Small room, "budget priced" speaker advice, please

Mapman wrote:

"I was wondering if you know whether the Ohms you heard were original (series 1 which first arrived in the early 80's), series 2, which I think started in the early-mid 90's through ~ 2005 or 2006, or series 3, which have only been available for a couple of years?"

Best answer I can give:

His main speakers are the Walsh 4, I believe, the really big ones from the 1980s. But, a few years ago he removed the CLS drivers and returned them to the factory for a "complete rebuild and upgrade" - whatever that means. So I cannot vouch for the actual model or vintage of these speakers. While the speakers themselves go down to the low 30s, being a bass hog, he has a giant SVS sub hooked up in the system and the pairing is really impressive for those instances when the program material dips into the 20s or below. But I digress...

He also has about 5 year old Micro Walsh Talls set up as his rear speakers for HT and multichannel audio duty. Their characteristic sound is not unlike their older and bigger brothers, but with less authority. These are all driven by fairly powerful Hafler and Dynaco amps with a Yamaha receiver serving as the processor/pre.

To elaborate on why I think the Ohm speakers might be more forgiving of what comes up stream, my friend and I have a running argument going about the efficacy of premium wires and digital sources (I am for, he is against), and have played around with different combinations on his system. Turns out I find that it is much more difficult to identify sound signatures of different ICs and front ends in his system than in my system that has modest but decent electronics and custom speakers with quality dynamic drivers in a sealed cabinet - about as far as you can get from the Ohm's presentation. I also find it easier to tell these differences in other dynamic speaker based systems compared with the Ohms.

Don't get me wrong his system and the Ohm-Walsh speakers sound terrific. But the Ohms always bounce the sound off everything - sometimes giving me the feeling I am hearing the sound reflected off two back walls, the one in the studio or concert hall and the one in the listening space. I guess I prefer greater pinpointing of instruments and their reflections in the recording space during play back. But again, to each their own.

Knownothing, a few things I can add:

Micro walshes were the first "series 3" model released I believe and all micro walshes are series 3. As I understand it from John Strohbeen, Ohm owner and principal Walsh series designer, the difference between series 2 and 3 is in the tweeter only, so I would expect much of the overall presentation to be very similar between series 2 and 3.

Series 1, which would include original Walsh 2s, 4s and 5s from th 80's, are an older Walsh design and I can clearly assert much inferior in regards to imaging accuracy and overall timbre.

If the 4's were rebuilt in the 90's, I suspect there is a good chance they are series 2. Your friend would probably know for sure what the difference was when they were rebuilt.

Regarding, cables, I hear huge differences with different interconnects from my digital sources using the Ohms or my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 monitors, perhaps even to larger extent with the Ohms since they are more full range, but I have not done sufficient experimentation with speaker wires to say much about that.

I suspect the differences with speaker wire is less significant in that I am using premium Audioquest cv-6 wires to my Dynaudios but all other speakers , including both pair of Ohm Walsh are in different rooms from my electronics and hook up through rather industrial grade in-wall wiring. The Ohms have such a large soundstage and image so well, in their own special way, that I do not notice any adverse effects despite the big $$$ cost in the wires feeding them.

Also, amplification makes a huge difference with Ohms, more so with my larger Ohm 5's than my 2's. You need high current and significant damping factor for audiophile results at most volumes with the 5's. The 2's are not as fussy those these things still help. The micros are smaller than the 2's and I suspect even less sensitive to current and damping factor specifications accordingly.

Your description of the Walsh speakers imaging and sound stage signature is fairly accurate. The effects of studio or concert hall acoustics on recordings are what they are. The Ohms will reproduce this more so than other speakers perhaps. They will also present this in a manner that depends more so on the signature of the room they are playing in and this will change based on speaker location.

To me, the imaging characteristics of the Ohms are what make them special and exciting. They actually capture the sound of the original recording environment and translate it accurately into your room. The trick is to realize this fact and not resist it and use it to your advantage when setting things up and listening.

Short of listening back in the original environment recorded in (impossible), what more could one ask for? As a long time Ohm affectionado for this reason mainly, it is very hard for me to stay interested for long periods of listening to most any other system I hear, save those perhaps which cost tens of thousands of dollars more.

Mapman and Knownothing,

I'm getting an education here! ;-)

Well, the Arro it is, then. Thank you to all of you who have been such a tremendous help to me. Now I just have to hope that the Arro's don't reveal my PS Audio Elite Plus as a crappy amp... wish me luck! :-)

Rebbi, a lot of good advice here. Mapman, I see that I missed out on the Ohm threads... Let us know what you think of the Arros!