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

Carja,

The only way I know is to post a virtual system.

Mapman I have photos but I can't seem to figure out how to put these in a response- it only accepts words, not jpeg.

Even with a lottery hit, there just aren't that many speakers I'd be interested in. I'm sold on the omni concept- so I guess MBL's or German Physiks would be a possibility. But I'd probably just go with a larger, recent incarnation of the Ohm's.

It's been almost 3 years that I've had the MWT's, and I still remember the thrill of doing the research, reading this thread and talking to John.

Even with my 'pedestrian' Marantz receiver, Emotiva sub and lap-top based music/movie server system, the soundstage, imaging and tonal accuracy is amazing to me.

I've moved on to obsessing on my pro-audio caliber bass rig, which is why I don't even frequent this board too often. I just feel no need to upgrade, which has never happened to me before now. If anything, some Micro Walsh Walls may be in the future to have a surround set-up. But not anytime soon...

Parasound - Funny you should say you don't even audition speakers anymore. Since I joined my local audio club a few years ago, I have been able to audition dozens of speakers, plus electronics of all sorts. As my earlier posts explain, I love doing this. While before I had the Ohms, these auditions would always send me home completely unexcited by my own rig, now I actually look forward to coming home and firing up the Ohms. I have heard speakers that cost 10 times as much, and more, than my 2000s that I would not trade for. It's really amazing. In fact, the few times I have felt that someone's system was superior was not with mega-buck speakers, but with good mid-priced speakers, like an older Martin Logan model. And yet, I think that front-end, cable and acoustic improvements will get me there, all without a speaker upgrade. I haven't ventured into that "speakers to hold onto for life" thread, but more and more, I am realizing that these might well be my last loudspeakers (barring a lottery hit).

Mapman - I have been dipping my toe into the power cord waters. An entry level PS Audio cord seems to do no harm to my amp, and is perhaps just slightly quieter. A more expensive pc from K-Works, for my preamp, did indeed lower the noise floor and increase apparent soundstage width. Since I will soon need a longer pc for the amp, I expect I will try something else, perhaps Audio Art. Once I get that done, I will finally upgrade my speaker cables, which are older Kimber entry level. I'll keep you posted.

Good to see the old thread active.

Just to chime in: while I'm sure the Ohm's are responsive to all sorts of improvements, one of the factors that keeps me from even auditioning other speakers is how wonderful they are with a quality amp and good placement.

Still the largest and most realistic soundstage I have heard for under about 50K, and my system is nowhere near audiophile quality...

Never heard Is but have almost picked up a pair on several occasions. They are reputed to be quite awsome. They were an interim top of the line design prior to the Walsh cls driver but do not utilize any Walsh driver techlology.

I'm giving thought to keeping the Ohm 2's and moving them to the bedroom for a second system... with a larger pair of Ohms for the first floor/LR system. Spotted a used pair of Ohm I for sale (not Ohm 1's.) These are conventional speakers in the sens that they have five forward firing drivers but unconventional in that they have an additional three upward facing drivers on top of each speaker. If I drop the hammer on these it is a sale at a distance - no chance to audition them. have any of you heard these and can share thoughts on how different or similar the sound is to the Ohm 2 design and its ilk?

Musical and muscular! I like that description!

I'd love to see some nice photos of those bubinga 5000s.

Once again I upgraded my system (Is there any escape from this madness?). You can check out the amp review in the Products Review:Amps:McCormack DNA-250

I've found significant differences with different ICs with the OHMS, more so than any other speaker I have owned.

HAven't crossed the bridge of dabbling with power cords yet. HAve not felt the need. I hesitate to change anything at present. Everything has been dialed in for the OHM F5s for about a year now. Maybe sometime soon.

Mapman - I agree completely. While I really enjoy listening to my system as it is currently configured, the Ohms respond very well to upgrades. I am currently evaluating a pair of Vandersteen MHP-5 crossovers (I have a pair of Vandy subs) that replaced Vandersteen's basic crossovers. So far, the Ohms let me hear the improvements in the crossovers: Smoother mids and treble, better low-level detail, more stable imaging, and more bass (to the point that I will probably dial back the subs).

I am also planning several IC and power cord upgrades. As always, I will post my impressions here.

"my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy."

I'm in a similar boat. Have heard lots of great systems and speakers. Still content.

Gotta say though that it took a lot of tweaking to my system over the last few years subsequent to the OHM Walsh upgrade with some additional expense associated to get to the point where others reference systems I hear do not leave me wanting. The OHMs are pretty forgiving and many may not care, with most gear, but it really takes a lot of focus and work to get things to that highest possible level. It usually takes a lot of hard work to achieve great things. Nothing unique there!

Once again - I have heard a respected company's Statement Speaker, in this case the KEF Blade, and come away impressed, but not depressed. The Blade is a wonderful speaker, with excellent detail retrieval, image solidity and extension at both extremes. Of course, they sounded like a point source, a design goal that was met. Yet, the soundstage was confined to the area between the speakers. In that regard, I still prefer the Ref 205 & 207 to the Blade.

Bottom line: While the Blade is actually fairly priced at $30K, my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy.

I had stability issues with my uneven floor as well. I had Sound Anchors make me some three-point spike cradle bases for the 2000s, with similar results to what Phaelon got. Note that even concrete has resonance. My preferred audio guru likes absorption for source components and amps, but prefers coupling for loudspeakers - hence the spiked bases.

I added a K-Works Ersamat to my vintage Thorens table with excellent results. Not as exotic or labor-intensive as making a deerskin mat, but easy and effective, IME.

As for LP cleaning, I spent a little more than Phaelon on the KAB EV-1, which likewise does an awesome job on used LPs. Listened last night to a Denny Christianson Big Band LP ("More Pepper"). Not the best big band LP I've ever heard, but the sonics were spectacular, and the bass was equal to anything I've heard from digital!

I am going to hear KEF's The Blade tonight. I'll post my thoughts at some point.

Clean records->excellent tweak!

WIth their bottom ports, what the Walshes sit on can make a big difference with how they interact with the room and the resulting sound. I need to try something like that in my tile floor 12X12 sunroom where every speaker I try including the Walshes tend to have a bass bump.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. I did just acquire a used NAD 512 CD player here on Agon. It's a fairly low end unit but distinctly better detail, tight and fuller bass and less bright than the Yamaha CD hanger I already had in place.

A couple of other recent tweaks and a new accessory have also made a noticeable difference. At a discount home improvement I got two 12" square concrete patio stones that are about 1.5" thick and look like stone. Put one under each speaker on the hardwood floors (there is a thick oriental rug with pad in room but it does not extend to the area where the speakers sit. Bass response is tighter and deeper. The second tweak may be sen as snake oil by some but I swear the sound - especially with vinyl - is a bit more open and has clarified and even slightly deepened bass response over what it was... all from a new turntable mat. I have Technics SL-1400 (kissing cousin of the Sl-1200.) The stock mat is a thick rubber and many seem to feel that rubber mats - or at least this one - don't allow the sound to open up as much. A lot of research on different mat materials... synthetic plastic, metal, felt, cork etc. yield the overall impression that most folks here no difference between mats which I believe.) The one exception was deerskin. Nearly every thread I found that discussed deerskin/leather mats suggests that they have a positive impact on the sound. Only place I could find them for sale was a few UK vendors and prices were high. I bought a compass style circle cutter with cutting wheel for drywall - at a hardware store,) an X-Actoknife, a roll of self adhesive cork at a craft store, and a 1/4" hole punch and a scrap of soft grained leather at a leather supply shop (deerskin was too pricey for an experiment but I will now buy some based on my sing the rubber mat for size I scored two circles of cork, one of leather and carefully cut them out. One cork circle was then cut to remove a 4" circle of material in the center. That piece was the center of the "sandwich, the smoother side of the leather faces up and the third piece of cork on the bottom. Careful pressure and pounding with a soft rubber mallet got the layers adhered and the center 4" area of leather is slightly depressed due to the cutout under it (for the label depression.) Last steps were to punch the center spindle hole and trim the edges even. I played Side A of Steely Dan's Aja on the rubber mat and then on the new leather mat. There IS a difference and the leather mat yields better sound. I was surprised that I could hear it but am convinced that it isn't my imagination. Followed up later tonight with side B of the Sony Legacy 180 gram reissue of Axis Bold as Love and damn!

Last change... I got an $80 Spin-Clan manual record washer and built my own jerry-rigged vacuum system form and old portable vacuum. I can clean about 15 records in one hour and the results are astounding. Thrift store finds and even vinyl from my own remaining old collection (much of which is gone) sounds so much better. Surface noise that I attributed to worn records was just dirt embedded in the grooves. Great investment.

Yet another moment when I realized how fortunate I am to have the Walsh 2000s: I stopped by a local dealer the other evening to pick up something I'd had serviced there. This dealer (the excellent John Rutan at Audio Connection) offered to play the Vandersteen 7s for me. How could I refuse? He had them in a nice-sized and treated room, with Aesthetix amps and an ARC preamp, all SOTA stuff. The sound was indeed amazing. I'd heard these before, but not from the sweet spot. Incredible sound stage width and depth, just-right transients, deep, tuneful, tight bass, and timbre that was simply spot-on. These might be my "I just won the Powerball lottery" speakers. Nevertheless, all the things that I liked about these $45,000 speakers are simply more of exactly what I like about my Ohm Walsh 2000s. I noted the basic similarity of the way both speakers produce a palpable image of performers and instruments, of the accurate reproduction of instrument timbre, the ability of the speakers to dissappear into the soundstage, and the transients that were there, but never in-my-face. Were the 7s, driven by this SOTA front end, in a treated room, better than my Ohms? Yes, they were. But not by the margin that the price difference would suggest.

The item I had serviced should take my system to the next level. Stay tuned.

Phaelon56: I originally ran my Ohm 2000s with a C-J PV-11 preamp and SS amp. The sound was great, but due to several issues, including an impedance missmatch between the C-J and the SS amp, I upgraded to a McIntosh C220 tube-hybrid preamp. The results are fantastic. Like Mapman, I have found that the tube-pre/SS-amp combo is the magic ticket. Also, consider saving for a new DAC if your current CDP can be used as a transport. While you will have to invest in a decent digital cable, it will give you added flexibility in the future. I recently added a music sever and Squeezebox Touch to my system, and having a stand-alone DAC made the addition seemless.

I have an update on my system. As you know I said that my vinyl was a bit "bright", actually more of a bit lacking on the low end. So I took out the fine high output MC Bluepoint #2 that came with the Pro-Ject and installed an AudioTechnica AT-33EV that was on sale at JR's. I hooked it into my NAD PP3 phono amp, but didn't notice that much difference in sound until the next day when I hooked the phono into my new step up transformer first, then into the MM input of the NAD. The step up transformer is a Raphaelite PM 1.1, sourced again through Pacific Valve (thanks Joe!). The result was game changing! So many more low notes that I never heard before, clean, and not dominating. I can hear the low notes on a piano or guitar in all their glory. Last night I listened to the half speed master edition of "Stradust" by Willie Nelson, ca 1980- it never sounded this good before. So the lesson is that sometimes (as you all know) it's not the speaker that's lacking- this I knew from listening to SACD recordings- but one arm of the system. Unfortunately, PV&Co may discontinue stocking the Raphaelite (they might reconsider if they get a lot of inquiries and NO I have no financial interest in the company), as it didn't sell well, but as far as I'm concerned this one little addition just transformed my entire LP collection into something very magical! Can't wait until I get my boxed set of Dick Dale albums (Sundazed records) in the mail.

Yes, I've found a tube pre-amp can be a very good ingredient to mix in with digital. I would expect a significant difference with the CJ pre-amp. I use an ARC sp16 in my main rig and currently a 25 year old NAD 7020 receiver pinch hitting temporarily off the bench in my second 2 channel a/v rig. Its quite listenable in taht particular smaller rig.

I had an Adcom 545II in place for a couple weeks with the preamp section of my NAD 3155 integrated amp. It's hard to sort out which new item has the most impact but I think the slightly warmer characteristic of the Citation 22 amp (along with 2x the power of the Adcom) has helped a lot but I think the huge improvement in the sound of CDs is mostly due to the Conrad Johnson PV2 tubed preamp. It's the first time since I bought my first CD player 20 years ago that I've actually been able to sit down and listen directly to CDs at a decent volume level for a few hours. I have a line on a pretty decent NAD C541i CD player and think that will also make a difference. All in all... I'm thrilled.

"And they keep getting better every time I upgrade things upstream."

Yes, me too, though I am mostly done now.

After some detours trying out other lines out over the years, it still then took me several years of rededicated focus to get to where I wanted to be. I'm glad I got back on the OHM bandwagon and persisted.

Yeah, welcome aboard Phaelon. Addictive is the word I most often use for my Ohms. And they keep getting better every time I upgrade things upstream.

Phaelon,

Always glad to hear of new OHM affectionados. Welcome aboard! It's a very good ship to be on I would say.

New member of the Ohm fanboy club here. My first and only truly "good" audio system was back in the early through mid 70's. I had heard a pair of Ohm A's or Ohm F's a few times in a Tech Hi-Fi listening room but as a high school senior with a part time job (at $1.65 hourly!) the big Ohm's were just a dream. I ended up with the much maligned but better than you'd expect Bose 501's (original - not the II's,) a Lenco turntable and a 65 wpc Onkyo integrated amp (Onkyo was unkown to the mass market at that time but a kindly hi-fi nut who worked in a local repair shop steered me to Onkyo.) A variety of circumstances (bad lifestyle choices, becoming a parent unexpectedly at age 25 etc.) resulted in my selling off my system and I've had naught but small integrated amps and bookshelf speakers since then. Some bug caught me this Christmas... I stumbled across a nearly mint pair of Ohm Walsh 2's for $300 locally and my next chapter in audio began. Grabbed a used Adcom 545II (100 wpc) at the same time for $130 and was initially please but not wowed by the sound (was using my NAD integrated amp as a preamp.) A few short weeks later I scored a Harmon Kardon Citation 22 amp from the late 70's/early 80's (200 wpc) and a vintage Conrad Johnson PV2 preamp. My turntable (Technics SL1400 with Shure V15 Type IV cart) has been pulled out of mothballs... and I'm now on the hunt for a good CD player. These speakers with this amp and preamp... even with a crappy Yamaha cD changer or 320kbps mp3's from an iPod as the source... sound EFFING incredible! I'm floored every time I listen to music now and for the first time in close to 30 years I find myself really engaged by the music. :-) I have a problematic living room with a big open archway on across the back, a fireplace with glass doors flanked by deep wall to wall bookshelves and another open archway just a foot in from the front left corner. Have only played a little bit with placement as I have few options but I'm thrilled - truly thrilled - by the sense of life and space that music now has with the Ohm's. They'll even upgrade my 2's to the new generation of drivers for $1400 (versus me buying anew pair of 200's for $2800)but I think I don't want to mess with success. I'll just kick back and enjoy this for awhile!

Ah, tonewood....

http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/main.htm

Some interesting stuff here.

Mapman the 5000 uses veneers, not solid exotics. The end result is very pleasing, though not the glossy finish of a rococo dining piece. I was torn between that and purpleheart. John never had a request for that wood, but he got me a sample. So if anyone out there wants to have a one of a kind, look at purpleheart.
It's quite true that various woods sound different- when I bought my son an electric guitar as a present, I selected one with a body made from korina wood. More of a classic 60's guitar.

Found this about Bubinga wood in wikipedia. Interesting....

"Uses

The genus is well-known for its luxury timbers. The best-known timber is bubinga (Guibourtia demeusei, aka kevazingo). Another is ovangkol. Species of Guibourtia also produce Congo copal.

The wood is often used by luthiers for harps and other instruments, such as bass guitars, because of its mellow and well-rounded sound. Warwick Bass is known to use Bubinga and Ovangkol. It has been used in drum shells as well. Drum companies such as Tama offer various high-end drum kits with plies of Bubinga in the shells.[4] Crafter also use bubinga on some of their instruments.[5] Bubinga is also used in both acoustic and electric guitars for its figure and hardness.

Bubinga is sometimes used in the production of archery bows, in particular as the main wood of the handle in some flat bows.

Bubinga is also used in furniture making, usually for tables, as large slabs of the dense wood can be cut, and with very little manipulation, be used for a table top.

Bubinga often has an appearance similar to the mineral tiger eye. Light brown through dark brown and red, some samples show as almost purple.

Luxury car maker Lexus also makes use of the wood in their luxury vehicles.

They are known to produce chalconoids (chemical compounds related to chalcone), relatives of medically important chemicals called stilbenoids, one famous one being resveratrol.[citation needed]"

Carja,

Nice. Thanks for sharing that!

WOuld love to see some pictures of the 5000s in Bubinga wood.

IS it a veneer or solid Bubinga? I'm guessing the first, especially of no extra cost.

I ask because I see Bubinga is an exotic wood sought for use in instrument construction, similar perhaps to Baltic Birch.

There are many very exotic and well received speaker lines out there that construct their cabinets from these kinds of exotic woods that lend themselves well to musical intruments as well in that this is a key aspect of the actual sound of such designs. I've often wondered what a pair of OHM Walsh speakers with similar construction might sound like. I think the results could be quite extraordinary if done right, but a different tuning process would probably be required for the Walsh driver, so I think it would entail a significantly different functional design.

Just curious. I suspect yours are babinga veneer which would not change the OHM Walsh design for sonic reasons, but would still deliver the usual still excellent sound plus being more lovely to look at.

Enjoy!

I thought I'd weigh in, since I've had a pair of Ohm 5000's for about 6 mo now.  Originally, I had looked at electrostatics (Martin Logans) but they were more expensive and I was intrigued that Walsh drivers were still made, having last heard them ca 1977.  Also, the fact that the company would offer upgrade kits to speakers made over 30 years ago sold me on them as having a quality product and outstanding customer service.  I chose my 5000's in Bubinga wood and John was very nice in not charging me extra for the exotic product.  He even sent me several samples to choose from to help me make up my mind.  The speakers came triple boxed and of course unscathed.  The construction is great, no scratches or flaws.  They are well broken in now and sound fantastic!  I find that the audio sources and the recordings themselves are the most important factors in enjoyment of the speakers. Hooking up my iPod is great for background music if I'm having a party, but no way would I sit down and listen for pleasure with that.

Ok, so what's my setup? I started with a tube preamplifier of unusual design, probably the first in the states to own a Ming Da MD300 APS (sourced through Pacific Valve & Electric).  The initial stage uses 6SN7's, and I use VT-231's from WWII.  The final stage is 300B's, and I have Gold Lions from Genalex (Russian).  This can be a bit microphonic so I installed tube dampers to help quiet them. The sound stage is amazing when using this with the 5000's, really makes one feel you are AT the concert and you can place the instruments easily.  This preamp comes very, very close to a SET sound, which is what i was looking for.  I paired the preamplifier with a Sumo Polaris II that's about 20 years old.  At 6 ohms it puts out 170W per channel and I've never even begun to think I'm underpowered.  So for me tube/SS has worked out well, getting the SET sound I wanted without having to go for a super efficient horn speaker like a Klipsch.

My speaker wire is an old Monster Cable product which is no longer made- it's braided from 8 cables in a Litzendraht design that results in very low capacitance. 

I bought a Sansui TU-919 from eBay for my tuner, and I'm very pleased 
with it. I originally used a HD radio from Sony but decided on an analog unit from the late '70s. 

Nothing special for the CD, except it's an Onkyo C-S5VL that comes with a very good Wolfson DAC and plays SACD.  I don't fiddle with the different digital audio filters, just use the factory settings.  Some SACD's are scary good- Pink Floyd DSOTM and Who's Tommy come to mind.  The bass response is great on these SACD's, but it's also impressive on CD's, like Zappa's Inca Roads.

Vinyl (Pro-Ject 5.1) can be fantastic, like the Blind Faith I picked up for $5, but sometimes recordings sound quite bright. Haven't figured that one out yet. 

It's nice at the age of 58, four kids out of the house, to get back to my musical roots and have an old school setup to showcase the Ohm 5000. 

James

FWIW, I picked up a used pair of MWTs for surround speakers and also bought an Ohm Walsh center (smaller model). The center and MWTs are both very similar in voicing to my Walsh 2000s (current model). The MWTs were a little less dynamic than the 2000s, but with my subwoofers kicking in below 80 Hz, there was little apparent difference between the MWTs and the 2000s. One of the Ohm Walsh strengths, IMHO, is the uniformity of voicing throughout the line, even between older and newer models.

John Strohbeen goes for a certain kind of sound. If you like it, I bet you will like any speaker he has ever designed. The newer designs might just be more of a good thing if you like the Ohm sound.

Oh, and yet another mega-buck speaker that I would not trade my 2000s for: Just heard the Martin Logan CLX flagship, run on Pass amps and Esoteric source gear. They were very nice, but I still prefer my humble Ohms, at a little over 1/10 the price!

In fact I own a walsh 2xo, 4xo, pro 200 sound cylner and my best, ohm walsh 300 mk 2 rebuilt drivers by ohm upgraded to the 4000 series.

Armyscout41,

It's obvious from other posts you appreciate the Ohms and, along with Mapman, seem to have owned a number of different models. Care to elaborate on the differences between the models above? Have you heard the newer designs?

Hyperion85 - Yes, Mapman, as usual, provided solid advice. I have heard various Mirage models. The better ones, like the OMD line, do indeed sound really good. But they are very different designs from the Walsh line. After 2 years with my Ohm Walsh 2000s, though, I have no regrets at all. In fact, as I have made improvements to the rest of my system, the 2000s have responded with more and more magnificent sound. I just listened to all 3 discs of the Riki Lee Jones compilation "The Dutchess of Coolsville." Besides wondering why I never paid more attention to Jones as an incredible performer, I was almost moved to tears by the beauty of this well produced Red Book CD.

To me, and this is where the Ohms may diverge from the Mirages, the Ohms present just the right amount of transient information, enough so that you can tell it's all there, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming at higher volumes, or so much that it masks other details in the music. This past Sunday, I heard a $40,000 speaker system on a rig that cost easily $100K, in a treated room. Was it a great stereo? Yes. Did it do everything better than my modest system? Nope. When it was cranked, this pricey system made me wince with a blaring quality in the upper mids. My Ohms almost never do that, at any volume, unless the source material is really peaky in this range. Listening to that Riki Lee Jones CD, I realized that if someone offered me those $40K speakers as a cash-free trade for my Ohms, I would turn down the offer. Seriously.

Give some time for your 1000s to break in (it's absolutely a big factor with the Ohm Walsh speakers). Experiment with toe-in, remembering that with this series, toe-in reduces upper-treble output from the super-tweeter at the listening seat, and toe-out increases it. Get the speakers level and level with each other. And try different locations if you can. When properly set up, the soundstage on these speakers is not only huge, but accurate to the source recording, with excellent image placement and solidity.

As I have often said about these speakers, I may upgrade many other parts of my system and try to improve my room, but the Ohms are staying for the long haul.

Thanks for the tip, Mapman, I'll try to reach Foster_9.

Agoner Foster_9 would be a good one to email for feedback on OHM versus Mirage. He has Mirage currently I believe and dabbled with OHMs for a while also.

Both have omni dispersion patterns to an extent for a larger than normal sweet spot but significantly different designs and approaches so I would expect a significant sound difference between the two in general.

Hi, everyone!

I have been on the search for my first pair of "real" loudspeakers for a long stretch of years, and I've decided to finally take the plunge. I do not have, by any means, "a well-trained ear." I just love good sound and want to appreciate it more fully now that I have a little more time to do so, and I have never really had an opportunity to experience high-quality speakers. I had never really looked into alternative designs much until a friend who used to install home theaters mentioned the Mirage OMDs that he uses in his setup.

The omni idea of wide dispersion peaked my interest, and after a few days of reading around I stumbled onto the Ohms. More looking into them led to this thread, and, after a couple weeks, I've managed to wade through the entire thing. Upon mention of my interest in Walshes, my friend wrinkled his nose slightly, cocked his head, and said he didn't think the difference would really be worth the money. I decided to ignore his opinion for now.

Yesterday, I took the first big step, called John, and ordered a pair of 1000's with rosewood veneer to put to trial. They should be on their way in about three weeks! Hopefully, my friend will be willing to let me hook up the Walshes next to his system (after break-in, of course) to do a direct comparison.

I'm certain I saw a couple of mentions or comparisons here and there regarding the Ohm Walshes and Mirage OMD line, but I was wondering if any of you wonderful gentlemen have had the opportunity to do a side by side or have much experience with both of these speakers, and wouldn't mind refreshing me on your thoughts.

I'm interested in your various impressions between the two, technically, sonically, and otherwise.

Thank you all for this amazingly abundant resource.

It would be ludicrous to claim the same with with my MWT's, especially comparing to a pipe organ. In about 10 years we might be able to settle into a permanent house, and I can try some beefier Ohm's.

That being said, I've never been disappointed with them, especially after hearing 'higher end' sytems. The point is, after 1 1/2 years of ownership, I also am convinced more than ever how great these speakers are.

Went to a lovely wedding yesterday in a fairly contemporary and nicely designed church complete with sizable pipe organ, vaulted ceilings, the works pretty much in a very nice sized but not cavernous room.

I love pipe organs! Fascinating devices.

Of course my ears are always tuned to what I hear at any live event involving music as they were yesterday.

I came out feeling even more enamoured of the big OHM 5s. I love what they do and how they do it. I seem to never come away from live musical events feeling shorted listening at home anymore these days, which has not always been the case. More convinced than ever that the OHM Walsh speakers are truly an audiophiles dream at a very affordable price.

There are also Ohm Walsh 4s for $850.00 and 100 Mk. IIs for $800.00. Both are for pickup in metro San Diego within a short drive of my old home but won't work for me now. Still, curious about the differences between the two.

Had to mention here that somebody has a pair of original OHM C2s listed on agon for $50 in the NYC metro area.

Assuming all is in order, that is a steal! I am tempted to buy despite having no need.

The C2s are one of the larger and better 70's vintage era speakers that I recall. They sold for $700/pair back then and were one of the best in that range I recall hearing. They are a touch brighter than most OHMs on teh top end, which makes them very good for low to moderate level listening.

These could be worth a $700 trade in towards newer OHMS as well assuming the cabinets are refurbishable.

OHm sold me as a salesperson at Tech Hifi where I had access to many speakers, but the OHMs were always the best sounding to me at almost any common price point back then.

I started with OHM Ls and graduated to Walsh 2s around 1982 or so after.

Magnepans weaned me off the Walsh 2s as my main speakers around 1987 or so, but I also still enjoyed the Walsh 2s as a second speaker at teh time though a few weaknesses in resolution and detail were revealed.

I added a pair of B&W P6s and Triangle Titus in the 1990's.

I got the upgrade bug a few years back. I ended up replacing the Maggies, Walsh2's and B&Ws with what I run today which includes 3 pair of OHMs, my original Ls from teh seventies that I rebuilt myself, the 100 series 3 drivers in the Walsh 2 cabinets, and the OHM 5 series 3.

Maybe an upgrade to latest X000 series or whatever might come after will happen someday.

I am fortunate to have many types of well designed loudspeakers, so I can pretty much choose. Of all the speakers I collect, I have OHM acoustics the most. In fact I own a walsh 2xo, 4xo, pro 200 sound cylner and my best, ohm walsh 300 mk 2 rebuilt drivers by ohm upgraded to the 4000 series. For those who don't think it needs a boost in the highs and mids, you can always get an ADD on supertweeter or DIY project by selecting your transducer from partsexpress, madisound, simply sound or ebay etc. I have a janszen z 130 electrostat add on that I am adding to the ohm 300 mk 2 that will put it in another level. To have both the ohm walsh and the ESS HEIL 1D which I modified the bass drivers by adding a sub driver to the front, removing the radiator in the back and using the stock front drivers, the result is awesome. The only think that equals or possibly surpass it among my systems is my modified ohm walsh with the janszen electrostats. It is hard being a speaker collector because I love all my different designs. I am a magnepan and acoustat fan too, because I HAVE THEM also. BOSE hit the dumpster long time ago after the mid 90's when I no longer had any need for them. Bose to me these days is nothing but a joke. In the 70's and mid 80's they were good for the time. Dbx soundfield was far better designed, and I have them too! OHM speakers to me is the MOST versatile and multipurpose loudspeaker every designed. It was way ahead of it's time for critical stereo listening and home theater. The original AR-9 is also the loudspeaker way ahead of it's time. Most of the home theater towers were patterned after the original AR 9 some 30 plus years ago. Heathkit was another speaker design that was way ahead of it's time made for todays home theater. without ohm's, there would be no higher high end like german physiks, mbl, duevel. I think OHM's and ESS are the two of the most revolutinary designs by two of the greatest sound physicists the late dr. lincoln walsh and dr. oskar heil.

I am thinking of getting a pair of Micro's for my office....I have a pr. of the new M-5's and FRS 15's I bought new in 1991 and have upgraded the drivers......I will never have any other speaker in my home other than Ohm's as I have never heard any speaker that plays all types of music as Ohms do......

My best moments of late come when I listen to some old favorite recording that I have heard so may times with so many different kinds of gear over the years and I cannot find a fault in what I hear.

Its been a while since I have been where I am afraid to change a darn thing for fear of not being able to get back to where I was.

Also, I must say that the Dynaudio monitors are sounding the best ever these days in their smaller room and there is not much more I could reasonable ask of them.

However the difference between the monitors and the OHMs, despite having a subtly different but not dissimilar overall tonality and different way of doing imaging and soundstage, have always been in the impact and "meat on the bones" areas.

Its just not reasonable to expect any small monitor to deliver 100% on hard rock or modern pop or any large scale classical or jazz works. They are just not big enough for the job. They can get to 80% or so perhaps of what is possible, but cannot tackle the last few tough % in that regard.

FYI - I have had a lot of "Holy Crap!" moments with my Walsh 2000s. Had another one last weekend.

I was getting ready to box up an old Onkyo Dolby ProLogic AVR, retiring from the den. I wanted to see if was functioning properly first, so I fed it with my MacIntosh C220 preamp and hooked the 2000s to it directly (no subwoofer, full range). WOW! I have never really listened to the 2000s full range much before, but the bass output was amazing. Deep, tight, clean and powerful, subjectively almost as powerful as my Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers! The rest of the audio spectrum sounded great as well. I ended up listening to some of my Reference Recordings CDs. Although I think my big rig amp sounds better, and the subwoofers to give a nice assist to the amp and Ohm speakers, the difference was not as wide as I would have expected.

Ohm rocks!

Sndsrtaud: FWIW, I upgraded to a used McIntosh C220 tube-hybrid preamp last summer. At full list price new, this preamp alone lists for more than my Ohm Walsh 2000s ($4000 vs. $2800). Am I becomming a Linnie, focusing on source and front end gear? Perhaps, but the Ohms really do punch above their weight, and I can't imagine upgrading to other speakers unless I win the lottery. The biggest shock was the Ohm's ability to highlight the differences in digital cables I mentioned above. I now have come to understand that those who say cable is cable are either hard of hearing or lack the speakers and gear of sufficient resolution to allow hearing cable differences.

If you ever want to get back to Ohms, Sndsrtaud, look on this site for used offerings, and talk to John Strohbeen at Ohm about updated drivers in older, refurbished cabinets. The prices on these one-offs can make Ohm Walsh designs even more affordable.

Thanks John.

One of these days, perhaps before too long, I will test the waters with the latest drivers....

Happy New Year everyone.

Thanks for all your kind words. We are still filling orders from last year; but expect to be up-to-date in the near future.

Thanks again,

John Strohbeen

Well, I've just found this thread. Around '04 I was looking for some new speakers. I first bought a pair of Shahinian Obelisks- new. My rig was McIntosh MCD205/C45/MC252. Cut to the short, the Shaninians had a mid-range suck out I wasn't willing to live with, so I sold them and took a not too bad hit financially.

I tried the Ohm 100 (current model at that time) based on their in-home trial policy as I didn't want to get burned again. The 100s were chosen as they were the recommended the right size for my room.

All I could say was "Wow!!" Incredible sound for around $1400 IIRC- a fraction of what the electronics cost! I had owned/sold/reviewed about 35 pairs of speakers (up to $10k) and listened to at least that many more speakers in 35 years of audio and the Ohms were my personal favorites. They handled all types of music well and played loud, soft, in between. The Ohms did it all. Even when paired with much more expensive McIntosh electronics, they held their own. I was in nirvana.

As things go a number of events: a move, adopting 5 yr old twins, mother-in-law moving in resulted in my losing my music room. I now had to use the family room for music. The Ohm 100 were way to small and I couldn't afford the $$$ for a new larger pair (my audio "mad money" was now going for the kids' educ, inevitable braces, etc). I ended up selling them and building some nice corner speakers using GPA 604 and I enjoy them, but often wonder what the new Ohms would sound like.

I still believe the Ohms are one of the best speakers out there and when you factor in their low prices, they are a steal.

"I guess when you find something that works so well, why change it?"

I tend to agree.

ICs, particularly used ones that can be resold easily without taking a loss, are relatively easy things to tinker with though if one gets the urge to try some different flavors of good sound.