Ohm Micro Walsh small vs. tall


I have the 2000 on order and with John's advice ordered the (wall mount)short Micro Walsh's for surrounds. My couch is against the wall, ear height is about 42"

How do these things look on the wall, is this likely to be a(WAF)problem?, dimensions are: 6Wx7Dx12H.

John reports that the bass on the wall version is less than the floor speakers, so a sub is a must, particularly with surround music. I know I can return them, but since I only ordered yesterday I could change my order for the floor Short or Tall's versions. Can anyone give me some advice, and share experience/opinions about the 3 options?

Main concern with the shorter floor speakers is that it will sound muffled being lower than the couch. I'm currently using Maggie surrounds and they are at ear height and are very detailed.

One other thought: if the wall mounted speakers are the best solution, how high should the bottom of the speaker be above ear height?

Also, based on what I've heard, a center speaker isn't required. Can anyone confirm?

Thanks,

John
jfriswel
"I've been looking into replacing my Maggie's (music 30%, HT 70%) for some time and have really struggled with my options. The Maggie's bring true high definition sound to the table, true Audio Nirvana as long as you sit in the Sweet Spot (which unfortunately is minuscule) and can handle the limited dynamics. Shift to one side of the couch or stand up and the difference is tremendous. Definitely not a speaker to be shared with friends and guests."

There are two things in that quotation that catch my eye.

IMO, if you're HT 70%, then you might as well consider yourself to be HT 100%. There's a great deal of controversy about whether you can have a system that can do both audiophile music and batcave HT, but I'm inclined to say you should aim your purchases at one and hope for the best about the other.

Second is the sweet-spot issue. To me, the phrase "wide sweet spot" refers to avoiding the soundstage-collapse-to-the-nearest-speaker phenomenon. This is important for HT if you have more than one person watching. This was one of the prime considerations in my purchases. An old trick in this regard is to severely toe in the speakers. SPL differential (especially with regard to the highest octave) is a prime pyscho-acoustical device used by the brain to indicate location, and toeing more or less maintains the SPL balance as one moves left or right because the more distant speaker becomes more on axis. Of course, this creates other issues related to off-axis frequency response. Now the Ohms are already built toed in at 45 degrees, so I figured that they had attempted to address all this. And it does work fairly well. With two Ohms you can move quite a bit between the speakers; the soundstage will shift but it doesn't collapse. You might ask Newform for a a psycho-acoustical explanation of their wide-sweet-spot description. Having said all this, another advantage of the center-channel speaker is that it helps prevent collapse, especially with dialogue.

"The 645's appear to have great dynamics and also offer the ribbon/planar sound, however, I was concerned with coherency with the 1Khz crossover between the woofers and the ribbons."

I also was concerned about the crossover issue, especially as most speakers cross right in the prime part of the vocal range. And, of course, Ohms have that high pass filter to the super tweeter at about 8KHz.

Mapman says several important things.

On the SPL issue, I only point out a fringe trend I am beginning to see on the forums about producing HT systems that can play at reference levels. Many people pursuing that seem to be going towards high-efficiency profesional-audio stuff. I agree with Mapman that such an endeavor may not be consistent with keeping your hearing, and I find that -10dB (which corresponds to 95 dB non-LFE peaks at the listening position) is as loud as I would want to go. IMO, the main argument in favor of reference level is that it is hard to get kick-in-the-chest bass without really high SPLs and merely raising the gain on your subwoofer will destroy the spectral balance of the entire presentation.

Finally, Mapman advises starting with what John suggested to you. This is my advice as well. Ohm's customer service is incredible, and John is interested in making sure that every customer gets what they want. For example, He made me a special center-channel version of the full-size 100S3s that fired straight ahead, and he sold it to me at one half the normal price of a pair. He allowed me a full credit when, after a year, I switched my surrounds from micro-Walsh short omnis to 100S3 short omnis. Other stories like this are well-known. To be fair to John in such matters, I would start with his recommendations.

This is excellent reading.

I will call John tomorrow to discuss the surround options further and clarify the situation with wall, short and tall, and the angle of the tweeter.

Simon, what are the dimensions of your center speaker and how well does it blend with the fronts, is it above or below your TV and how far from the wall?

Also, what was was the reason for the upgrade to the 100S3 and did it make a lot of difference?

JF
Simon,

Did your shorts have the Tweeter at 45 degrees or were they facing straight up?

Can you elaborate on their performance as a surround speaker?

How did you have them positioned relative to your ears/seating position?
"Simon, what are the dimensions of your center speaker and how well does it blend with the fronts, is it above or below your TV and how far from the wall?"

My center speaker is a full-size version of the 100S3, but built to fire straight out as opposed to 45 degrees. It blends perfectly. The LCR are behind an acoustically transparent screen; I use a front projector. With the LCR, there is about a foot and a half between the wall and the back of the cabinet. I would move them further into the room if there was space to do it. They are between 10 and 11 feet from the main listening position (LP).

"Did your shorts have the Tweeter at 45 degrees or were they facing straight up?

Can you elaborate on their performance as a surround speaker?

How did you have them positioned relative to your ears/seating position?"

Also, what was was the reason for the upgrade to the 100S3 and did it make a lot of difference?"

My micro-Walsh short surrounds were the omni version with the tweeter pointing toward the ceiling. They were positioned 90 degrees from the center--directly to the side of the LP. There was about a foot from the side wall to the back of the cabinet. Again, if I had more width to the room, I would move them further out. The tweeter was about one to two feet above my ear, about five feet from the LP.

For surrounds, I have tried dipoles, bipoles, and monopoles (firing toward the LP, up in the air, toward the corners, etc.). But in terms of striking a balance between localization when called for and diffusion when called for, the omni Ohms are the best I have found. As an aside, I prefer more localization for the rears, so I had bipoles, now replaced with the micro-Walsh (non-omni) shorts.

Many people recommend identical speakers all around. This is probably most important for music, where mismatches become more evident. Still, I find that film-mixers are putting more and more into the surrounds to the point that some passages have the same SPL in the surrounds as in the LCR (I think that the rears in Dolby PLIIx are still at least 3 dB down, which is quite a power difference). There were passages in movies where I felt that the micros were having trouble keeping up with the LCR at my volume levels. So I wanted something that I would be sure would keep up with the LCR. The 100S3 driver is bigger and can move more air. Having said that, I have to say that five feet from my ears, the shorts disappeared a bit better than the larger 100S3 surrounds.