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

Just thought I'd start up this thread again to state that I have a set of 1000s coming in a few weeks. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the 1970s and loved them -  they threw an absolutely magical 3D image. I have always regretted selling them when I moved in 1977.

Been through a lot of speakers since. Tried a set of Ohm 200s back in 2003 to replace the aging set of tri-amped trasmission line KEFs I used for a number of years but liked the Maggie 1.6QRs better in the room at that time. When we moved in 2006, the Maggies didn't work in the 13 X 14 room in the new house. I ended up with a pair of Spendor SP1/2Es which I really loved, but the wife didn't like the 70s boxes. So I then switched to the current set of GE Triton 7s. They are very good, but talk about a tight and small sweet spot!

I've got a difficult room as there is an opening behind the right speaker that has no door. I assumed omni type speakers were a lost cause due to the lack of symmetry. After recently talking to John at Ohm, he said the wall IN BETWEEN the two speakers is what's important. If that's the case, I may be OK.

So, here in a few weeks we're going to find out. I'm crossing my fingers that they'll do the trick and have the magic I remember (and, release me from the microscopic sweet spot.)

@mlsstl - Provided you and the folks at Ohm agree that the 1000 is the right Walsh speaker for your space, I expect you’ll be pleased. Just a few points: The standard current Walsh line are not full omnis like the old F’s were. They attenuate output somewhat in the rear to facilitate placement near the front wall. They can be ordered without this attenuation if desired (and I often wonder what my 2000s would sound like without this attenuation). Second, you must allow plenty of break-in time. The speakers will go through many tonal shifts as they break in, and full break in can take months.  Thirdly, the current Walsh line use a conventional dome tweeter, unlike the F's, which were full-range, true omnis.  This means adjusting the toe-in, which works backwards from conventional dynamic speakers, is important.  Toeing in these Ohms will attenuate the treble output at the listening seat, and toeing them out will accentuate it.  Lastly, I think the 1000s will have much of, if not all of, the magic of your F’s. They certainly have a wide sweet spot. Please keep us posted.

Thanks @bondmanp. I'm probably still 3 weeks or so away from getting them, but plan on giving them every opportunity to become a permanent addition to my system.

As noted before, I had a trial run with the 200s back in 2003 or so and they fell just a bit short of what I was after. Trust that a bit more tweaking has been done since then.

I certainly plan on giving a full report when I've had a chance to live with them for awhile.

jwc2012 writes, "I've got a set Ohm Walsh 2XO cans in great shape that I thought I'd be able to find an old set of cabinets on which to mount them."

One option is to find a set of Allison CD-7 cabinets. The 2XO cans should just fit the top-mount opening for the 8" woofer, though the rim may require some bracing to handle the weight of the cans. (It's old pressboard, not MDF.) The internal volume is just a bit lower than that of the 2XO cabinet, though it's a sealed cabinet.

My understanding is there's no crossover external to the can, so it's just a pair of wires from terminals to the can. The Allison is hollow and unbraced, typical of the era, so adding some internal bracing probably wouldn't hurt. 

Besides the later RDL based on the CD-7 design, I'm unaware of another similar size cabinet with a top-mounted woofer opening.