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
"If you want speakers that are etched, hyperanalytical or ultra-revealing, these probably won't float your boat. And it's because the Arros do lean more in those directions, I think, that this is such a difficult and interesting choice for me."

I've been reading this thread over the past couple of weeks, as I recently started auditioning the Ohm Walsh 100-S3s in my 12x15 living room. I've been paying particular attention to the way the sound of the Ohms is characterized compared to other speakers, like the Arros that Rebbi describes in the quote. In my case, I'm comparing a wonderful pair of GMA C-1s, which I love, to the Ohms and I'm also dealing with the "trade-off" between the detailed, pin-point imaging of the GMAs to the more rounded, room-filling imaging of the Ohms. This experiment got started because my spouse has tolerated the look of the GMAs, but hasn't been happy about the space they take up and the way they look. I, of course, am willing to overlook everything about them and their impact on our living space because they sound so good.

But here's what I've come to realize these past few weeks. The GMAs do have a very small sweet spot, and I've been hogging that seat, which is the best seat in the living room. If I get home and wife or kid is already sitting in that seat, I have to sit off to one side of the sweet spot, which means I hear only the speaker on that side. Alternatively, I ask the person to move, which usually results in their leaving the room. The net result is often that everyone cleared out when I wanted to listen to music.

Since I've had the Ohms, though, I find that audio elements like imaging, balance, and depth are quite acceptable even when sitting to one side of the room. And the sweet spot is quite musically engaging, even though the sharply defined imaging isn't nearly as effective as the GMAs. Plus, and this is key for me -- no one leaves the room when Dad wants to listen to music! I find it's far more satisfying to sit around these winter nights in New Hampshire, listening to Beethoven, say, with my family nestled around me.

My wife prefers the lower profile size of the Ohms, so that's a net win.

And now for my main point (sorry to be so long-winded) -- what I've come to realize about detailed imaging and other audio attributes of speakers is that, in the end, they really do not reproduce the way that live music sounds to me. I do listen to live music pretty regularly, and what I've been paying careful attention to lately is that no matter where I sit in the theater, arena, or club, I really do not hear imaging. If I pay careful attention to the saxophonist who's playing off to the left of the stage, I realize the sound I hear is omni-directional! The tone of the instrument is, of course, real saxophonee -- which no stereo system can come very close to (although the GMAs really nail instrumental voices). But the "sound stage" and "imaging" are a figment of my visual imagination -- I see the saxophone player off to the left and trick myself into hearing hm "there." But if I close my eyes, I hear that he's not there; he's everywhere! Wherever I wander in the room, there he is, blowing beautifully, filling the house.

And that aspect of live music is one that Ohm understands. A small trade-off in fabricated imaging in return for pleasurable listening anywhere in the room. For me, they're keepers.
Wine,

You're not the first to observe that imaging is more characteristic of good stereo than of most live performance. However, it does contribute to the illusion of live performers in the listening room. Strangely, I find that the Ohms do an excellent job of preserving this illusion - images have real "body" and hang in space. The only shortfall I've found is the lack of dramatic front to back differentiation that you find in many of the better minimonitors, for example.

It's a bit strange that lots of folks find the Ohm imaging "diffuse", while I don't at all. I definitely wouldn't ascribe this to omnis in general, because the MBLs are probably the best imaging speakers I've ever heard.

Marty

Ironically, many people have described the Ohms as very dynamic, while I find this to be their sole significant shortcoming. Maybe it's just me.
Winegasman,

I'm grateful to you for your post... it's very helpful!

Have you played around much with the positioning of your Ohm's? I'm wondering if you've noticed the changes in tonal balance and imaging specificity that I have, in response to changing the speaker-to-speaker spread distance.

Also your room isn't that much larger than mine. Do you find the 100's to be well suited to that room? I thought that the bass out of the 100's might be too heavy for a room that size.

Don't apologize for being "long winded." I liked reading your thoughts!
I agree with Winegasman 100%, live music doesn't have precise impaging, it has a more diffuse imaging like the Ohms or the Castle Harlech's I used to own with a top firing driver, and although the Ohms I believe are closer to live music some listeners will still prefer the very precise image that usually comes with a much smaller "sweet spot".