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

Rebbi, never heard it but it has good reviews and seems a viable candidate to run the 100s. Spec, vintage and cost wise, it is in the same ballpark as the Musical Fidelity A3CR I use. I think you would have to try it and see. If you do not overpay, you can always resell.

BTW, when I acquired the A3CR, I had no idea how well it would work and was totally prepared to resell and move up to more juice right away, mainly for the Walsh 5s, but whenever I listen on either 100s or 5s I just have not felt compelled to change.

One more thought on OHM Walshes and Porcupine Tree.

One thing the omni OHM Walshes do not do inherently is "kick you in the face" when playing harder forms of rock music, as many more directional designs will.

Sometimes with harder forms of rock specifically, you want to be kicked in the face with the power of the music. The OHMs are capable of delivering power behind most any kind of music with right amplification, but they will always tend to be more laid back in presentation.

The other end of the speaker design spectrum in this regard are probably high efficiency and traditional directional design horn loaded speakers, like Klipsch and their ilk.

I do think I will acquire a pair of high efficiency horns just to experience the difference someday when I figure out a good way to fit them into my system, maybe as an alternative to the Dynaudios I currently use, if I can bring myself to part with those as well. Also, the room I use the DYns in is only 12X12 and has high WAF requirements, so options are limited.

I can see a pair of horn loaded speakers supplementing my OHMs but not replacing either pair at present. We'll see....

Mapman, it is rare that I disagree with you, but on this I must. My MWT's are, by far, the best 'heavy music' speakers I've ever owned.

Specifically, Porcupine Tree's musit 'hits' me at an emotional level I hadn't experienced before. When my wife askes why I seem to always listen to PT, my answer is that the Ohm's seem to have been made for that music in paricular. Especially on the keyboard and guitar work, they plain kick-but.

I guess I will have to revisit PT CDs when the 2000s are fully broken in.

I removed the Vandy subs from the signal path to run the 2000s full range for a while. A brief listen to the Stereophile Test CD #2 was revealing. I was surprised by the low and mid bass extension and definition, clearly strong output to well below 40Hz, as demonstrated with the bass solo track, the organ piece, and the Corey Greenberg composition.

The phase test was also interesting. When the out-of-phase voice and instrument were in the right channel (along which I have a straight wall), the sound clearly came from way behind me to my right, over my shoulder. In the left channel, however, where the room opens up before the listening position, it still sounded "phase-y", but did not come from behind me.

Although the 2000s seem to do bass very well, they actually affirmed my impression of the Vandy subwoofers. The sonic character of the bass did not seem any different, except for a little less feel-it-in-your-gut sensation. This speaks well of both the Ohm 2000s and the Vandy 2Wq.

A co-worker that I am converting to an audiophile is stopping by tonight with some of his favorite recordings for a little listening and comparison between the Vandersteen 1Cs and Ohm Walh 2000s. Should be fun!

Parasound,

Don't get me wrong, the OHM Walshes do very well with heavy rock music. I'm just saying they are inherently laid back. ALong with that, they do not induce fatigue while listening which makes for very good extended listening sessions.

I'm just saying that I have heard PT's FOABP in particular on my OHM Ls in the same room. Ls are forward firing 3-way bookshelf designs and way more forward sounding at most all frequencies than Walshs. They also are clearly inferior with most kinds of music. But for that album, there was something different and likable there. Not necessarily even better, just different and likable.