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

Mapman - Your points are well taken. The cubic footage of my basement is within, but near the top, of the cubic foot range Ohm specifies for the 2000s. Thus, the subs should help the 2000s by lowering their output below 80Hz.

Also, I can't stress this enough, the 2Wqs are not typical subwoofers. I've heard plenty of low and mid-priced subs over the years, and none of them did what the 2Wqs do. Namely, they reproduce not just bass energy, but true timbre. They are tight, fast and clean in the extreme. The unusual crossover scheme allows a better blend than any sub I have heard. Plus, they are designed specifically for corner placement, and work quite well in my room.

If you have never heard these subs, you should try to. They simply do not make themselves known unless you unplug them. Then you hear their absence. There is no boominess or constant rumble, and I swear all of the bass sounds like it is coming from the Ohms (and previously the Vandy 1Cs), and not the 2Wqs. Placing a hand on the cabinet during loud bass passages will reveal a very solid cabinet (90 lbs.) that does not vibrate in tune to the music. A lot of it has to do with the crossover design, which is a first order type (pretty unusual these days) and simple, in-line filter for the amp. Also, using three small drivers instead of one large one could be a factor.

You can read about them on the Vandy site - Vandersteen.com. Also, Richard Hardesty had a similar view of these subs. IMHO, they are one of the most underrated high-value products in HiFi today. Sure, if you drop big bucks on the JL, Thiel or other high-end sub you could get similar results, but these list for about $1400, and I bought mine used for considerably less hear on the 'gon.

For all of these reasons, the 2Wqs stay. The only area where there is any discontinuity between the Walsh 2000s and the 2Wqs is in macro dynamics. The 2Wqs have noticeably more dynamic impact in their range than the 2000s do in the range above that. That is why I made the comments about the dynamics of the 2000s in an earlier post. I could live with the system as is, but I am hoping the dynamics of the 2000s will improve with break-in.

I have a third sub (nutty, right?) for LFE and redirected bass from the center and surround channels. It's an old Definitive Technology PF15. It is everything the 2Wqs are not (and that's no compliment). But with the help of a Paradigm X30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP (parametric digital EQ), it works well enough for film soundtracks. It is out of the loop for 2-channel listening.

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!