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

Hi Peter I for one are interested in your quest to perfect the Ohm speaker . I have a set of 2-2000s and feel they could use some refinement in the upper frequency range . I added some super tweeters to my set up and find the results to be positive . I feel that a tweeter upgrade would improve there performance . The other thing would be running them without the cans . I would like to buy a set of raw drivers that are in the 2000s to start fresh and add some high quality tweeters and crossover components .The Ohm design has some great qualities the main one is coherence and no box coloration   

Its a safe bet anything can always be made better either objectively or subjectively. Definitively is a little tougher.

OHM does many things to help provide value in good sound for their customers. No need to recap all that here.

Having been around and pretty much seen and heard it all, value and utility are the parameters I value in this stuff alongside of good sound of course.

Having said that, my home-tweaked OHM Ls are getting more play time these days than any of my other similar "high end" monitors. I did refurbish them myself a few years back. THe 8" Morel woofers I picked up used alone cost almost as much as the speakers did when I acquired them in 1978.  Cheap paper tweeters and crossover are still original.

BTW I have a pair of very nice Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors (top notch build quality and  drivers including Isotar tweeters) with matching Dynaudio stands that are sitting idle currently. I have been thinking about selling them to finance a pair of subs to go with my other small monitors. ANyone interested let me know. I’d like to sell local and not have to deal with shipping the large heavy stands.

Finally getting back to this fray....*G*

Peter53, what drove me to 'roll my own' omnis is the fact that Ohm's speakers, nice as they are and as well as they work, are Not true Walsh speakers.  A quick glance at the innards of them vs. an original A or F makes that obvious.  Inverting a woofer and parking a dome tweeter above it is not a duplication; it's a 'fudge'.

I can understand the Why they are.  But given the physics involved as to How the originals worked and the way they were constructed to take advantage of what was going on 'under the hood'....no surprise as to their 'opt out', if you will.

I've taken a somewhat different approach with my efforts, closer to the German Physiks versions but going to a vertically stacked 2 way and tapping on the Infinity 'ice cream cone' variant for the tweeter.  My 'woofer' cones are a tad larger than the GP's, and running a sub for the lower bass.

I'm pretty happy with them...but there's still lots of room for improvement, which is what occupies me of late.  And they're still less expensive, as long as I ignore the 'man hours' involved...*L*

Any pursuit off the beaten track has its' price...*S*

Asvjerry thank you, I understand that being a fanboy is cool, and guess what, I was for 
35 years with Nikon and couldn't stand Canon or the people that bought one. Now that's 
ridiculous right! But I was blinded by my fan boy ship (now I laugh about it).

Jerry is very, very right, there's no Walsh technology in the modern Walsh speaker
none. It's Omni directional but some of it is wrong.....Yes it's weird that they're not using a
rear tweeter as most of the frequencies are cut of above 2.3khz. It blew me away when
I added the rear tweeter. 

On another note, it was a great race day. Ferrari won at Monaco....Finally after 
a dry spell Italy is happy today. The Indy 500.. Wow boring it ain't ever, and after realizing that my boy Alonso made it clear that winning the race was a possibility the friggin Honda 
engine gave up in a cloud of smoke.....a total bummer, but I hope Alonso quits F1 and come over here for Indy racing....🇸🇪