I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
I'd tend to agree that active designs address some real issues with a great solution. OTOH, there are some pretty crappy active speakers out there, too. Stop into any place that sells pro audio gear and you'll hear tremendous variation between the various brands of active monitors they sell.
There are also issues that may be far more important than distortion and/or compression caused by passive x-overs, depending on the installation. I'd always hesitate to endorse a single design approach because listener priorities and room considerations vary so much. That said, I'd still prefer to see my x-overs ahead of the power amp whenever possible, I'm just not willing (at this time) to trade away all other considerations to achieve that goal.
One way o another, speakers (including OHMs) must be mated with amps that are well suited to diving them optimally. Optimally often infers the best case for achieving a generally (if not exactly) flat response. Same true with OHMs.
Active speaker designs see to be one way and perhaps the easiest to accomplish this. The designer does the integration for you. That's a great and perhaps the easiest approach in general for many I think, but certainly not the only way. Matching amp and speaker yourself certainly provides more flexibility and variety in end results, so it may take a while for someone to stumble (or objectively determine) what the right match is. The right match for an individual may not be the same as intended by the speaker designer, although one would expect the designer to be the most qualified to make the determination of how to meet their sound goals technically by integrating amp and speaker..
I'm buoyed by the reports of fairly flat in-room FR of recent Walshes. I'm certainly intrigued.
Now, if the goal of hi-fi [to the source material] is truly that, then good active speakers are far superior to any passive. Audiophiles' preference for loudspeakers with passive crossovers over actives is a matter of not being used to the *far* lower distortion of good active speakers, and unwillingness to get rid of those phallic symbols that are audiphile amplifiers.
ATC's outstanding reputation precedes them as evidenced by nothing but excellent reviews from professionals and amateur audiophile magazine reviewers alike. This is supported by the usual and erroneous criticism that ATCs aren't "musical," as if a component could have that characteristic to begin with. "Musical" means the response slowing, phase problems, sloppier bass response, and much higher general distortion of passive speakers as driven by amplifiers that have difficulty controlling the drives through passive crossovers. Some folks are used to this and therefore prefer it; you won't hardly find any top professionals who still use passive monitors to really hear what is on recordings.
Audiophiles are about 30 years out of date. Professional speaker and audio technology is so far ahead of audiophile technology it's silly; I suggest you explore Event Opals, K&H, and many others, including AVI (for a speaker system with SOTA sound that makes redundant a whole system), Emerald Physics (their speakers are at the top of the curve technologically) and the superior Linkwitz Orion system.
Passive loudspeakers are seriously outdated technology; imagine if your new cars still came with pushrods, solid rear axles, sliding pillar front suspension, and drum brakes. Passive loudspeakers with big, overbuilt amps (only necessary to overcome the detrimentals of passive crossovers) and preamps are nothing more than that.
The biggest joke in audiophilia is Audio Note and their ridiculous $100K or whatever it is two-way with the massive silver-loaded passive crossovers; as if you could ever maker a silk purse from a sow's ear. If that company wasn't so steadfastly regressive, it would have made a far supeior version of that speaker for far cheaper by making it active with dedicated amplifiers. Period. That mega-buck crossover still has an order of magnitude higher distortion than an electronic one. It would be like Ford selling a version of the Mustang with a silver-plated and diamond crusted solid rear axle and claim it is better than the stock car's solid rear axle. 20 times more expensive than independant rear suspension, and still nowhere near as good. The same goes for Wailson Audio and their way-over priced elephant coffins, and all the other purveyors of high-priced passive speakers.
BTW, I supect a full/wider range Walsh driver like those found in original OHM Fs or perhaps even newer versions of those might be able to take massed strings up a level in comparison to OHMs Walshes, which use a separate supertweeter. Full range drivers with no crossover are uniquely suited for this I believe.
However, full range Walsh drivers and other more conventional full range drivers (save perhaps the largest and best) may be challenged to deliver the muscle behind performances in general that the OHM Walshes can. Off loading the top end from the Walsh driver makes the OHM Walsh design able to go louder with more ease whereas OHM Fs were notorious for being subject to damage if overdriven. Dale Harder's newer Walsh designs appear to have alleviated that to some degree using more modern design principles and materials, though they still come with warnings against being overdriven.
Audiogoner Mamboni is a professional classical musician and major OHM proponent I believe.
Getting those aspects of classical music right as you decribe has been one of the driving factors that has landed me where I am currently.
massed violin sheen and richness - The best reference system I have heard to reproduce this was MAgico mini;s on very high end tube amplification and DCS digital source. Only recently with the move to tube pre-amp and high power S power amp have I been able to approach that as a reference, but currently I am in the same ballpark, though OHM and Magico presentation is much different.
woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring - the OHMs and my system in general have been champs at this for a while now. The OHMs may be the best I have heard at reproducing large massed brass orchestras in a realistic yet non-fatiguing manner.
The wide range Walsh driver is the key to reproducing these things well. Proper amplification is also key. But once you get everything tuned in, the OHMs are top notch for classical IMHO. They have the muscle to do this exceptionally well overall in addtion which smaller designs do not. Monitors, even MAgico minis will never deliver the power and range of a large scale classical recording on a realistic scale, though the timbre is quite good. OHMs can.
Does anyone owning Ohm Walsh speakers listen primarily to classical music? I listen to orchestral music mostly and I find the differences between speakers are often stark in the area of massed violin sheen and richness, woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring. Issues of imaging, soundstage, even, to a degree, dynamics are secondary to pleasing reproduction of the sounds of these beautiful instruments. I would love to hear from people who share my focus. I currently own Shahinian Hawks, which do an admirable job recreating the true sound of the orchestra, but their few small failings make me seek something a bit better and easier to drive.
The unique design of the OHMs (Walsh drivers) are what attracted me to them originally years ago based on the reputation at the time of the original OHM Fs.
In general, I look at truly innovative or different designs as a way to break barriers and perhaps accomplish something really different and perhaps better, particularly at certain price points. After all, there are many very good conventional designs that may all sound different but have more in common than not.
Of course there is innovation and then there is also snake oil...determining which is the case often requries some degree of technical acumen in addition to good ears.
I'd be happy to offer a demo of my system as well if in the Baltimore/DC metro area sometime if you contact me by mail.
Horses for courses. A few months ago, I listened to $20K/pair powered ATC towers that Kristian85 is "beholden" to (a larger version of the monitor that Holt loved so much). Along with a few other experienced audiophiles, I was less than impressed. Sure, they were very dynamic and played really loudly, but they lacked good soundstage rendering and image placement. Like many speakers that come from the pro-studio world, I found them a bit too analytical and not too musical. Here was a speaker at $20K that I liked less than my $4300 amp/speaker combo. IOW, this time, "different" was not "better". Of course, I am not bothered by Kristian85's preference for powered studio monitor speakers, and I hope he enjoys listening to music on them, but they are not for me, and many others I know.
I understand his observations of "different" vs. "better". I decided to try the Ohms specifically because they offered a radically different design from many of the speakers in my price range that didn't do it for me. For someone like me, who cannot afford to spend five figures on admittedly better speakers (not just different), the Ohms offer, IMHO, a fantastic value.
I had my last loudspeakers for nearly ten years, so I don't think I can be accused of having audio nervosa syndrome. I kept them as my mid-fi system slowly evolved to an entry-level high-end system. When I felt that improvements were no longer audible via my old speakers, I decided to upgrade. My intention is to continue to improve my source and amplification components (not because of audio nervosa, but because I have financial limitations) and hear how the upgrades manifest themselves in the Walsh 2000s.
For many of us, that's a large part of this hobby.
And Kristian85, if you are ever in central/Northern New Jersey, you are most welcome to stop by and listen to my Ohms, for more than 15 minutes, if you like.
My system and the OHMs in conjunction are pretty flat based on my ears and test recordings I have used.
There was a review in stereophile back in the 80s (still available on-line) that indicated some midrange variation with the original Walsh 5s.
A follow-up review withdrew that criticism after some tweaks by John Strohbeen.
The current drivers are 3 generations removed from the originals and flat response is one critique of the Walshes seldom seen these days.
I had original Walsh 2s and now the more recent models and drivers. The newer drivers are much more refined and copetitive with modern speaker designs than the originals from 30 years back or so.
Your nose is so far in the air you can't see in front of it. You criticize the OP for having audiophile nervosa because he found a sound he preferred to his Ohm's?? Pray tell, I'm sure that's never happened to you, right? How do you suppose one gets to be the trained listener you claim to be if they don't take the same journey the OP did? Perhaps you bypassed the whole process and just got a certificate in "learn critical listening" from University of Phoenix. Maybe the OP should continue his lessons in "learning critical listening" by buying different loudspeaker designs but direct his "anxiety" so it's more dealer-bothering than manufacture-bothering? would that be satisfactory for you?
Kristian may be a trained listener, but I'm a trained measurer. In my listening room, the Ohm 100s are unusually flat (on-axis at the listening position) with a smooth, gently falling FR from north of 10khz down to below 150hz - where destructive room effects take over. I address those room effects with hemholtz devices and EQ'd subwoofers. Bottom line: this is an usually neutral design (same caveat: measured on axis in my space) from the upper end of the bass on up and, subjectively from the upper bass through the upper limits of my hearing (about 14khz, last I checked).
The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the omni-directional dispersion pattern. Conceptually, this should smooth off-axis response, but, in truth, I've never confirmed that. I can say with some confidence that the spacial impact (can't tell you how to measure that!) dominates the subjective impression that this design makes. The final decision will likely be subjective and have little to do with "sub optimally flat FR", unless the listener in question objects to this particular (gentle) deviation from dead neutral.
The "gushing" for Ohms upon first listening is almost certainly due to the "omni effect". MBLs (a subjectively less neutral design to my ear) get the same kind of reaction - WOW! Some love it at first, then tire of it and move on. Others stay the course. I'm just about a year and a half into my time with the Ohms and generally prefer them to several other highly regarded (and IMO fine sounding in their own right) speakers that I also own, each of which cost many times as much as the 100s.
This is the preference of my "somewhat trained" (app. three hours/day at the piano and/or guitar over the last 2 years) ear. I accord my opinion no more weight than any other (Kristian's included), but I do hold the measurements in high regard.
Yes, I would agree also that many often mistake different for better and it can be hard to not waver when one believes the grass might be greener elsewhere.
"Kristian85 hit the mark, IMO. Perceptive and succinct."
Maybe with the observation, if I understand it correctly, that blogging openly can subject one to criticism, which is undeniable, but otherwise, I'm not sure what the mark is?
NEver heard the term "suboptimally flat FR" before.
What does it mean?
Also, I would not condemn someone for having a change of heart on these things over time. It happens all the time and does not necessarily mean that the process is flawed. You generally have to take some hits in the interest of learning. My hope would be merely to keep the costs associated with the discovery process to a minimum.
Let it suffice to say that in this age of self-obsessed public blog-wrangling with personal issues and decisions, if you do this, expect to be subject to criticism.
It was the OP's gushing and OTT exclamations re the Ohms when he first heard them that I found amusing and instructive. The OP was hopefully disabused of the notion that different is better.
Strohbeen has the patience of saints, and is to be highly commended. Though I am normally strictly beholden to active speakers (ATCs etc.) due to far lower distortion than passives, I'm certainly curious to hear some Ohms, and will do so when possible though I'm leery of suboptimally flat FR over the audible range at the listening position. As a trained listener, I'll know in 15 minutes or less whether they're for me. Usually in the first couple of bars.
I regularly listen to high end systems for reference and comparison and have worked to get my system into the same league.
THese days, I think I have accomplished that. I might be the Blue Jays or Rays rather than the Yankees, but my setup competes.
One thing I can assert is that the OHMs have never been the bottleneck. Every change I make is clearly audible.
You do have to look at the whole system together including room, etc.
Once you do that, choice of speakers can become a very personal choice to determine what kind of sound you want. My goal is to sound as much like a live performance of any musical genre as possible. The OHMs let me do that. OTher speakers might edge them out in some categories (as the OHMs might as well) but the OHMs are clearly the total package at nominal cost.
Kristian85: Have you ever heard an Ohm loudspeaker? If so, please post your impressions. FWIW, I heard some fantastic kit over the weekend. I heard the $54K smaller Scena (sp?) four piece towers, driven by s.s. BAT amp and preamp, and $10K AMR CD player. Huge, open soundstage, incredible definition, decay, powerful extended bass - it was all there. Did this major-buck rig outperform my Ohm 2000s? Of course. So did a more modest (!) system consisting of KEF Reference 207 (the current version) driven by Manley 100 watt tube monos and the same AMR CD player. Big, open and airy sound with great detail and again, excellent decay. Also better then my own rig. But the KEFs cost $20K/pr. I went home and listened to my modest hodge-podge rig with my Ohm 2000s. I know it does not live up to those expensive systems I heard, but it still produced pleasing, enjoyable music, and put a smile on face. For the money, that is no small feat, and why I and others "gush" over Ohm speakers.
I find the phrase "Ohm Gushing" to be quite hilarious. Anyone who has not heard these speakers, or any omni speaker, just don't know what they're missing. We're gushing because we're hearing something unique that most other speakers don't do. I'm breaking my 2nd set of Ohms, a pair of the new 1000's, and will be posting my impressions as time goes by. I origimally had a pair of the micro talls, which I LOVED, but needed something that could handle more power. My speaker search is over, as the Ohms have surpassed my expectations in almost every way, but others will continue to search for their "Holy Grail" until they find something that sets them on their ear, and they can die happy knowing that they finally found the speakers of their dreams. We shouldn't be faulted for searching for that or changing our minds, as we don't always get it right the first time. This thread allowed me to make an informed decision, and gave me all the facts, positive and negative. My thanks to everyone who contributed to this informative, enlightning thread. Long live Audiophilia Nervosa!!!!!!
Kristian85, As the OP in this thread, I found your comments to be pretty condescending, even insulting. "A kid picking petals off a flower?" "Manufacturer-bothering anxiety?" Pretty harsh, don't you think? I'm not interested in hijacking this excellent and informative thread to engage in a flame war, but I do want to set the record straight. This will be my only post on this matter: The only thing I'd have done differently throughout my investigation would have been to buy used gear, when possible. It would have saved me some money. Other than that, with no local dealers carrying gear that I wanted to hear in my room, in my system, I don't know how else I'd have learned what worked for me. There were and are things I loved about the Ohms and it took me a year of living with my 100's to figure out what I was less than pleased with about them. I won't go into that here. But when I borrowed a pair of small, two-way monitors and listened to them in my room, I thought, "Bingo, this is it!" And I've been very pleased with where my system is going since then. As for manufacturer-bothering, my impression was never anything other than John Strohbeen enjoying talking to customers and trying nearly anything to make them happy. I respect him for that. He's a unique personality and an industry pioneer -- and he certainly has lots of integrity. Okay, I'm done.
I think that offer by John Strohbeen is quite compelling. It's too bad other manufacturers don't do this but that is one of the interesting things about how John runs his company: He is always willing to do things outside the box to give owners (and propsective owners) genuine value for their purchase.
Not to derail this thread too much but OK, I'll bite, Kristian: What do you mean by critical listening? Are you referring to active listening to music or a system as I perceive the two labors to be quite different?
This thread is a great expose of audiophilia nervosa. It emphasizes perfectly how audiophiles are nearly unable to seperate better from different sound. Note the OP's initial OTT excitement over the MWTs, as followed by the rollercoaster ride that was the ensuing months of public anxious wrangling over what was really best, those or the Totems. After all the Ohm gushing, the OP finally decides he doesn't really like them. A kid picking petals off a flower: I love you, love you not, love you, love you not....
Folks, for these reason it's really important to learn critical listening and to know what you like. This will keep you from going through the same money-losing and manufacturer-bothering anxiety that the OP went through.
That should be a very nice upgrade (three generations of driver improvements) from original Walsh 4's to the latest 5000 drivers! I would expect to hear a big difference. Please let us know how it turns out.
Just off the phone with John and have ordered the 4.5000 upgrade for my Ohm Walsh 4's. I will post my opinion once I get them in and have a chance to listen. I have Cary Solid State electronics. Replacing Gallo Ref 3.1 with SA.
Here's some email news from OHM I just received that should be of interest to those looking at upgrading older OHMs.
"Dear Ohm owners,
To encourage you to move up to the "latest and greatest Ohms ever", we are increasing the trade in values of all old Ohm Walsh speakers.
You can get 40% off the new Walsh Thousand series with the trade in of older Ohm Walsh speakers (maximum trade in value is the original retail of the trade in.)
Model Price after Trade-in Savings Old model needed MicroWalsh SE $ 840 per pair $ 560 Any Walsh speaker Walsh 1000 $1200 per pair $ 800 Walsh 2 or higher Walsh 2000 $1680 per pair $1120 Walsh 3 or higher Walsh 3000 $2400 per pair $1600 Walsh 3 or higher Walsh 4000 $3360 per pair $2240 Walsh 4XO or higher Walsh 5000 $3900 per pair $2600 Walsh 300 Mk-2 or higher
Shipping & Handling is still only $50 per pair.
This offer is good thru April 30, 2010. We may extend the offer if we get enough response.
Please give me a call to discuss your needs and options.
BTW the OHMs I would most like to add that I do not already have (if I had room) are the Walsh-less Hs and Is.
For application in smaller rooms, either another pair of Ls (with latest and greatest crossover and drivers from OHM) or one of the harder to find CAM/PRO series, which I have never actually heard, perhaps.
It's funny, this could be a (GASP!) new thread: Tiger Woods, fidelity and Ohm.
I recently ended an 8+ year early retirement to (GASP!) go back to work. As a result, my music time has shrunk from app. 4 hrs a day (split between listening and piano and/or guitar practice) to about 1 hr. a day.
Although, in theory, I rotate my Verity P/E, Merlin VSM, and Maggie MMGs into the system periodically, that was slowing down, anyway. Now with the time crunch (okay, piano is going, I'm hopeless anyway), I may just bail on the other speakers.
Anyone in SoCal looking for a deal? I guess I'm an Ohm guy, now.
I resist the urge to just dump all other makes altogether and go all OHM. I do like to contrast and compare different designs that I like, however in the end, if I had to downsize, I'd be fine with pure wall to wall OHMs, even after over 30 years of ownership.
i'm a proud owner of ohm walsh 300 mk 2, ohm walsh 4x0, 2x0, pro 200, eminent tech lft 8a which i will upgrade to a b, and will replace my non working maggie 2.5 with the new 1.7, and a rare acoustat spectra 33 w/spl-1 subwoofer my most majestic collection, driven by carver and sunfire amps! with dakiom feedback stabilizers and many more equipment too many to list. You can own great sound without being wealthy. That is what AUDIOGON is all about, such a great community. Here at audiogon, wealthy people sell their well cared for awesome equipment because of upgrad bug to us audio PEASANTS who couldn't afford retail. Used equipment from audiogoneers is the smartest shopping anywhere in home audio period!
I noticed a pair of OHM 4.5 mkiis up for sale here currently for what appears to be a very good price, just a bit over a grand! Seller indicates these were John Potis' speakers on which he published a review.
These are 2 generation old Walsh 5 drivers in Walsh 4 cabinets, adaptable for all size rooms. The mkii's used a different tweeter I believe than the newer series 3s, but the Walsh drivers are identical as I understand it.
A thing to note to wean optimal performance on Walshes (like my F5's) is to check occasionally to make sure the driver is firmly secured to the cabinet at all times. The F5s secure the driver to teh base using 4 wing nuts that I find tend to loosen up a bit over time, especially when letting things rip at higher volumes. You want these to be firm, not loose, but do not over tighten them .
A solid foundation can only help and not hurt, I believe. how much exactly is not clear to me in the case of the OHMs, possibly less than in general as John suggests.
Mapman - I did receive, gratis, from Ohm, a box full of shims and pads to level the 2000s. They do provide better leveling, but it's hard to describe just how uneven my floor is. With the speakers individually levelled, I would guess that there is about an inch in hieght difference between them.
When I order the custom-made Sound Anchors bases, I will specify a large range of adjustment via the screw in spikes. The goal is to level each speakers and get them level with each other. Also, since multiple shims and pads are now in use, moving the speakers to try and improve placement is a dicey task - it took quite a while to level each speaker. The new bases will provide a quicker way to reposition the speakers and then re-level them. Plus, even with the shims and pads, there is a little bit of play in the speakers, so that they rock a bit back-and-forth and side-to-side. I hope to eliminate this as well, even though John Strohbeen feels that this is not a problem for the Walsh designs, since the driver excursion is up-and-down and not back-and-forth. Nevertheless, my audio neurosis won't be satisfied until I get the 2000s sitting rock solid.
You might consider some simple home grown solutions in order to get the OHMs to sit squarer. Anything that helps to stabilize them can only help the sound. How about some $5.00 felt pads from Home Depot underneath to square things up (similar to squaring up a table or chair)?
Folded up pieces of paper or newspaper should even work if hidden and not too unsightly.
My Odyssey Stratos HT3 is rated at >500 continuous damping factor. While run full range the 2000s sounded great, my beloved Vandy 2Wq subs (a pair of them) naturally put more extended, more powerful bass into the room than the Ohms alone. I think the combo of the 2Wqs and the Walsh 2000s is fantastic (although any good speaker that extends to 40Hz will work well with the Vandy subs).
As for the bass on vinyl, IMO, it can be quite deep and full. True, vinyl has physical limitations, but that is what RIAA EQ (and other EQ) circuits are for. Well-recorded vinyl through the MM phono section on my Connie-J PV-11 preamp does not lack bass. Much rock on vinyl is no better mixed and mastered than rock is on CD. Garbage-in, garbage-out, as they say.
For those of you following my Walsh 2000 saga, I am hoping to order the spike cradle bases from Sound Anchors soon.
There is quantity of bass and quality of bass. Amps with higher damping factors tend to work well with the larger OHMs at least I believe. When I was amp hunting, I only considered amps with damping factors > 50. My old Carver was lower and had flat bass particularly at lower levels. The damping factor spec on the amps I'm running now is >1000 according to Bel Canto's specs. And let me tell you, the bass is by far the cleanest and most fulfilling I have heard on OHMs, though when I first hooked the Bel Cantos up, the bass sounded quite lean compared to prior.
Joe- I've always found I got MORE bass with vinyl, esp. the newer, remastered stuff. I actually gave up on cd's and sold my Rega Apollo (everything sounded lifeless on that thing). I'm not sure why- maybe my phono amp is the wildcard (although, it's nothing special- Jolida). Either way, my stereo is basically all analog for me (I have a Yamaha cd recorder to copy albums- I can play cd's if I really wanted, but it sounds similar to the Rega). I'm not giving up yet, but I don't want to go back to a sub- at least, not where I currently live (no room for one).
I'm very interested in hearing people's impressions of the new and improved 1000's series drivers versus the older series 3 drivers that I have in both pair of OHM Walshes and were used in MWTs from the outset, I believe.
Having not heard the latest drivers, its difficult for me to provide reliable feedback on those based on prior versions in that one cannot assume what is similar, different or improved sound-wise.
Ron, I owned a pair of micro talls for 5 months and never thought they lacked bass. Part of the problem is that most of your music is on vinyl. They just couldn't put that much bass on lp's, or the needle would be jumping right out of the groove, so if you wanted more bass, you had to supplement it with subs and room placement ect. CD's today are capable of almost unlimited low end extension. You might want to buy a few cd's that you know have a lot of low end and give them a listen. This will show you what the micros can do, and you might be a bit surprised at how much bass they can produce by themselves. You will probably want to re-add a sub to listen to your lp's as they will sound rather "anemic" without a sub, but this was the norm for the times and we hade no choice. Don't give up on your micro talls. I just sent mine back and upgraded to the new 1000. I'm breaking them in, but the Ohm magic is still there, great bass(on cd's), soundstage and overall presentation that will improve with time. I really loved the micros, but needed something that could handle more power. I'll be posting my impressions od the 1000's as time and break-in permit, but I'm convinced that I've got something really special with the Ohms, and if I choose to upgrade again, it will be with Ohms Good luck Joe
Listening to ACDC Back in Black vinyl- some songs sound a bit thin. But, Rock & Roll Ain't... sounds great. These MicroTalls are so close to being "perfect" (and, yes, I'm definitely talking about 'for the money'). I didn't think speakers for this price could sound this good. The mids, highs, and soundstage are great, but I feel like I need a sub. Maybe because I've used subs for so long? Just figured I'd post an update, since this thread was bumped. I'll say that I'm not disappointed, but I am missing the bass.
Okay, to bump this thread a bit, and also since it is a little overdue, I posted my full review of my Ohm Walsh 2000s in the review section: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?rspkr&1270213477&&&/Ohm-Acoustics-Ohm-Walsh-2000-Speaker Feel free to comment here or there!
In general, I believe it takes inherently more power to get "kick" from omnis equivalent to what you might get with similar efficiency directional speakers aimed at your listening position. That is because with imnis, the sonic energy is emmitted in all directions whereas with more directional designs it is all essentially aimed at you.
Due to room constraints (12X12 with some large furniture and a TV in the room)I've had my 100S3s in a rather unique more wide and nearfield configuration for the last few months that I have found works well, yet is radically different from the typical setup and even how I have my 5s setup in the larger room.
My listening position is a couch on the rear wall. My electronics are on furniture occupying most of the left wall. The TV is in the front right corner, and there is a sizable computer desk center on the front wall.
The left speaker sits about 2/3 of the way from the left side of the couch to the rear wall. The right speaker sits about halfway between rear and front wall (about 2 feet further out from the rear wall than the left) and only about a foot from the right wall. Everything is tuned in quite well with more than adequate bass, proper top to bottom balance, detailed imaging and a room size sound stage that can almost immerse the listener in the music.
Its a totally different presentation however than in teh larger rooms with the 5s which are both equidistant from teh rear wall, about 5 feet apart, and where I normally listen a good 6-8 feet or more back from teh speaks. Occasionally, I listen from a chair that is about 2 feet in front of the speakers and about a foot to the outside of the left speaker. There, the soundstage is again more near field in nature and the image fills in nice and coherently with a slight shift in overall location to the right....the magic of omnis!
I can't really get them in front of me... they are more to the sides. They are probably only 2 feet "in front" and about 5 feet to the sides, but due to crap in the room, I can't really change this. I did move them around a bit, but the bass seemed the best when close to the side walls. What really seems lacking is that kick you get from the bass drum, and the punch from the snare. I only listen to rock, so there's quite a lot of that in the music I like. Even though I'm not adding a sub (no floor space, plus other reasons), I'm not sure it would really help much. I'm not looking for the 20Hz stuff... I doubt anything I listen to even gets below 35 or 40Hz (although I've never measured).
Any chance of getting them closer togather? A lot closer? I had a similar situation with my MWT's, and have found that having them about 5' apart, 6' if front of me ande about 1' off the rear wall yields solid bass and an amazing soundstage.
I was using a solid state power amp (Bel Canto S300) with a tube preamp (Manley Shrimp) with my Ohm 100's and it was a sweet combination. Seems a good way to give the Ohms the juice they want with the dimensionality and sweetness of tubes.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
