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

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

Bondmanp, not the Ohms, but I've heard Duevel's. I just remember the actual sound quality, IMHO, to be inferior to regular speakers like Epos, etc. It's been a while, but while the dimensionality was vague, it was far more natural and realistic than a box design.

I hope to hear the Ohms at home when I have a suitable comparison. Should be interesting comparing a single driver "headphone for your ears" (also goes for some Audio Physic designs) vs. omni. I like the statement that you know a speaker working correctly when it is doing the soundstaging correct

CDC,

If you listen to the OHMs or mbls, the soundstage will sound way different from typical directional box designs most likely.

You may have to give your ears a chance to adapt to the different presentation compared to the more directional designs. Ears that are trained to listen to more directional designs generally take some time to adapt to the omni presentation based on my experience.

It took me a couple of weeks to tune in to my OHM 100S3s (Super Walsh 2s) even after having owned original Walsh 2s for years. The two are mostly similar in appearance except the newer 100S3s use a newer flavor of the OHM CLS driver with a different tweeter that delivers better soundstage, imaging, focus and clarity, and tonal balance top to bottom.

I have owned various other speaker designs including large Maggie planars concurrently with OHMs over the years. Omnis are a different beast to digest all together from any of those.

Once your ears adjust, I find you will hear more similarities in the imaging/soundstage of the OHMs compared to other modern designs that also do imaging and soundstage very well, though omnis will always retain a fairly unique presentation from other designs I believe.