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
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.





Last week I bought a HK Onyx studio 2 bluetooth speaker to add some portable sound to the house. Its very nice sounding and now my wife is pushing to get wired speakers out of her sunroom altogether, which is something I could probably live with as well.

So now I’m assessing options With no wired speakers in sunroom, I have two extra pair to do something with. I’m investigating trade-in options with JS . I might propose a smaller pair of light colored speakers in there like 1000s. OR maybe I could trade my two extra pair of OHMS (Ls and Walsh 2100S3) towards a 5000 driver upgrade finally perhaps.

Always something....

Its nice that all OHMs have pretty good trade-in value when the time comes to make a change. It really helps to make an upgrade or change more affordable.
accurus, nice write up! I'm also a former owner of Maggies and Ohms. My first serious speaker purchase was a set of Ohm Fs back in 1976 and I still have never heard a speaker that was quite as magical as they were. They certainly had their limitations, but the drawbacks pretty much fell in areas that didn't bother me. 

I auditioned the Ohm 2000s several years back and almost bought them, though the Maggie 1.7s won out. They were just a better match for my room at that time. In any event, while the Ohms were very good and I could have easily lived with them, they just didn't have that magical sense of space the original Fs presented. 

I'll second your comments that the finish quality of the Ohm cabinets is quite mediocre. They are at a price point that I would expect better, though that certainly doesn't affect the sound. 

I also agree with your comments about bass -- the speakers are very impressive in this area. I found no need for a subwoofer for the purposes of playing music. 

However, the main reason I no longer own either Maggies or Ohms is that after we moved some years back, my current listening room isn't well suited for speakers that put out a lot of energy to the rear. The back wall is asymmetrical -- solid on the left but with an opening on the right that cannot be closed. This plays havoc with the sound from such speakers. Front firing speakers pretty much solve this problem since the left & right side walls are symmetrical. 

Once again, it proves that the choice of speakers not only need to match the listener's preferences, but also the room's.