2. speakers
  3. 1223044851

Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

Hi,

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.
rebbi
bondmanp
1,817 posts
 

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. 

bondmanp
1,817 posts
 
Oh, as for the upper treble, I concur with your assessment.  I have wondered what the 2000s would sound like with a folded ribbon tweeter, or an omni tweeter.  But again, this tends to be recording-dependent, IME.  I agree with mapman here.  Remember, with the Ohm Walsh line, the tweets are angled inward, toward the listening position.  So, toe-in will decrease direct sound from the tweeter, and toe-out increase direct sound from the tweeter; opposite of conventional baffle speakers.  I have mine very slightly toed-in.
accurus
40 posts
 
Thanks for the response bondmanp. I would say my experience so far with the Ohms is that my image stability in terms of voice height is very consistent at about 4 to 5 feet high regardless of the recording. The changes is the image height and I think it has to do also with how pressured the room gets. The louder I crank of the speaker the bigger the sound tends to get, maybe 10-20% larger soundstage. Additionally as you point out height definitely can vary with recording. Play the Interstellar soundtrack last night by the wind noise was can height, but by the end of the track with the orchestra in full force the height was nearly hitting my 8 foot ceilings.

As for toe-in and Dirac so far I have only tried them toe'ed out which seems to add more image height but I will try them toe'ed in. Dirac also was a great difference in my room. I can turn Dirac on and off instantly with my setup and the difference has been improved control and extension (probably due to Dirac killing a 15db bump between 40 and 60 hz) and a much smoother and focused mids and highs. Also the holographic surround effect has been tuned now to be more precise and realistic.

As for what speakers in their price range could beat the Ohms I would honestly say not many from my listening experience. As I said in another post compared to my 3.6s which are renowned for being a top tier speaker the Ohms excel in numerous places. One could look at the Magnepan 1.7i's or .7s but in terms of dynamics the Magnepans would quickly be put in their place and the Ohms definitely have a less veiled and open sound to them compared to the Magnepans. Which is odd since that is one of the hallmarks of Magnepans. But the Ohms just have this open unrestrained sound to them that is easy to forget when listening to them, but you quickly remember when comparing them to other speakers.

One interesting this is that people talk about Magnepans having an airy sound which they do when it comes to the texture of the sound (especially on ribbon models). However the Ohms excel at having sound literally sounding like it is coming out of nowhere. It sounds not airy in texture, but as if the sound placement is just coming out of nowhere and it is a somewhat weird, but easily adapted to trait. The Ohms when playing some material have the ability to project a wall of sound as if the air itself is the speaker. I have never had that experience before on any system I have heard.

Overall more break-in coming and I will certainly try the toe-out. After spending 4 hours moving the speakers in 6 in increments and then fine tuning I think I have place down minus the toe-in experiments. However all of this break-in work will be for not since my left driver can was damaged at the factory and I have replacement cans for both speakers coming in this Tuesday. I spoke with John the next day about the damage and site unseen he instantly offered to send out new drivers. So the break in process will start fresh on Tuesday, but I am excited to take a closer look at the cans taken off the speakers and atleast I have the placement sorted out so it will be time to pull out the tape and mark some spots on the carpet.

PS: Can you send a link to the exact Sound Anchor product you are using with your Ohms? I am interested in picking some up and wanted to give them a shot. I currently use Sound Anchor stands on the Magnepan 3.6s and really enjoy the effect they had.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,326 posts
 
accurus I love the rigorous examination you are giving the OHMS!  It helps confirm a lot of what I have been saying over the years.

I feel like with the right size OHMs for a room,   a good quality source, and the right amplification to drive them to their max (which many average OHM owners may not have and not know or care what they are missing) you are basically just hearing the recording the way it should sound in your room.  So the recording is pretty much everything.   The best sound the best and the poor ones lag way behind but are mostly all still listenable once you realize it is what it is and enjoy it or not for reasons other than absolute sound quality.  Its like having a  good HDTV.   Huge range of picture quality possible depending on teh source.

One other thing I would mention is that  I have found OHMS or any speakers for that matter that sit on upper level suspended plywood floors found in most modern homes may benefit from placement on isolating platforms or stands.   Stands that couple to the floor will sound way different than those that isolate.

I have my OHM 100s in Walsh 2 cabinets on Auralex Sub dude platforms when used on my nicely finished second level with plywood flooring.   When I run them on the first floor (house foundation level) the stands are not needed.     In general I find you do not want any speakers interacting with lively floors.   It muddies the bass and obscures detail.
accurus
40 posts
 
Thanks for the advice Mapman! I in fact do have the speakers on a suspended floor and I do feel it vibrate along with the walls and pretty much everything if I have music like Lorde and Interstellar playing! Even better though is I actually have some old sub dudes sitting around which would actually give me some more physical height out of the speakers and address the problem you are suggesting. Sounds like a fun evening of music is ahead with a couple of experiments and probably a remeasuring using Dirac when I am done.
More to discover