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
peterr53
184 posts
 
Hey Tate.....
Its almost 1:30 and I'm up, I played around just for fun with the 2/2000's and the first reaction was holy shit these are very hard to drive.....As I have a numerical volume control
and I went waaaaaaaaay further then any speaker I own for the same volume level.
The other thing is the way JS told you to aim the speakers is wrong, way wrong.
Just this little of moving the speaker about makes for a much better experience.
They also like to be  back from the back wall 6' worked great. So I think you need a minimum of 500 ponys to get them to sing properly.
I also lifted them up on some books to see if the base was better.....yes
And I think you get better midrange energy emenating closer to ear height.
I will try to get some measurements tomorrow, but I have to see my metal guy
for some laser cut parts asap...

Its coming together nicely.........🇸🇪
bondmanp
1,820 posts
 

peterr53:  I have my 2000s on Sound Anchor cradle bases, mostly for stability, but they did help overall with imaging and cleaned up the sound a bit.


t8kc:  The subwoofer option works for me.  I am a big proponent of dual subs for stereo, however.  Ohm makes a subwoofer, and I cannot say enough good things about my pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subs with MHP5 battery biased crossovers.  I actually owned the subs before the Ohms, and a seamless blend with the Ohms was crucial.  In fact, had the 2000s not worked well with the Vandy subs, I would not have kept the Ohms (that's how much I like the subs).  When you add the 300 watts per channel of the subs to my 150 watts from the Odyssey amp, you get pretty close to the 500 watts per channel mapman uses (I know the 300 watts are not driving the Ohms, but, still, it's interesting).  I reviewed the Vandy subs here on Audiogon if you want to read more.  They have a unique crossover architecture, and are designed for corner placement (why other subs are not, I will never understand).  I guess it depends if you are a bass-freak, like me, or not.  The 2000s put out a decent amount of bass down into the mid-30s, I would guess, but there is no substitute for a pair of ballsy powered subs.


But if I had the cash, I might go for the gold with both the subs and a bigger power amp.  Nevertheless, I am content with my system as it is, even though I know it could always be better.

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,379 posts
 
Subs always make perfect sense. You just have to get the setup right in your room (with or without subs).   Bass is typically the hardest thing to get just right due to room acoustics.   If its not, it greatly impacts everything you hear, not just the bass.
peterr53
184 posts
 
Morning guys...

Subs (2) are a must, no if's and but's about it, but I have to say that 2/2000
are hard to mesh with the subs properly. I will try to play with phase and a lower
x-over to see if that helps. Bondmanp is absolutely right about getting them up from the floor with stands.....a must.....🇸🇪




mapman's avatar
mapman
22,379 posts
 
Need to get floor interactions under control right up front as needed with bottom ported OHMs in particular. Isolating pads is an option to raising. Auralec SubDude platforms work well with my 2s (see sunroom system pic). Keep in mind if you raise the Walshes too high so your ears are below the cans when listening overall tonality will be negatively affected.

FWIW I’ve used subs with my smaller monitors in the past but never felt inclined to try with fuller range OHM Walshes. I don’t doubt getting the two integrated just right could be a challenge in many rooms. I know Bondman and Martykl have both gone that route with success though.
More to discover