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

Parasound,

The cages nor speakers aren't bad looking, but I do like to be able to see my drivers doing their thing when I chose to.

But as I've pointed before, what's under that cage is not pretty and nobody would want to look at it. So the cages are a very practical design touch.

So true Mapman, things aren't very pretty at all under the cans. But I sure do love the music they make. And that is what is important! I do love the design, and I love the industrial look of those cans!

I was doing some testing on the Super-2/2000 upgrades, they are a very nice upgrade over the original drivers. I don't know how they compare to the last series as I don't have anything to compare them too directly at the moment. I have enjoyed reading through this thread. Enjoy your music! Tim

Mapman: I did remove the subs from the signal chain briefly last month. I am sure the bass output from the 2000s is respectable, but I absolutely love my pair of Vandy 2Wq subs. I missed them enough that I put them back in soon after. I'll live with the longer break-in time that results.

My amp is a solid state Odyssey Audio HT3 with cap upgrade (150w X 3). Odysseyaudio.com. There is also an Oddyseey Audio circle over at that audio circle web site. IMHO, it's a heck of an amp for the money. If I could afford it, I would look at either a Butler or a Moscode, but an amp upgrade is far down on the list. Preamp is a C-J PV-11 w/phono.

The Sound Anchor stands are cheap for well-healed audiophiles, but for me, the $300 or so cost is affordable, but not an impulse buy.

One of the reasons I like the Vandy subs so much (and there are numerous reasons) is that they do provide a visceral, feel-it-in-your-gut kind of bass, even with my carpeted concrete floor. In all honesty, and I know this sounds a bit silly, if the Walsh 2000s didn't blend well with the Vandy subs (they do), I would return the Ohms rather than give up the 2Wqs.

I've only measured using my ears as opposed to a sound pressure meter, but when I play a test tone record through the OHMs in their respective rooms, I hear a very balanced level all the way down to 20hz (on the 5s, the 2s/100s may not go down into the 20hz range). And when I listen the overall timbre including bass levels is in line with what I hear at most good sounding live concerts, at live-like SPLs.

My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors. And in those cases, the sub had better be able to blend in smoothly down to 20 hz or so (for organ music, etc., most recordings have nothing that low) or else the overall timbre and clarity can suffer. I think this is the case with most any speaker if one goes bass crazy, the bass ends up masking the midrange, which is where most of the unique magic of the OHMs resides.

I do not set my 5s to maximum bass levels in my biggest room where they reside. I find when I do, the overall clarity of the midrange in particular gets buried and things to not sound as good or natural overall to me. Not sure if that would be any different were it a sub putting out that extra low end rather than the 5s.

Correction, I said:

"My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the larger OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors."

I meant to say:

My gut feel is that a sub is only of value with the smaller OHMs in very large or acoustically challenged rooms perhaps or for people who just like higher bass levels, or some combination of these factors."