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

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."

One other scenario I can see for using a sub is if one likes a particular amp that may not be an ideal match current wise for the OHMs. In these cases, the full low end potential of the OHMS may not be realized and a sub could be an effective supplement

Also, to be clear, the cases for subs I outlined above apply to 2 channel audio listening scenarios, which is what the Walshes are primarily designed for. I think OHM/John S. even recommends considering use of subs with their speakers for ultimate home theater applications.

Mapman - Your points are well taken. The cubic footage of my basement is within, but near the top, of the cubic foot range Ohm specifies for the 2000s. Thus, the subs should help the 2000s by lowering their output below 80Hz.

Also, I can't stress this enough, the 2Wqs are not typical subwoofers. I've heard plenty of low and mid-priced subs over the years, and none of them did what the 2Wqs do. Namely, they reproduce not just bass energy, but true timbre. They are tight, fast and clean in the extreme. The unusual crossover scheme allows a better blend than any sub I have heard. Plus, they are designed specifically for corner placement, and work quite well in my room.

If you have never heard these subs, you should try to. They simply do not make themselves known unless you unplug them. Then you hear their absence. There is no boominess or constant rumble, and I swear all of the bass sounds like it is coming from the Ohms (and previously the Vandy 1Cs), and not the 2Wqs. Placing a hand on the cabinet during loud bass passages will reveal a very solid cabinet (90 lbs.) that does not vibrate in tune to the music. A lot of it has to do with the crossover design, which is a first order type (pretty unusual these days) and simple, in-line filter for the amp. Also, using three small drivers instead of one large one could be a factor.

You can read about them on the Vandy site - Vandersteen.com. Also, Richard Hardesty had a similar view of these subs. IMHO, they are one of the most underrated high-value products in HiFi today. Sure, if you drop big bucks on the JL, Thiel or other high-end sub you could get similar results, but these list for about $1400, and I bought mine used for considerably less hear on the 'gon.

For all of these reasons, the 2Wqs stay. The only area where there is any discontinuity between the Walsh 2000s and the 2Wqs is in macro dynamics. The 2Wqs have noticeably more dynamic impact in their range than the 2000s do in the range above that. That is why I made the comments about the dynamics of the 2000s in an earlier post. I could live with the system as is, but I am hoping the dynamics of the 2000s will improve with break-in.

I have a third sub (nutty, right?) for LFE and redirected bass from the center and surround channels. It's an old Definitive Technology PF15. It is everything the 2Wqs are not (and that's no compliment). But with the help of a Paradigm X30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP (parametric digital EQ), it works well enough for film soundtracks. It is out of the loop for 2-channel listening.