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

"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."

I read that Ted Jordan designs conventional directional dynamic drivers. I cannot speak for use of those in an omni speaker system, ala Dueval or Morrison. THe omnis I've heard and liked (OHM and mbl) design and build drivers that are omni as opposed to using conventional drivers in an omni speaker design.

Cdc - Have you ever heard an Ohm Walsh design? I don't say this to be nasty, I am just curious. If so, what did you think? If not, you should try to find someone near you with a pair that you can hear.

Before I started my trial of the Ohm walsh 2000s, I would have probably agreed with Ted Jordan's premise. I have a difficult room, acoustically, and I expected I would end up with very directional dynamic speakers, e.g., a D'Appolito type design. This would minimize the room effects of my low ceiling and assymetrical room layout. With a 4-month in-home trial, and many positive remarks on this web site, I figured it was worthwhile to try out the Ohms. It may be that I am hearing a large amount of reflected sound, but it could be argued that many conventional dynamic loudspeakers have a very wide dispersion pattern, resulting in a large (if not as large) ratio of reflected to direct sound. Jordan might also consider that an audience at a live performance in real space, as well as any microphones employed in that space, will also hear a large amount of reflected sound. Rarely does every instrument in an orchestra beam direct sound right at each audience member's head.

I can't determine why, but I would not describe the sound of the Ohm Walsh speakers as in any way "thin". That's not to say that I have never heard speakers, some of which were designed for a more omni-type dispersion pattern, that sounded thin or "phasey". But the Ohm Walsh speakers in my room do a surprisingly good job of image definition and stability. Better, in fact, than the dynamic speaker design they are being auditioned to replace. As for dependence on room acoustics, I think that applies to almost any speaker design outside of headphones. Of course, YMMV.

I happen to think that the little Jordan driver is a fantastic device, but his subjective take on omnis can be summarily dismissed. I say this because anyone who groups all omnis as "thin" (or, for that matter, anything else)sounding is grouping Ohm with MBL and many other dissimilar sounding speakers.

Other than a certain shared imaging quality, anyone attempting to paint all omnis with a common brush is just being silly.

Marty