Accurus - I would suspect room accoustics, but my Walsh 2000s do hieght extremely well. On some material, the voice sounds as if it is pressed against the low, 6' ceiling in my basement man cave. However, particularly when it comes to image placement and soundstage dimensions, I find the 2000s will reflect the information on the recording. I had an audio buddy over recently who owns some very good Mirage dipole towers. He picked the music. At the end of the demo, he remarked that he liked the Ohms, but that they don't seem to have a very large soundstage. I then put on "Wash Me Clean" by K.D. Lang, and the entire front half of the room exploded in a ginormous, holographic soundstage. His jaw dropped. Likewise for hieght. Some vocals sound as it they are coming from two feet off the floor, some higher, and some at the 6' hieght of my ceiling. IMO, one of the best characteristics of the 2000s is that they will reveal the qualities of each recording, but still make it possible to listen to and enjoy even poorly made recordings. Many typical rock recordings that I could not listen to on my old speakers are enjoyable on the Ohms. Thin, bright, congested recordings still sound that way, but they breathe a little more, and the bright, etched treble doesn't seem to dominate and crowd out the whole experience the way it can on many other speakers. I often found myself thinking, "oh, so this is what the recording engineer was thinking" for recordings that were unlistenable on my old speakers.
First, I would give the break-in more time. Mine took about six or seven weeks to get most of the way there, and full break in took about six months. Mapman's tweek suggestion is also important. IMO, Ohms don't need tweeks to sound good, but they can be beneficial. To give my 2000s a solid footing on my uneven basement floor, I had a pair of cradle bases made for me by Sound Anchors (~$325/pair), with three-point adjustable spikes. They really firmed up the imaging and cleaned up the sound, subtley, but noticebly.
Second, make sure you compare the sound with and without the DSP carefully. I am not sure that all room EQ programs work as well with unconventional speaker designs as they do with the conventional dynamic box speakers that they were most likely designed for. FWIW, I use the MCACC room EQ on my Pioneer AVR, but only for watching video. The signal for 2-channel listening is outside the surround sound, and DSP, loop.
As for the finish, I would say that this is not the strong point of Ohm. It is adequate, but I think any major upgrades in the fit and finish would add significantly to the price, and John Strohbeen is trying to keep his speakers affordable. I would put it this way: Strictly in terms of sonics, what can you buy for under $3K that sounds as good as the 2000s? I have not heard the current Maggies, but many people, like me, don't have the space to set them up properly. In fact, the only other speaker I've heard that I would consider in this price range is the Golden Ear Triton 3. However, I think they are about to get a revision and price hike, and I have not heard them in my home, so I have no direct comparison to refer to. FWIW, my cradle bases hide most of the plinth.
Enjoy your 2000s, and keep us posted if you have any further thoughts.
