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

Yes, I've never owned a parametric equalizer, but always thought them to be a practical and useful tool for tough rooms, particularly a quality one with flexible parameters.

This is the McCormack amp now correct? I suspect that is a very good match to the OHMs from what I have read. If the $600 (used) Musical Fidelity A3CR I acquired and still use did not pan out, a McCormick was a leading contender along with a few others, including the Class Ds.

Question for Ohm owners: How far apart are your left and right speakers? Are you happy with the results?

I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of. The alcove in my basement is only 10 feet wide (the basement, however, is ~2800 c.f.). This means that, in order to get them away from the side walls, the Ohms will have something like 5 feet between them. Is this a serious issue with the 2000s?

I can sit anywhere between 3 and 10 feet back from the speakers, assuming they are about 3 feet in from the fronth wall.

Thanks, folks.

Bondmanp, I think the distance is a bit of an issue but not too bad. I have my 5000's about 5 feet apart and about 2.5 from the side walls. Just don't have more space. I think my room is somewhat small for them and the soundstage could be bigger but the room is limiting that somewhat. Maybe in the future when I move to a bigger home....
Mapman, yes I'm using the McCormack DNA-500 amp and VTL 2.5 preamp. I still don't think I've maximized things. One thing I enjoy about integrateds vs separates is not dealing with extra interconnects, power cords and coming up with the right preamp for the amp!

"I've read some comments that they need at least 6 feet between them to provide the kind of soundstage size they are capable of."

I don't think that is necessarily the case.

I've had my F5s as close as 4-5 feet apart and the soundstage extended from wall to wall, ~3 feet to the right and 12' to the left in my L shaped room (see my system pic) when I sit close enough to have a clear line of sight to the far left rear wall. If I sit further back, the soundstage is correspondingly narrower, depending on line of sight to the left rear wall.

Also, in my small 12X12 room, currently my Walsh 2s (100s) are a good 8-9 feet apart and at an oblique angle with the rear wall (due to tight quarters) and this also produces a soundstage from corner to corner along the rear wall.

I have found they actually work very well in tough rooms, with careful attention to placement and related system factors.

I have older ohm's and are used when bought. I am big fan of ohm walsh series along with magnepans. though different concepts, for my taste, I like having BOTH at the same time being driven by separate amps, in my case classic 90's carver amps and a must to improve any loudspeaker/amps at least system's lower than $10k is a DAKIOM feeback stabilizers like r-103, 203 or the newer models 253 and 263. I'm a believer of tweaking a system or part. In fact, I like the hobbyists and techs who do make modifications to existing systems that MAY need improvement. What I like about ohm's is that they are pretty versatile loudspeakers and can be played for music and movie with equal results. Other loudspeakers that are directional or conventional, placement, tweaking and good sound source is a must. OHM is user friendly, in other words, you don't have to spend mega bucks on amplifiers and HT receivers to make them sing. NO speaker system is for EVERYBODY, because no one has come up with a speaker box than can be remolded and mold back to it's original shape if you should alter it to your taste. I owned bose 901's in the 80's and I thought they were great for me back then, but room size, acoustics and source is the 901's downfall in most rooms besides it's unrealistic bass reproduction. I do not agree with their parts and design build, but their concepts of direct and indirect reflections I don't think any audio engineer would disagree totally. Ohm walsh series however creates better spatial imaging and realistic bass than conventional designs or strange designs like the bose 901's. The systems that are similar in concept as ohm acoustics is duevel, german physiks and decware rl series and of course MBL's, decware being the only company like ohm that are REASONABLY affordable to the average music lover. The rest is beyond normal income. To me planars and electrostats creates the most realistic reproduction of certain instruments like the piano and strings where as an omni directional design like those mentioned are more realistic as ensemble, group or combination of instruments being played, but individual solos I believe the planar and electrostat systems reproduce a truer sound. I have all the various designs except line source and horns which only elites can afford. But for those of us on a budget, ohm, magnepans, decware with the help of purchasing DAKIOM products/stabilizers will do WONDERS to your system however in expensive, but the finer grade of source, it's obvious your ohm's and maggies will show it's true potential.