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
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,198 posts
 
Darn Apple spell checker changing my words again. 

Accurus us of course. Not accursed.   
accurus
40 posts
 
I have taken my Ohms apart and posted images earlier in this thread. The cabinet seems fine just not really well built IMO.
bondmanp
1,811 posts
 

I will restate what I said before: The magic of the Ohms, whether walsh designs or not, is from John Strohbeen’s skill in voicing loudspeakers. While there are times I wonder about modding my 2000s (cabinet bracing, upgrading tweeter, etc.), I am loathe to mess with John’s handiwork. I just don’t see why I, who know nothing about voicing a speaker, would be able to improve on John’s design. I know, John was working within limited cost constraints, but even so, I doubt I could improve on his desings.


sudont: I agree with Mapman. I have a pair of Micro Walsh Talls as surround channel speakers, and except for a bit of bass extension and macro dynamic ability, they are essentially identical in sonics to my 2000s.  Ditto for my Micro Walsh Center.  And they are actually a slightly older model, too. AND, IIRC, the 2000s use an aluminum driver, and the MWTs do not. Again, it comes back to John’s talent as a speaker designer and voicer.

t8kc's avatar
t8kc
61 posts
 
I basically agree with what Bondman just said.

Here is my recent experience comparing various Ohm speakers.

Ohm-Walsh 1
Nice sound, but lacking bass; if I didn’t compare with a Walsh 2, I would have been satisfied. I used it with a subwoofer for awhile and this helped.

Ohm-Walsh 2
Better than the 1s, but these blew out when I upgraded my amp.

Ohm-Walsh 2.2000
Fresh upgrade to fix the above blow out issue. Really a step up all around especially after break-in. Huge bass and nice upper end. I do feel that the voices seem a bit muted.

Ohm-Walsh 4XO
I had to buy these as they were in mint condition and the price was right. They seem livelier then the 2.2000s. More open, but not quite as much bass bias as the 2.2000 upgrade. The cabinets are huge; my wife thinks I have lost my mind.

The bass sounds just as good, but it is more muted. I also noticed that the 4XOs are more efficient (91 dB vs 88 dB) and they definitely don’t require as much turning of the volume knob.

I plan to run the 4XOs for a while and the switch back to the 2.2000s for a final comparison.

BTW, the Walsh 4 cabinets are much better (and heavier) than the cheaper Walsh 1 & 2 models. I like the casters too.
t8kc's avatar
t8kc
61 posts
 
Ok, the jury is in.
The Walsh 4s win.

After much listening and knob twisting, there is now no doubt.
The W4s have more definition and are more transparent.
I was able to turn the bass up a notch on the tone control which gave it enough kick to satisfy me.

The defining test was listening to the intro from "Money for Nothing".
The drums had much more tone and roundness compared to the W2.2000 speakers which sounded flatter.
At that point I couldn't go back.

Now, what to do?
It looks like a pair of Ohm-Walsh 2.2000 speakers will be for sale soon.
Or, I might relagate them to garage duty.

Anyone interested in the 2.2000s out there?
More to discover