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
Polarin you nailed it right on the head. Not many speakers are able to pull this off. I noticed after I got my Ohms that when listening to my Magnepans I was being selective about my music selection and played tracks that I knew sounded good on the Magnepans rather than what I was in the mood for. I wonder how many other audiophiles are doing this unconsciously. 
I had my first exposure to Ohm's recently and was quite impressed. Mapman was a gracious host inviting me over for a Saturday listening session to hear two different systems with Ohm speakers. The excellent bass and awesome dynamics have me looking at used Ohm's now. I also have a new respect for class D amplification.
Lance thx. I still want to do the return visit to hear your decware and other gear.  It's been hectic and hard to getaway on weekends. 

My plans to set up another system around tube gear keeps getting sidelined due to WAF.  Now to make matters worse my new addition today is a hk onyx Bluetooth speaker that is very impressive sounding and is small with WAF out the gazoo.   

Also Dirac now has my attention. 😗
Mapman, it's an open invitation but take your time. I have ordered a new preamp, Decware ZT Pre and hopefully it will arrive before you do.
Lance

acurus:  Thanks for the thoughtful review.  As an owner of 2000s, I concure with most of your impressions.  There are some points I would add, though.


I would not assume that after 30 hours the 2000s are fully broken-in.  They may be most of the way there, but mine underwent subtle changes for the first six months I owned them. 


One aspect of the Ohms that seems counterintuitive is that, even while they make every recording enjoyable, they still expose the characteristics of each recording.  What I mean is that the Ohms allow me to hear whether a recording is well done, like a Reference Recordings LP, or if it is a nasty, compressed, and bass-shy recording.  The worst of the lot that I own is actually a great record, "Manic Compression" by Quicksand.  As the title implies, it is congested, compressed and lacking in depth.  But through the Ohms, I can listen to it, and through all of its faults, and enjoy it.  But if one assumes that because the Walsh line is an omni that every recording will be a wall of sound affair with wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling soundstaging, one would be wrong.  Some recordings place the vocalist at the ceiling of my 6' high basement.  Some recordings sound as if the vocalist is sitting in my center-channel speaker, about 18" off the floor, even though there is no signal being sent to it.  This is not the Ohms; it is the recording.  Surprisingly, the Ohms will deliver the soundstaging on the recording - no more and no less.  Perhaps the Maggies embiggened every recording.  I would call that a defect, not a benefit.  I don't want my speakers to homogenize all recordings, and produce a uniform soundstage that fits my room.  I want to hear what the recording engineer heard.  Ping-pong stereo should sound like ping-pong stereo, and great recordings (kd Lang - "Wash Me Clean") should explode into a wall of holographic sound.  And with the 2000s, that's exactly what I get.  But, to come full circle, the best part is that even those horrid pop recordings sound pretty good, less congested, more open and just more listenable than they do on some much more expensive rigs.


Lastly, I think the level of your electronics speaks volumes about the Ohm's value.  You could have three pairs of 2000s for what you paid for your DAC!  That's why I doubt I will ever replace my 2000s.