wally at Underwood HiFi has the Music Hall a25.2 for $480! The question is, what would I do for a phono section? |
Knownothing wrote:
"After recent listening sessions, I would also recommend the match to the your new CDP, the Music Hall a25.2, as a viable and less expensive alternative to the others."
Yeah, I had thought of the a25.2. Wally at Underwood HiFi has them for $480! You can't beat that price. I'd just need to add a phono preamp to that. Any suggestions there? |
Wanted to toss this into the sub-discussion on this thread regarding omni versus conventional imaging.
Was just listening to "Open Arms" by Journey on standard issue "Greatest Hits CD" on my larger Ohm 5's.
This track has an interesting piano solo opening that lends itself well as a test case in point to the discussion regarding imaging.
Now I doubt anybody would cite these Journey tunes as shining examples of simple two mike audiophile recordings, because overall they are the exact opposite. Also, I've found over the years that many of these Journey tunes sound crappy on crappy systems but hold together pretty well overall on better systems.
So here is what I hear on the Ohm 5's. The piano solo is clearly miked in stereo in a manner that individual keys are clearly located in correct order by note and octave from lower to the left to upper to the right. This is about an 18-20' wide sound stage with my setup, so there is clear separation between individual keys. Also, the soundstage ranges from almost floor level to the ceiling, about 8-9 feet tall.
I also then listened to the same passage on my Dynaudio Contour mkIIs. This is same source and everything with my system. The only difference is the room, which is much smaller, 12X12 approximately, speaks, and speaker cables used. The Dynaudios use Audioquest cv-6 speaker cables which cost something like several hundred dollars whereas fairly conventional industrial grade in-wall speaker wires run to the Ohms.
With the Dynaudios, similar results. However in the smaller room, with narrower sound stage, the individual notes were more closely spaced and a bit harder to pick out accordingly, yet everything still was located in the correct relative position based on note and octave. The soundstage was not as extended vertically and tended to occur mostly at about the same height as the monitors on their stands.
Now once the rest of the tune kicked in, it is no longer even a fair contest. The Dynaudios would need a subwoofer in order to have any chance of hanging with the Ohms in terms of overall impact, dynamics and presentation at a realistic SPL. |
Rebbi,
You are welcome - my hobby, not a problem.
If and when you consider another amp, I suggest you look at the units described in this link:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1211126685&openusid&zzKnownothing&4&5#Knownothing
After recent listening sessions, I would also recommend the match to the your new CDP, the Music Hall a25.2, as a viable and less expensive alternative to the others. This amp will not provide the magic I hear in the PrimaLuna products (sweetness combined with abundant drive and definition), or the overwhelming PRAT of the Nait integrated amps. But it will provide hours of sour-note-free listening and will mate well with your new CDP. And for what, like $600 bucks???
Anyway, enjoy your new CDP and speakers. The warmer sound of the Music Hall CDP should compliment the PS Audio amp. Once you have given everything a couple hundred hours to run in, I think you will be very happy. |
Mapman,
It's a deal... actually, I was in DC last spring! |
Asa,
Oh, and by the way, I hear that Totem drives their speakers with Naim electronics at shows these days, FWIW. |
Rebbe,
If you ever get to the DC/Baltimore corridor area let me know in advance + I'd be happy to give you a listen. |
Asa,
Thanks for the amplifier advice. "Down the road," as you say.... ;-)
By the way, do all of these newer amps lack phono stages and so require a separate phono section? |
Knownothing,
Thanks for the good wishes! You have also given me priceless advice and counsel in this thread. I'm very grateful. The speakers should be here in about a week; the dealer had to order them.
By the way, I ended up buying them from a little dealer here in Austin called Tube Dreams. It's run by a nice guy named Simon Hill. He has a "day job" in the computer industry, but has converted his garage into a showroom and sells audio equipment (lots of pricey tube gear, along with Usher, Totem and other speakers) out of his home. I could've bought the Totems from a home theater outfit here (and they were perfectly nice) but it's clear to me that audio is a labor of love for this guy and I wanted to give him the business. He was even good enough to sweeten the deal when he saw me wavering due to price.
Mapman:
By the way, if I have any lingering regret, it's having not given the Ohm Micro Walsh Tall's a try. I would love to hear them some day (I even posted a message to our neighborhood list-serve to see if anybody knew anybody who had them) but didn't think I had the energy to bring them in, set them up, burn them in, and then deal with returning them if I didn't like them. Although I hadn't had a chance to hear the Arro, the home theater store did have the Dreamcatcher and Rainmaker, and I really liked the sound of both, so at least I had a clue of how the Arros might sound. Also, I thought my wife would like the appearance of the Totems a bit more, plus they're supposed to be very forgiving in terms of room placement. Anyway, at some point you have to make a decision, and since I still have upgrade/refurb decisions to make on my SOTA Sapphire once SOTA calls with their recommendations, I settled on Totem. It's weird
I usually am drawn to unconventional choices when it comes to buying stuff like this (heck, I had an Amiga computer for over 10 years!) but in the case of this speaker decision, I made a "more conventional" choice. Oh, well... |
Mapman,
Thanks for your good wishes. Audiogon is a great community, and this thread has been a complete education for me. Thanks for your considerable role in this process. :-) |
Zk,
YEs, I've had at least one pair of Ohms in my system for 30 years.
I've been researching upgrades heavily for the last two years.
Now, I own 3 pair of Ohms (2 Walsh design) as a result. MAggies and B&Ws have seen the door in the process. |
The Music hall sounds like a very good cost effective option, if needed. |
Rebbi, good luck on the Arro's - good choice. I second what nonothing says on the Music Hall electronics for you down the road. Or, look at a Creek line, or the Naim Nait 5 ($1500 new), for integrateds. You could let loose the PS Audio for a couple hundred bucks and be into much, much better electronics for $750-1000 on the used market. Seriously consider the Naim. I'm not a Naim guy, necessarily (I'm all SET...), but its a nice little integrated amp with a good pedigree that you could seel fast later, which always makes one feel good even if you end up keeping a piece forever. Get yourself a little K&K phono and you are all set. |
Mapman,
I feel the same way about my Ohms - I recently checked out some speakers after not being in a stereo store in a long time (or hi-fi show for that matter) - I still don't think I can ever go back to conventional speakers again (I've had my Ohms for almost 4 years which is the longest I've ever owned anything in my stereo)...
It's the true omnis that I'm not sold on yet... |
Rebbi,
Have fun with your new speakers - hope you have "access" to listening to your new Totems off "axis" ;) |
Rebbi,
Congrats on the new additions. Totem is a good choice.
And, you helped generate a long, interesting and informative thread in the process.
thanks. |
Jpaik,
Sorry! I'd "taken out my credit card" about 90 minutes before reading your post. I'd never heard of the Morrison's, either! They look neat. |
Folks,
I just got kicked out of my office for some unscheduled "repairs" (don't ask) and went to the "Tune" HiFi shop down First Avenue here in Seattle who just happens to carry Totems. I took the opportunity to audition the new Music Hall Trio all-in-one system through a pair of Totem One Signature speakers. Even driven by a budget system, I have to say that these speakers image really, really well on almost any recording from dead center to fairly far off access. The Canadians (like Morrison and Vince Bruzesse of Totem) must have a lot of time during that long winter to perfect their speaker systems' ability to image, either omni-directional or standard dynamic speaker formats.
PS - the Music Hall Trio sounds pretty great for $1000 all-in. |
ZK,
All I can say with certainty is that EVERY recording (good, bad and in-between) sounds more lifelike or "live" on my Ohms than any other speaker I've owned concurrently (Maggie, B&W, Dynaudio, Triangle) and been able to do direct a/b comparison with. The unique "like the performers are there" aspect not available in conventional speaker design is what attracts people to the omni design in general, I believe.
Others happy with attributes of conventional stereo speakers may not be attracted to omnis.
So omni's are not for everyone. Different strokes for different folks. Thats what makes the world go round, including the world of audio. |
I've heard a few of the Naim label recordings with just a stereo pair of mics. Some performances come out nice, but many of them had muddy balances between instruments, or were just swimming in natural reverb... I like minimally mic'd drums, but rooms-only is tough to pull off. Anyway, they're fun to check out.
I'd like to hear the Morrison speakers, but: "...And yes, there should be room treatment on the side walls to tame the first reflection. A couple of chunks of convoluted foam glued to a sturdy backing of cardboard or Coraplast work like a charm." Not after my recent renovation, but with a dedicated room, I bet these speakers could be fun..
I was definitely pretty blown away by mbl's but I think Knownothing is onto something about the compatibility of (most) recordings and omnis. I'd like to hear a stereo mix made on a pair of omni speakers. |
Jpaik,
What you describe with Morrisons is very similar to the Ohm experience.
Ohm describes their Walsh wide-range drivers as a "Coherent Line Source", not a point source, though I think the difference here is marginal.
Ohm wide-range Walsh driver omni-output is also attenuated in the direction of the walls as I mentioned.
Ohm uses a separate tweeter (non-omni) for the very top end and this fires 45 degrees inward in a standard placement. I think I recall in some Walsh speakers, they may place the tweeter in an upward firing configuration similar to Morrison and Dueval, I believe, but I think this is by special requestl I believe, and more common for use in surround systems than two channel stereo.
Not sure why Ohm doesn't just aim the tweeter up and use a diffusion device of some sort to disperse 360 degrees along with the Walsh driver, like I think the Morrisons and Duevals do. Maybe for ease of placement due to the apparent Ohm focus on controlling early reflections from walls.
Morrisons appear to use a more sophisticated porting design than the Ohms. Would like to hear that in comparison though I have no grievances regarding bass on the Ohms when used with proper amplification. |
Mapman, the Morrison speaker line has been somewhat below the radar screen, which is why you may not have heard about them. To the extent that his omni-directional point source speakers share concepts with Duevel and others, there may be similarities. I own the Model 7, and the experience of listening to music through them is a real "ear-opener": no endless fussing to find the sweet spot, no constant micro-measuring to find the perfect placement in the room. Taming room reflection points and spending a little time experimenting with finding a good spot for the speakers is all it takes. |
KN,
I think there is a lot of validity and insight to the assertions on the Morrison site regarding nature of recordings and stereo playback.
I would still assert though that recordings are what they are in regards to how miked, mixed etc. Good stereo recordings that apply or approach the two mike configuration sound phenominal on omnis (or pseudo omnis like the Ohms which intentionally attenuate the output towards the walls to make placement easier). This is where there is the biggest gap between omnis and conventional designs, in my opinion. Conventional designs cannot approach omnis, in my opinion, in the ideal scenario, as described by Morrison.
Listen to a good two miked Mercury Living Presence recording on a pair of Ohms, and welcome to a place that few systems have ever gone before.
In the much more common scenario where more complex mikings are used in recordings, omnis will still deliver the image location information better than conventional designs, but the difference is more marginal. Those used to conventional designs will more likely levitate to the imaging inherent in these rather than omnis, because it comes across as more pinpoint, at least in the horizontal dimension (I'd argue about the vertical dimension even in this case, however, and this is where much of the difference is between the omnis and box designs in this case).
I'd take issue with Morrison in describing the more common recording scenario as a "jumble" in that this infers a lack of imaging precision or accuracy, whereas there can be and often is imaging precision in these recordings, however it is based on the whims of the person who did the mix rather than on any inherent natural location of instruments.
Then there are the recordings that are miked and mixed in a more complex manner AND it is done poorly. Traditional box designs will do a better job of masking this due to their inherent imaging limitations even though the garbage is still there. Omnis will let the garbage "shine through", for whatever it may be worth. |
In addition to the design and production of his line of speakers, Morrison has been very active in the recording of music: typically done in a venue other than a recording studio. Morrison's recordings feature just one pair of microphones, and no mix. "Live off the floor" recordings of unamplified instruments -- and depending on the music genre there may be a vocalist. Call it "real stereo", or "true stereo" or whatever, the results are jaw-dropping. I have a couple of his recordings and they are wonderful.
So to some people his views on multi-microphones and mixes may seem rather fixated, but in truth his vantage point is based on years of experience and results. I wish there more than a miniscule number of true stereo recordings available. |
Jpaik,
Thanks for the link. It looks like the Morrison speakers use more conventional drivers to achieve the same general effect as the Ohms. Interesting that he is rather fixated on the poor "quality" of most "stereo" recordings - have to wonder if this is an explanation for why some (most?) recordings might sound a bit "incoherent" when reproduced on omni-directional speakers? Perhaps we live in an age where most recordings are designed to be reproduced through what Morrison calls "PA speakers". I would have to agree that the number of true stereo two mic recordings is probably a minuscule fraction of the total recordings made.
In addition, Morrison seems to agree with my friend who owns the Walsh Ohms that fancy cables are just a bunch of Who-Ha. Very interesting. Morrison also suggests a valid approach for double blind testing.
http://www.morrisonaudio.com/morrison_donsview.htm
Will have to try this sometime. |
Jpaik,
Never heard of Morrison speaks before.
Their web site has a nice accounting of the omni imaging experience compared to conventional designs. From that I would expect some similarities to Ohm , Dueval, German Physiks, MBL and the like, no? |
I am so late in replying to this thread! If the OP has not yet taken out his credit card, I highly recommend the Morrison Audio Model 7 speakers: point-source, omni-directional in design, these speakers are perfect for a smaller listening environment. Check them out at Morrison Audio |
Rebbi, a lot of good advice here. Mapman, I see that I missed out on the Ohm threads... Let us know what you think of the Arros! |
Well, the Arro it is, then. Thank you to all of you who have been such a tremendous help to me. Now I just have to hope that the Arro's don't reveal my PS Audio Elite Plus as a crappy amp... wish me luck! :-) |
Mapman and Knownothing,
I'm getting an education here! ;-) |
Knownothing, a few things I can add:
Micro walshes were the first "series 3" model released I believe and all micro walshes are series 3. As I understand it from John Strohbeen, Ohm owner and principal Walsh series designer, the difference between series 2 and 3 is in the tweeter only, so I would expect much of the overall presentation to be very similar between series 2 and 3.
Series 1, which would include original Walsh 2s, 4s and 5s from th 80's, are an older Walsh design and I can clearly assert much inferior in regards to imaging accuracy and overall timbre.
If the 4's were rebuilt in the 90's, I suspect there is a good chance they are series 2. Your friend would probably know for sure what the difference was when they were rebuilt.
Regarding, cables, I hear huge differences with different interconnects from my digital sources using the Ohms or my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 monitors, perhaps even to larger extent with the Ohms since they are more full range, but I have not done sufficient experimentation with speaker wires to say much about that.
I suspect the differences with speaker wire is less significant in that I am using premium Audioquest cv-6 wires to my Dynaudios but all other speakers , including both pair of Ohm Walsh are in different rooms from my electronics and hook up through rather industrial grade in-wall wiring. The Ohms have such a large soundstage and image so well, in their own special way, that I do not notice any adverse effects despite the big $$$ cost in the wires feeding them.
Also, amplification makes a huge difference with Ohms, more so with my larger Ohm 5's than my 2's. You need high current and significant damping factor for audiophile results at most volumes with the 5's. The 2's are not as fussy those these things still help. The micros are smaller than the 2's and I suspect even less sensitive to current and damping factor specifications accordingly.
Your description of the Walsh speakers imaging and sound stage signature is fairly accurate. The effects of studio or concert hall acoustics on recordings are what they are. The Ohms will reproduce this more so than other speakers perhaps. They will also present this in a manner that depends more so on the signature of the room they are playing in and this will change based on speaker location.
To me, the imaging characteristics of the Ohms are what make them special and exciting. They actually capture the sound of the original recording environment and translate it accurately into your room. The trick is to realize this fact and not resist it and use it to your advantage when setting things up and listening.
Short of listening back in the original environment recorded in (impossible), what more could one ask for? As a long time Ohm affectionado for this reason mainly, it is very hard for me to stay interested for long periods of listening to most any other system I hear, save those perhaps which cost tens of thousands of dollars more. |
Mapman wrote:
"I was wondering if you know whether the Ohms you heard were original (series 1 which first arrived in the early 80's), series 2, which I think started in the early-mid 90's through ~ 2005 or 2006, or series 3, which have only been available for a couple of years?"
Best answer I can give:
His main speakers are the Walsh 4, I believe, the really big ones from the 1980s. But, a few years ago he removed the CLS drivers and returned them to the factory for a "complete rebuild and upgrade" - whatever that means. So I cannot vouch for the actual model or vintage of these speakers. While the speakers themselves go down to the low 30s, being a bass hog, he has a giant SVS sub hooked up in the system and the pairing is really impressive for those instances when the program material dips into the 20s or below. But I digress...
He also has about 5 year old Micro Walsh Talls set up as his rear speakers for HT and multichannel audio duty. Their characteristic sound is not unlike their older and bigger brothers, but with less authority. These are all driven by fairly powerful Hafler and Dynaco amps with a Yamaha receiver serving as the processor/pre.
To elaborate on why I think the Ohm speakers might be more forgiving of what comes up stream, my friend and I have a running argument going about the efficacy of premium wires and digital sources (I am for, he is against), and have played around with different combinations on his system. Turns out I find that it is much more difficult to identify sound signatures of different ICs and front ends in his system than in my system that has modest but decent electronics and custom speakers with quality dynamic drivers in a sealed cabinet - about as far as you can get from the Ohm's presentation. I also find it easier to tell these differences in other dynamic speaker based systems compared with the Ohms.
Don't get me wrong his system and the Ohm-Walsh speakers sound terrific. But the Ohms always bounce the sound off everything - sometimes giving me the feeling I am hearing the sound reflected off two back walls, the one in the studio or concert hall and the one in the listening space. I guess I prefer greater pinpointing of instruments and their reflections in the recording space during play back. But again, to each their own. |
Well, you probably have a win scenario at this point no matter which way you go. You obviously know what your looking for when you hear it. |
Mapman,
I dunno about the Totem Arro, because although there are two Totem dealers here in Austin, neither stocks the Arro! So I'm extrapolating from the Dreamcatchers that I did get to hear, and from the copious rave reviews I've read. Everybody seems to agree that their imaging is phenomenal, albeit in that "etched, precise," "great stereo" kind of way. So I'm running on some guesswork and second-hand advice, here! |
The Vandy's are not a conventional box design.
The Ohms and Vandies share a couple of characteristics I can think of.
First, driver surfaces are decoupled from the cabinets. Second, both strive for phase coherence, Ohm by using a single driver for most of the audible range and avoiding a crossover in the critical midrange.
Do you think at this point that the Totem's or other box designs you've auditioned in your price range can do what the Vandy's can to your satisfaction? |
Mapman,
The most unique thing about the Vandy's, AFAIK, is that you have the grill cloth "sock" stretched around four corner dowels, and inside is the closest thing to bare speaker guts you can get. They call this a baffle-less design, and it's supposed to eliminate edge diffraction effects; there's no "box," in the conventional sense. Also, the speaker elements are supposed to be time and phase-aligned.
They have lovely bass response well recorded electric bass sounds like a string instrument, and not low-level mush. When I bought that first system, I carried around my vinyl copy of James Taylor's "That's Why I'm Here" from audio shop to audio shop (this was back when I lived in the NYC area). I listened to the title track over and over and over again for two great audio moments. First, when JT sings the line, "It seems me and Melissa, well we fell out of love," Leland Sklar enters with this swooping bass glissando. Done right, it has "air" around it. The Vandy's got that right. Also, when JT sings "I'm back in touch with my long lost friend," there's a moment when you swear you can hear the wall in back of his head, and his voice is eerily "there." The Vandy's did a good job with that, too. |
Thanks for the recommendations, Asa. Right now, I know pretty well that the PS Audio amp at least has the "juice" to drive a 4 ohm speaker. If the Arro's are so revealing that they expose the Elite Plus to have crappy sound, then, there's something else to save up for, as you say. When the time comes, I'll get back on Audiogon and see what people recommend in a "budget" priced, used amp. I might even try tubes, if I can swing the $ ! ;-) |
Rebbi, thanks for listing your system. I had Vandy 1B's when I was in college many, many moons ago. I think the Music Hall Cd was a good choice and you've got the Sota so your front end is ready to go. The problem will be the circa 80's PS Audio. I'm not an anti-PS Audio guy; in fact, I had a Lambda transport years ago too. But PS Audio amps are a different thing, particularly from the eighties - bright and wiry. The Totem Model One's are a nice speaker and I have heard the same thing: they disaappear, are expansive for what they are, and have a rich midrange. True, a bit inefficient and you need to biwire, but you always will have good resale and they are speakers you can build with, if you choose. But they will translate the PS Audio sound, and, hence, I do not think you will hear them in your home like you did at the dealer's. I know $ is an issue, and you may not be able to spring for a PrimaLuna and speakers at once, but I sure would look at moving from the PS Audio at some point. Maybe a Naim Nait 5 (I would think around $1200 used) or something else. In any event, if you get speakers, I think you are going to hear pretty quick where the weak link is. Then again, there's always something to buy, right?! Good luck with your search. |
