Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

Bondmanp,

I agree with the application of a sub in your case with your OHMS, room size and sub.

Using the sub allows to to bump up the SPLs in the range they are covering, right, compared to your OHMs, which cannot, right? WIth a good sub blended in correctly that will give you more control of bass levels and low end dynamics accordingly than with speakers alone, be they OHMs or others.

I use an early 90's vintage M&K sub with my Triangle monitors in my second system. Depending on how I adjust the sub, that system can have more or less low end impact and dynamics than any of my other speakers without a sub. Its nice having that flexibility. Until I got the 100s and 5s, that system was my reference sound overall in my house. Since getting the OHMs, the 5's are, and I tend to adjust the speaker configurations in my other rooms to what I hear with the 5s. The M&K runs up to about 60-70 Hz with my Triangle monitors in that system and the M&K breaks no sweat doing its part. I bought it in a audio shop for audio use and it really does sound quite fine, though it only goes down to 30 hz or so. My OHM 5s go down to 20hz or so smoothly I would say.

I was thinking of trying the M&K V1-B with the 5s just for fun, but when I revisited the subs specs, it did not make any sense to use it there. My 5s do have two bass level adjustments and though my room is a decent size within ghte range OHM specs for 5s, the highest bass levels possible are not needed. The midrange and overall detail and smoothness suffers a tad if I do.

BTW, regarding OHMs and room size, for larger rooms, I think a very cost effective strategy could be to actually undersize the OHMs in lieu of matching size exactly ( do NOT get OHMs that are too big for a room, that could be a dead end) and then get a decent sub to fill in the low end that you will give up.

All the OHMs from smallest to largest sound mostly the same except for low end extension is better on larger models. I can hear that when comparing my 100s and 5s in the same room on the same system. An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many.

"An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many"

I can testify to that!

-P

Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange? You know, laws of physics, yadda yadda.

BTW, I was floored by my Walsh 2000s twice in the last week. Once was while listening to a CD of John Williams Baroque guitar solos. The reproduction of the timbre of the acoustic guitar was mind-blowingly real. So much so that, when I went to a record show last Sunday, I searched for guitar works (only found one Spanish guitar LP, though).

Another time was listening to a couple of Gershwin pieces on CD - Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (a Bernstein recording, IIRC). I know they're two well-worn works, but on my system with the Walsh 2000s, they really clicked. The dynamics were better (still not perfect), but being able to follow each musical line was thrilling - all without any congestion during the numerous crescendos. This CD was a real carnival ride!

"Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange?"

Hmm, not sure, particularly when it comes to Walsh drivers.

With the Walsh drivers, I believe there is more surface area with larger drivers which you would think would have an effect. I'd have to a/b both my Walshes in the smaller room again and listen more carefully perhaps. I did not hear a clear advantage with the 5s in the smaller room prior, but perhaps I was not listening for that.

I would say the mids are just a touch more dynamic perhaps with my 5s in the large room compared to 100s in the smaller, but that could easily just be an artifact of room acoustics more so than the drivers.