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

Well after reading this for months I pulled the trigger on some Walsh 2s then had them refitted by Ohm. Set them up yesterday right next to my Ohm C2s. Very interesting. Not blowing me away out of the box but definitely good stereo separation, bottom end. Listened to a variety of things yesterday....Alison Krauss, Shelby Lynne, Diana Krall...all pretty good. Bill Evans...a little tinny on the piano sound. Hotel California...just ok. Tommy Emmanual-great acoustic instrument sound. Running off an old Mcintosh MA5100 integrated. Will work on breaking them in and finding the right placement. Not an ideal room as I have them about 15 inches off the front wall but there are shelves on both sides loaded with cds about 20 inches away. I will have to keep my ears open and maybe even run them off my separates later and see if there is an improvement. There does seem to be something of an "Ohm" sound but at this point the C2s seem to have more detail but less of a clean and low bottom end.

J - I started out with an MA6200 on my MWTs, then upgraded to a Cyrus 8vs2 and the speakers went up a notch in performance. Deeper bass, more detail... Surprised to hear Bill Evan's piano sounded tinny - his touch is anything but that. Plus, I always dig how the Ohms resolve piano.

Keep breakin' 'em in!

Joe, I sold many C2s years ago and still own L's.

I recall the C2s having the brightest inherent timbre of any OHM speaker save perhaps the E, which was a much lesser speaker. Not sure what the OHM C2 upgrade does in this regard, though I am certain it extends the low end.

My L's have the OHM sub bass activator tweak and a custom Morel woofer upgrade I installed myself. These sound best with good SS amplification I have found. Until I upgraded my amp from an older Carver m4.0t to the current MF A3CR (higher Current), I actually preferred the Ls to my Walsh 2s (100S3 drivers)for certain pop/rock recordings. The MF is lower watts (150w/ch) but higher current than the Carver (360w/ch) was. The OHM Walsh speakers need this to really shine.

Also, the Walshes need to break in and are inherently less efficient than C2s I believe, so they do require more power to truly thrive. I am not familiar with your Mac, but it is possible that an amp that does fine with the C2s may not do as well with the Walshes.

Aside from this, the presentation of the Walshes is totally different than the more conventional OHM box designs. That will never change.

Joe,

I don't know the W2s, but I believe that the paino timbre issue you observed isn't common to the entire Ohm line. Along with its unusual imaging capabilities, this was specifically the quality that most impressed me about my Ohm 100s. IMHO, the ability to allow a listener to easily identify piano type is usually a good indication of a speaker's timbral capability and, in this regard, I find the 100s awfully good. The "bell-like" tone of an upright is reproduced by my 100s in a way that sounds immediately real to me. With some other speakers I've heard (even some that - I'd say - sound "beautiful") this hasn't always been the case. Just MHO.

Marty

Marty,

Have you ever heard the Magico Minis?

Cost aside, these always leave an impression with me when I hear them and was interested in your take on them if you have?