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

I think but am not certain that 4XOs are original gen 1 Walsh drivers like Walsh 2s but made a tad more efficient for easier mating to amps.

I have not heard latest X000 generation but my working assumption is that most OHms gen II or later sound more similar than different whereas gen 1 is much different.

Mine are both series 3, one gen older than latest.

OHm walsh series/generations are as I recall:

originals 1,2,4,5, and XO variations (5s were subject of the Stereophile review I referenced above).
series 2 circa late 80s
series 3 circa later 90s
X000 current and around for at least 5 years or so now I think.

Each series historically appears to get a revision/fresh up every ten years or so.

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.

mapman, based on your speaker timeline, my 4XOs are of the series 2 variety. The Ohm website lists the manufacturing date range as late 1980s to early 1990s. If Ohm had made improvements up through the current series (which my 2.2000 are), they should blow away the "old" 4XO version.

I used an amp with sufficient power (Parasound 1500) and increased the volume during the 2.2000 testing to compensate for the efficiency difference which isn't huge (2 dB).

The problem that I am talking about is the inability of the 2.2000 speakers to reproduce sound that is clearly there in the 4XO speakers. Speakers typically don't create sound, they reproduce it from a source. So, if the source is the same and sound is missing from one set of speakers then something is wrong with the speakers.

It seems to me that trying to rationalize missing sound on the "room" when two sets of speakers share the same space is a stretch. I'm happy to be proven wrong as I would rather have both sets of my speakers play well.

I also think that trying to discount actual users expriences as spurious by comparing them to what was reported in a magazine years ago using a different set of speakers isn't the last word when discussing what is happening today.

I like Ohm speakers. The engineering genius of Lincoln Walsh is appreciated. When actual users report on the possible failings of the Ohm manufacturing company, I think it is important to talk about it. Ohm makes a profit constructing speakers; they need to hear (are you listening JS?) what is going on with their product and how their customers are reacting.

t8 you would know best. . I would expect the two to have differences in sound to go along with the different driver size,  cabs and age. That’s about it.    If gen two rather than gen one then that is a step in teh right direction IMHO.