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

Peter regarding the earlier charts of walsh driver alone, which surely must be different than stereophile reported results on the entire original Walsh 5 speaker, there is no data elsewhere to compare with so it is what it is. There is no way to know know if it is normal for these speakers or not. That can never happen with a single sample in any case.

But if your complete speaker with tweeters in play roll off as indicated, I am willing to bet there is something wrong with this patient.  Stereophile indicated virtual flat response to 20khz measured with the original Walsh 5's from early 80's tested.      Data presented as I understand it would seem to point to the crossover in that my understanding is all measures were done with drivers connected to crossover. If it is the crossover then the walsh driver alone measures might be affected as well. No way to know that for certain though with the data available so far that I can see.

Unless I’m missing something I’d suggest talking to JS and see what he has to say.

t8kc - You sparked my curiousity with your post.  I have never heard 4XO's, but I have owned a pair of 2000s for over seven years and I love them.  What about the 2.2000 upgrade did you find dissappointing?

bondman, here is the quote from one of my earlier 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."

What surprised me was that I contacted Ohm about the issues and they just shined me on. They were pushing the line that it must be the room. This ignored the fact that I did a direct comparison between their 2 speakers in the same location.

I think that to assume all Ohm-Walsh speakers sound the same and are all voiced alike is to ignore the realities of production. A human is assembling them from parts sourced from who knows where. My 2.2000 upgrade speakers, with 6 months of break-in, never got better. As soon as I auditioned the 4XOs, the game was over.

Interesting.

The advantage of XO models (compared to other originals like 1,2,4,5) is that they are advertised easier to drive and more efficient which is certainly a factor that might influence results positively in many cases.

I suspect they are likely more efficient than comparable newer 1000 models but have not verified that.

As a sidenote I also recall reading something from JS in his OHM site blog I think that indicated smaller models in a line are less efficient than larger ones, which would seem to make sense.

Also be certain not all OHMs of a particular model or line always sound alike. The sound heard can vary widely for many reasons. Being omnis/radials, room acoustics IS a particularly key factor as always. Amp used, quality of source and all the other usual culprits (including operating condition) can come into play as usual. Its a team sport. Speakers alone make no sound.

Also worth mentioning of course that Walsh 4s are quite a bit larger than 2.2000 and I am a steadfast believer that size always matters when it comes to speakers and their ability to put out large or sufficient amounts of good sound.

Another point is that as I recall with X000 series prices did go up in general for speakers of a certain size in the line so you get a smaller speaker (with advertised better drivers) for your money.  That's where refurbs, sales and trade-ins can really help though.