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

"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.

I still mess with the positioning of my 100 S-3's from time to time. Moving them out from the wall about 18" more than they were previously tightened up the bass and opened up the midrange, i.e, the sound is more tonally in balance. I continue to play around with things like distance between left and right channels to see how that affects imaging specificity and sound stage width and depth.
The problem I have is that my time to just enjoy music these days is so limited that when I finally do get to sit down for a session, I don't have a lot of patience for "listen, get up, move speaker, go back, listen some more..."
I need an audiophile friend to lend me a pair of ears to work on placement!

FWIW, today is the last day of my 120-day in home trial period. It never was an issue for me though, since from the first note they (MWT's)weren't going back.

The versatility of the speakers when it comes to placement in fascinating for me. For general listening and WAF considerations, they're about 9" from the rear wall and about 5' apart. But for powerlistening, moving them into the room to 18" from the rear and about 6'3" apart expands the soundstage and seems to give more 'presence' in the midrange.

I use a very, very cheap (but surprisingly good)sub for the bottom octave, crossed-over at 50 Hz. It works well in my small room, although with a larger space I know I'll need better quality and output.

In all, I'm very pleased...

-P

3 months into ownership have just upgraded the amp to an ATI 1502 @150 wrms per channel fed by an SAE preamp with Parametric eq. Definittely an improvement from the MAC 5100 and the old SAE amp which sounded pretty good anyway. Straight thru the Ohms sound pretty darn good tho' I keep wanting more highs? When I listen with the eq in I can get that. Emailed John and he advised to use the eq if I liked it. Also offered to build me custom supertweeter to achieve the sound I like basing it off the equ settings. A bit frustrated as I am wondering if my 50+ ears are just off and dont get the sense of true music sound or if others have also felt the Ohms a little lacking on the top end? I thought I saw some of that referenced previouslyl but the success of this thread now means its hard to find stuff in it. Anyone else feel the Ohms need a little more highs? BTW Walsh 2 w 10023 drivers.