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


Hi,

I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
rebbi
BTW, regarding OHMs and room size, for larger rooms, I think a very cost effective strategy could be to actually undersize the OHMs in lieu of matching size exactly ( do NOT get OHMs that are too big for a room, that could be a dead end) and then get a decent sub to fill in the low end that you will give up.

All the OHMs from smallest to largest sound mostly the same except for low end extension is better on larger models. I can hear that when comparing my 100s and 5s in the same room on the same system. An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many.
"An adjustable sub with a smaller OHM could be most sweet indeed for many"

I can testify to that!

-P
Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange? You know, laws of physics, yadda yadda.

BTW, I was floored by my Walsh 2000s twice in the last week. Once was while listening to a CD of John Williams Baroque guitar solos. The reproduction of the timbre of the acoustic guitar was mind-blowingly real. So much so that, when I went to a record show last Sunday, I searched for guitar works (only found one Spanish guitar LP, though).

Another time was listening to a couple of Gershwin pieces on CD - Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (a Bernstein recording, IIRC). I know they're two well-worn works, but on my system with the Walsh 2000s, they really clicked. The dynamics were better (still not perfect), but being able to follow each musical line was thrilling - all without any congestion during the numerous crescendos. This CD was a real carnival ride!
"Thanks, mapman. I could be off base, but don't larger speakers, in general, have more dynamic capabilities even in the midrange?"

Hmm, not sure, particularly when it comes to Walsh drivers.

With the Walsh drivers, I believe there is more surface area with larger drivers which you would think would have an effect. I'd have to a/b both my Walshes in the smaller room again and listen more carefully perhaps. I did not hear a clear advantage with the 5s in the smaller room prior, but perhaps I was not listening for that.

I would say the mids are just a touch more dynamic perhaps with my 5s in the large room compared to 100s in the smaller, but that could easily just be an artifact of room acoustics more so than the drivers.
And some contrary views by Ted Jordan

"It would seem at first logical to design loudspeaker systems to have the widest possible angle of distribution, in fact the omni-directional design would seem ideal - actually this is quite untrue. It is now generally recognised that omni-directional systems have never been popular, although the reasons have not been appreciated, and these are:

A random radiation of sound in all directions results in an excessive ratio of reflected to direct sound and the subjective quality tends to be thin and very dependent upon room acoustics.
It is not possible for an omni-directional system to provide satisfactory stereophonic performance."