Simon, Finsup - I agree totally. I have MWTs as surrounds. They are up on a pair of cinder blocks to get them above ear level. Although the right surround is pretty close to my seat, I do not get any speaker localization issues with this set up (see my system link for the whole rig).
I find it interesting that you have back surrounds from Ohm, too. Currently I have a pair of Paradigm Atoms on tall stands as back surrounds. Since I upgraded to Ohms for 5 of the channels, I have been pondering whether to stick with 7.1 or go to 5.1. But a pair of Walsh Walls mounted on the back wall is tempting. No funding available right now, though. That Mac preamp pretty much broke the bank. Oh well. |
Finsup,
My room is rectangular--about 12.5 feet by 17 feet. It is closed off from everything else by doors, but I wouldn't call it hermetically sealed.
I've gone through a bunch of speakers for the side and rear surrounds, and I've come to the following conclusions. I prefer them at least two feet above ear level. I don't like direct radiating. I prefer them to match the fronts as close as possible. |
Simon_templar_32, I don't know how I missed your post but I'd love to hear an HT set-up similar to yours. How large is your room? |
PS Not sure what that means Maybe it's the blue color after you take a wee, Martykl. : ) Sounds like you have a keeper, Bond. |
Bond - I got YOUR point. It was mine that didn't make any sense (but sounded kinda funny, so I posted it, anyway). |
Thanks, all. Marty - I just meant that I felt like I was playing with the Big Boys now, as opposed to struggling at the margins of the high end. Yes, there is plenty of pee in the world of high end audio! So far, I think have avoided it. :-) |
Bond,
Congrats on the new pre. Only one word of warning: Adults have been known to pee in the pool, too.
Marty
PS Not sure what that means, but I liked your metaphor. |
Bond, My old Mac 6200 was the only piece of gear that didn't bother me because it had tone controls. Congrats on the C220, Mac gear works beautifully with Ohms. |
Sweet, Bondman.
That Mac is a nice piece! Pretty reputable company to go along with it.
Enjoy! |
Okay - I am ready to break my silence. (Pause, while I put on my flame-proof protective suit). I recently decided to stop trying to get my Conrad Johnson PV-11 preamp to behave and replace it. I wanted to stay with tubes, I wanted all the features of the PV-11 plus several more - remote control, a balance control with more range (I have acoustic issues) and - gulp - tone controls (quick duck and cover). Those of you who know the preamp market know that that left me really only one choice: McIntosh. Mac gear is mostly out of my price range, but I decided to splurge on a used C220 hybrid tube preamp. This is a current model, in production since 2006. I went with Audio Classics as a dealer. Although I paid a bit more than I might have here or on that big auction site, I got a guaranty, a home-trial period, and a trade-up option. Since I had never heard this piece before, the home trial was a must.
A full detailed review will eventually go up on this site, but for now, I have decided to keep the C220. Yes, it is warm sounding, as you would expect from Mac. But, it is not your father's McIntosh tube preamp. It is pretty extended up top, and especially so in the bottom (I discovered I had been missing a good part of the lowest octave). It is pretty quiet, especially for a tube pre. It is extremely well built, and pleasurable to use. Compared to the Connie-J, I do feel I am giving up a little soundstage width and perhaps some tube bloom. That said, this pre is cleaner-sounding, with better image placement (anyone who doesn't believe Ohm Walsh speakers can project a solid image needs to hear my current system). I am also getting a hint of soundstage depth, of which I had none with the PV-11 (I do have a 55" RPTV behind and between the speakers). Most of all, though, I am tapping my toes more, and playing more air guitar since the change. And it turns out that about 90% of the channel imbalance issue I had with the C-J was in fact the C-J. Just 2 or 3 clicks of the balance control (out of 107 possible) are sufficient to provide a dead-centered image.
The internal MM phono section seems about as good as the PV-11's.
Another area where there is a big difference is in sibilants. They are very different on the C220 than on the PV-11. Overall, I think they are more realistic, although they can be a little too pronounced on some recordings (which means it is likely the recordings, not the C220, at fault). The improved sibilants are matched by improved transients as well. This, I think, is what is responsible for the improved imaging I am hearing. The transient info is more attached in space to the musical notes that follow. At no time is the sound edgy, brittle or wince-inducing, even when played pretty loud.
Those tone controls have not been used extensively. Mostly, I am in the Tone Bypass mode. However, when a particularly ugly CD is played, they have come in handy, and do not seem to harm the signal at all. It has enabled me to simplify my system by removing the Behringer parametric EQ which, as the C220 exposed, was not very transparent.
There is only one area that caused me some concern with this upgrade. There is occasionally, on some recordings, a small patch of roughness or exaggeration at around 8kHz. Guess what the Walsh 2000 does at 8kHz? Yup - the hand-off from Walsh driver to tweeter. I am not sure what to make of this, but it is rare. Perhaps it's a little bump in the C220's response curve, or perhaps it is transparent enough to expose the limits of whatever crossover components are used in the 2000.
Some of the best sound I've listened to thus far was from Norah Jones ("The Very Thought of You") and Pink Floyd ("Wish You Were Here"). Note that the Pink Floyd CD is a standard CD reissue, not an audiophile item, and it had always been a fatugue-inducing recording. Through the C220 and Ohms, it was simply real sounding and musical.
This is my first "modern" stereo preamp. I must say that I do feel I am now in the grown-up section of the pool. And I cannot stress enough how amazing the Ohm Walsh 2000s are. That a sub-$3000/pr loudspeaker allows me to hear so clearly the differences between preamps, digital players and a cheap EQ is truly remarkable. I doubt many speakers in this price range can do that.
More formal review and observations to come. |
Bondman,
Anxious to hear about the new pre-amp. Do keep us posted! |
Bondman,
Yes, I have the CD of that particular MLP release.
I have a dozen or so different MLP titles on CD and pick them up whenever I see them at reasonable cost without a second thought. None on vinyl yet though unfortunately. |
Having heard well set up true omni mbl speakers in a sizeable room unlike any that most of us schlubs will ever have, I would consider those to be the all time champs I have heard in terms of image depth and 3-d soundstage.
The pseudo-omni OHMs approach that kind of 3-d soundfield best in a near field configuration I find.
depth of soundstage is the only area where I would say good true omnis like mbl in a very large room with lots of space behind them have the edge over my OHMs in my rooms normally. |
Mapman - One of my most treasured finds is a Mercury Living Presence of Frederick Fennel conducting the Cole Porter song book. It's a Wilma Cozart production, stereo, in remarkably good condition. It can make almost any vinyl playbeck system sound wonderful.
Diebenkorn - interesting observations. I have noticed that if I scoot my chair up from it's usual position to form a roughly equilateral triangle, about 4.5" per side, my Walsh 2000s do sound better than from further away.
A teaser - I am trying a new preamp out on my system. Way too early to post any more info, but I will eventually. |
Zk,
YEs, I would easily recommend those with smaller rooms like my two 12X12 rooms go straight to a pair of smaller OHMs in an optimized nearfield configuration with suitable amplification as well and rest in peace from there.
I run monitors in one of my two 12X12s but frankly if that were my main listening room I'd probably just add another pair of smaller OHMs and call it a day. |
I would have gone for the Wyred except I decided to splurge and go for the BCref1000m2s for a significant premium.
The premium got me 100K input impedance compared to 60K and perhaps an upgrade in the on-board power supply.
I like the Wyreds as the best value overall though that are capable of driving the OHMs to the max and also mate well with most tube pre-amps.
So if you want to splurge, you can substitute the BC ref100m2s for the Wyreds in the equation, but you may end up with very comparable results with the Wyreds as well I suspect. Some reviewers have suggested an audible sound difference between the two, but I have never had the opportunity to compare.
And yes, I am a fan of the MErcury Living Presence recordings as well and they provide some of the most captivating sound available on a suitable system. A lot of those used very simple miking techniques combined with a focus on delivering a captivating stereo sound experience back in the day when stereo was a new and big thing. The OHMs deliver this in spades as they are capable of doing with most all very good recordings I have tried when driven to their max potential by an amp like the Wyred or BC Icepower amps.
I do not understand what the Icepower detractors are hearing to justify that position. The sound may not be to everyones taste (nothing is) but there is certainly no graininess or any other artifacts that people associate with anything even remotely digital in nature. |
What's the first equation?! it looks familiar...
Funny, I've been looking into Wyred4Sound the last couple of days. Good reviews on their amps and the DACs look good too.
The W4S amps look like a nice combo with Ohms... |
I have had the OHM 1000's for a while now I liked them but did not know what was really missing until I put them in an extreme nearfield set up (3 feet away by 3 ft in between). Paired with an Onkyo 8555 amp it sounds like some very nice headphones. |
Two most beautiful equations in history:
e^(i X Pi) +1 = 0
Walsh 5000 + Wyred4Sound ST-1000 + Mercury Living Presence = Auditory Nirvana |
BTW, with the promotion sale price + 40% max discount for trading in two pair of old OHMs (my old Walsh 2s and a pair of C2s I picked up on ebay for about $130 in order to get $700 trade-in value) the F5s ended up costing me $2400 + the cost of the C2s plus the cost of shipping 2 pair of speakers to OHM for the trade-in. Good deal! |
Its a yearly summer promotion it seems. I took advantage a few years back to get my F5's. Worked out swimmingly..... |
Did anyone take advantage of the sale of old cabs/new X000 series drivers? |
"Hmmmm, when I had my 100's, I thought John said that they wouldn't take any of the X000-series drivers due to size incompatibilities...."
Most likely he had not adapted the new drivers to that particular cabinet yet. Over time, he seems to work out how to adapt the newer drivers to as many old cabinets as possible, thereby providing the most potential upgrade paths possible. I do not think he would advertise or sell a new driver on an old cabinet until the combo can be tuned properly. Just plopping a new driver on an old cabinet would not be an optimized solution in that each cabinet's acoustics are different. Eventually, these get published to the web site at which point I suppose they become a formal product upgrade option.
A significant part of OHMs business is providing upgrades to older units, which both helps keep costs to current owners low and helps keep the customer base intact. If teh upgrade is not published on the web site, then its availability would not be assured. |
Man, those are some really, really good prices. Walsh 100 walnut cabinets with new Walsh 2000 drivers.....................Regularly $2800 Now $1900 Hmmmm, when I had my 100's, I thought John said that they wouldn't take any of the X000-series drivers due to size incompatibilities.... |
My current home-theater configuration is as follows.
LCR: 3x100 S3 behind an acoustically transparent screen.
Side Surrounds: 2 x Super 2 (with the 100-S3 drivers).
Rears: 2 x 100 S3 in a half-sized omni version.
The LCR are behind an acoustically-transparent screen. The LCR and side surrounds are powered by an Emotiva XPA-5 amp, and the rears are powered by an Outlaw 7125 amp.
I am using a Yamaha RX-V765 as a pre-pro.
Everything is crossed at 80Hz to an Epik Conquest subwoofer.
I also have 2xMicro-Walshes in the mini-omni design, which I may use as heights/wides if I go above 7.1 or I may use as part of another system.
|
The sub is certainly tempting. But I've decided to send my F's to Dale Harder at HHR to be rebuilt instead of putting money into another sub (or anything else, for that metter)
-P |
Just an FYI sent to me by Ohm (heads-up on the subwoofer deal, Parasound) -
"Ohm will be closed from June 26 to July 12 for our Summer Holiday. These all have Ohm's 120-Day Home Trial and a 3-Year Limited Warranty. Shipping is only $50 per pair in the lower 48 states.
Walsh 5 Limited Edition NEWLY VENEERED cabinets with new Walsh 5000 drivers....Regularly $7000 Now $5400.
Walsh 300 black cabinets with new Walsh 4000 drivers......................Regularly $5600 Now $3900
Walsh 200 S-3 rosewood cabinets with new Walsh 3000 drivers...................Regularly $4000 Now $2800
Walsh 100 walnut cabinets with new Walsh 2000 drivers.....................Regularly $2800 Now $1900
Walsh 100-S3 cherry cabinets....Regularly $2000 Now $1300
MicroWalsh Tall Signature Edition in rosewood ...............Regularly $1400 Now $1000
SB-12D rosewood subwoofer, dual 12" driver in end-table cabinet.................Regularly $1200 Now $ 850
MicroWalsh Short Omnis in walnut cabinets................Regularly $ 950 Now $ 665
Must ORDER by June 25, 2010.
Call me to discuss your needs and options.
Good Listening!
John Strohbeen, President, 800-783-1553"
NOTE: I am not affiliated with Ohm Acoustics in any way outside of being a satisfied customer. |
I used ohm 300 mk 2 for fronts, pro 200 for center,2xo for rears and also have a 4x0. I use a SVS sub which is cylindrical, what more can you ask for non conventional setup? all being driven by carver/sunfire. Oppo is my blu ray player and lots of dakiom stabilizers. Still haven't decided on hd projector upgrade. I have too many loudspeakers, still have acoustat spectra electrostats, eminent tech, maggies and NO BOSE. Can't really go wrong any of these designs! |
Interesting that as I write this, there are 4 active Ohm threads on the first page. |
Parasound: I have zero experience with Ohm subs, but two things make me optimistic about them. 1 - You get a 120 day return option, risking only shipping. 2 - John Strohbeen knows how to design and voice loudpspeakers. Why not try one out and post your impressions?
Well, I've had my Ohm Walsh Center speaker ($700 + shipping) for a week now, so I'd thought I'd comment. This is the smaller version of the center, roughly 20" wide and 6" deep. The cabinet is only about 2 or 3 inches high, with the Ohm Walsh driver mounted on top in the center. This is a smaller Walsh driver than in my 2000s, and rises about 6" above the cabinet for a total hieght of about 9". Fit and finish of the black wood-grain is excellent. As per John Strohbeen's recommendation, I have the center tilted down toward the listening seat, since it sits atop my ancient SD RPTV. I sit about 10 feet back from the TV. As per Ohm, the Center is crossed over at 80Hz via my Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 pre-pro. Bass is supplied by a Definitive Technology PF-15 sealed 15" sub with a 185-watt internal amp. The bass and LFE signal are smoothed out using both a Paradigm X-30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP parametric digital EQ.
This little Walsh Center is an Ohm Walsh speaker through and through. It has the same clarity and definition of my 2000s, with a very smooth presentation of both music and dialog. Several films I have viewed using the Walsh Center were in Dolby Digital 1.0 - i.e., mono. Even though all the sound above 80Hz came from this one small speaker, there was no apparent lack of dynamic impact or any sighns that the Walsh Center was being pushed too hard.
This center is an excellent compliment to my 2000s, and along with the MWTs I found used for surround speakers, soundtracks sound wonderful - realisitic, natural and enveloping. So much so, I am seriously considering removing the Paradigm Atoms that reproduce the back-surround channels. Another solid product from Ohm. |
Does anybody have an experience with the Ohm subwoofers? I'm seriously thinking about getting one... |
"I don't know why ohm did not stick to the old pyramid designs,"
Cost control pretty much I think.
The good news is there are lots of these cabinets around that can be fitted with the latest and greatest drivers.
I really like having the casters on the bigger F5s. They make fine tuning location and moving the speaks in general a snap. It's not hard probably to remove the feet from many of the pyramidal cabinets and replace those with castors from OHM or even the local Home Depot perhaps. |
For you people who like holography, nothing better than to use the LEGENDARY BOB CARVER AMPS such as sunfire or carver preamps/amps WITH DAKIOM feedback stabilizers. All my ohm's eminent tech, magnepans are all run by these combinations. Since I am a processor fanatic,I like to tweak using dbx, peavey, bbe to add to the juice. I don't know why ohm did not stick to the old pyramid designs, just because many of their craftsman/cabinet makers retired. I hate the new cabinet designs, but would like to have the new drivers. I can't believe i owned bose 901, 601's in the 80's only to wake up to reality and listen to REAL music coming from a TRUE loudspeaker, OHM WALSH series. I LOVE MY OHMS as well as my maggies. |
"I live on the coast an easy drive north of San Francisco in Marin County"
It figures. I just moved from Monterey to Virginia... |
Rpfef - Send me a plane ticket and I'll bring some music!
;-) |
"I own Shahinian Hawks. In the next few days, I will be setting up a pair of Ohm Walsh 200's alongside them."
Should make for some interesting discussion! |
Everyone quite rightly complains about the difficulty of arranging an audition of speakers not sold through dealers.
Well, here's a proposition:
I own Shahinian Hawks. In the next few days, I will be setting up a pair of Ohm Walsh 200's alongside them.
I live on the coast an easy drive north of San Francisco in Marin County.
Anyone reading this who is interested is welcome to come to my place for a comparison/audition.
Just pop me an email and we can arrange it. |
Mapman has some interesting observations about the nature of bass from Ohms vs. conventional dynamic speakers. It bears repeating that, if you can achieve linear response and a seemless blend, a good subwoofer or two with the Ohm Walsh speakers makes for an appealing presentation, as far as I am concerned.
I have been aware of the excellent reputation of Shahinian speakers for years. The description Rpfef provided has great appeal to me. However, making what is for me a large financial commitment, sight unseen (and unheard), with no recourse other than selling them used if I don't like them, in my room, with my gear, was out of the question.
I fail to understand why Shahinian, which is more similar as a business to Ohm than dissimilar, can't offer an in-home trial period. Assuming Shahinian offered a model comparable in price to the Walsh 2000s, I would have loved to have both in my home for comparison, may the best speaker win. Well, in any event, I continue to enjoy my Ohms! |
Just so you'll know, the Shahinian Hawks and Obelisks and Arcs all have a forward firing 8" woofer transmisiion line loaded terminated with a 10" rear firing weighted passive radiator.
I believe their bass power is a function of the loading with the passive.
Plinius SA100MkIII clips at 130W/channel, both channels driven. |
I'd be curious to check out Shahinians, particularly the Compass. I'm in the area and I've been in touch with Vasken, so maybe sometime I'l get an audition. If I do, I'll report back...
I have a feeling I'd like the Compass, the only problem is they're larger than the MicroWalsh, and a lot more expensive (I think 4 or 5 times the price). |
"Rebbi- do you miss them?"
I don't think Reb will know for sure until he has evaluated the MErlin monitors.
From what I know, I think those are a good choice for assessing what is possible with monitors and the Merlins are probably a good choice for what appears to be a pretty lively room in Rebbi's case.
I tried to end my hunt with the Dynaudio monitors, and they came close, but no cigar in the end. I still like them enough to keep them though. They work as good as anything as a matter of fact in our small sunroom, which also happens to be the most lively room in our house. |
One thing I notice about Shahinian versus OHM is Shahinian has a forward firing woofer I believe. The OHM Walsh driver fires downward. A forward firing driver might impart more low end impact that can be felt to a listener sitting in front than a downward firing in that more sound reaches the listener directly, all other factors aside.
This difference in the presenation of OHm Walsh speakers is something that people should be aware of and I believes help drive the need for higher power amps. Those who are used to speaker or subwoofer drivers firing directly at them might be put off by a seeming lack of impact by the Walsh drivers in comparison. A smaller percentage of the sound produced reaches your ears directly with the OHMS or even other mostly omni designs, like mbl. Once you feed these enough power to really energize the entire room (not just your listening position), things start to really shape up. |
Rpfef,
Plinius SA100/MkIII is 100 w/ch correct?
That's OK, but probably not enough to bring out the best in any OHM Walshes, particularly in regards to bass impact based on my experience with them.
I would think that would go pretty loud still though large scale classical music like you describe in particular may not be up to snuff.
I can say with confidence that the more recent OHMs with a high power, high current SS amp behind them matches the best systems I have heard in this regard. Recent Class D amp breakthroughs raise the bar in terms of amp size and power consumption needed to drive them to the max for music that requires a lot of power behind it to deliver.
Always have heard good things about Shahinian but unfortunately have never heard those. thanks for sharing! |
D110 wrote:
The speakers that have jumped to my attention for this task have been the Shahinian and Ohm speakers and I was wondering if anyone had listened to both?
Yes, I have.
The Shahinians I auditioned were older Obelisks (for a short time) and Hawks, which are my current speakers.
The Ohms were a pair of Walsh 200's (mid 90's model).
The Ohms and the Hawks were driven by either one or two Plinius SA100/MkIII amps (Ohms cannot be biamped).
I listen to and carer about mostly orchestral classical music so my comments reflect that.
The Shahinians, both Obelisks and Hawks, produce an enormous sound stage and image, with sometimes remarkably rich and lively violin sound, woodwinds (esp. clarinets and flutes) of great beauty and fidelity to the real thing (or some real thing). In addition, they both have explosive, very dynamic bass with a definite presence in the upper bass/lower midrange that provides a fair sense of the power in that region an orchestra produces. Low brass and strings,
bassoons, tympani, harp--all of these have a solidity and body rarely captured in reproduction. Shahinian's design goals include the achieving of this kind of physicality.
The Walsh does not share the Shahinian's bass power, rich tonal balance, or (most sadly for me) timbral accuracy. Winds, brass, and strings all sound tonally less rich than reality. But the Walsh 200's have a more detailed and tighter bass, a "cleaner" sound, produce a soundstage and image easily as impressive as the Hawks with better specificity of location (a characteristic not heard live).
I listened to one jazz record, Cassandra Wilson's New Moon Daughter) which features extreme presence, beautifully defined bass, a gorgeous fullness and complexity in the voice, and, as a bonus, some darn good tunes. The Ohms outdid the Hawks in bass definition and presence but the voice was richer with the Hawks. Almost like cd vs. lp or SS vs. tube, the Shahinians are warmer and more lush, the Ohms are crisper and leaner.
The Shahinians can deliver a physical punch that the Ohms cannot approach.
I do not know if the new Walsh drivers change any of these things, not having heard them. If they were a little more uncolored and a tad richer sounding, I'd happily live with them-- but I'd keep the Shahinians, too. My bottom line is "beauty of sound" and the Hawks are hard to beat there.
My impression is that all the Shahinian designs share the characteristics I have pointed to, to greater or lesser degree. The Walsh drivers, it is said, are all the same except for size so, presumably, the same is true for their line.
By the way, the Hawks will play rather louder and handle lots more power than the Ohms.
Questions? |
Rebbi- do you miss them?
Oh- and I hooked up a working pair of F's two days ago :) |
Guys,
Just thought I would point out that as of this moment the thread has 54,000 views! (Okay, 50,000 of them are from me, but that's picky...)
;-) |
I recenyly upgraded to the new Walsh 1000's,and it cost me $96.00 to ship the micro walshes back to Ohm. Just thought I'd give you an idea of cost if you choose to ship speakers back to them. I'm still in the process of breaking in my 1000's, and will be posting a user review sometime in July, when my 120 day trial is up. As of right now, the 1000's have the signature Ohm sound, and ther major difference is that they go a lot lower (low 30's) and this is quite noticeable on some recordings. I hesitate to comment any further because the speakers have just started to open up a bit more (I got them on April 6th) and I know they have a ways to go before they're fully broken in, but so far, so good Joe |
D110 - Most of your assumptions are correct. I don't need the "wide sweet spot" feature of the Ohms (details on the Ohm web site), but it's still nice to have. The Shahinian is a fascinating speaker design with many loyal fans. I briefly looked into them. Unlike Ohm, there is no home-trial available. Shahinian's suggestion was for me to drive to Long Island from my New Jersey home to audition them. Having lived for years with a speaker that never sounded as good in my home as it did in the showroom, this was just a no-go for me. I insisted on a home trial for any potential speaker purchase. There is just no substitute for hearing a speaker in your room, with your gear, with your music. Of course, you can start buying and selling used speakers to try them out, with little financial risk, but the time and back-strain that goes with this meathod make it unappealing to me.
Ohm's 120-day home trial (you risk only the round-trip shipping) was ideal. And, as I have mentioned in this thread before, I really like Ohm's approach of making one "sound" for the whole Walsh line, and then scaling it for different room volumes, which are posted on the web site. I bought the 2000s, which are appropriate for my room, and I am very pleased. My complete review is posted in the speaker review section. |
First, I admit I haven't read every single page in this thread, but I have read most of them, and I think what I am hearing is that the OHMs might be just the speaker I am looking for - I have a large room (24 x 36 x 12) with carpeted floors and a central seating area that I am looking to put a dedicated music system in. While I have heard speakers I like, I have been frustrated by the very tight sweet spot - this is my living room and I want to be able to share music with my wife and friends without playing musical chairs. The speakers that have jumped to my attention for this task have been the Shahinian and Ohm speakers and I was wondering if anyone had listened to both? I would very much like to know how they compare to one another. Are there any other contenders that I should be considering for the task? |
Update - As I posted previously, I ordered a pair of custom made, spiked cradle bases from Sound Anchors for my Walsh 2000s. Although John Strohbeen told me that this was not necessary for the Walsh speakers, my uneven floor prevented me from getting the speakers level and level with each other, and they rocked a bit too much (not rocked as in Rock & Roll, but as in back and forth). The stands were $300 plus shipping. Pictures can be seen on the Sound Anchors web site. They are solid, well made and heavy, with 3-point, adjustable spikes that screw into the base.
After I levelled the speakers on the bases, I noticed that the sound was cleaned up a bit, with a little more fine detail. The soundstage also seems a little larger than before, especially in the lateral plane.
As a side note, I think I need a different listening chair. The high-back leather reclining chairs and ottomans I bought when I set up my basement HT in 1994 are less than ideal for music listening. I discovered this when I leaned forward in the chair. The sound was significantly better in terms of details, soundstage and even smoothness in the highs. So, along with seeking improvements in acoustic treatments, cables, ICs and powercords, I will now be on the hunt for an *affordable* comfortable low-backed listing chair or two. |
