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

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.

Mapman, I DID like the soundstaging of the Duevel's. I was referring the the quality of the drivers, not the spatial effects.

Thinking out loud:
Single driver: I would describe the soundstaging as transporting you to the event. When in the sweet spot, it's like your are there.

Omni's more bring the event to your room. This is good as one dealer commented, a quality of a good stereo is that it can be enjoyed by everyone, no matter where they sit.
Bad as the omni concept could be basically flawed because, unless the recording is done in an anechoic chamber, it already brings it own spatialilty to the recording and omni's just add room reverb to what is always on the recording, confusing the issue.

Actually IMHO neither single driver or omni is the best. The best concept is the waveguide. His prices are pretty reasonable too.
Even polar response = equal power response and may be one reason why B&W sound good, despite all their other faults. Sounds like Ohm does the same thing by dampening the side which faces the front wall.

CDC,

Who's to say what the best concept is? There are many different designs out there with various strengths and weaknesses . No one design works best always for everyone.

Personally, new designs that think out of the box and attempt to make top notch sound affordable to more people and designs with a focus on doing whatever it is they do best are the ones that generally catch my interest.

CDC,

The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor. Quads do not sound very much like Soundlabs, yet both are electrostats. Vandy's model 2 doesn't sound like any Thiel that I've heard, yet both trumpet the exclusive use of 1st order x-overs. Ohm and MBL couldn't sound more dissimilar if they tried, yet both are omnis. Whichever design approach is employed, octave to octave balance can vary all over the board and this alone will be very, very audible.

Re: Jordan's specific comments. Ironically, his observations were almost surely based on on-axis frequency response measurements to the exclusion of power response measurements. In most environments, omnipolar speakers will sound relatively "thinner" (more treble energy for a given amount of mid and bass) than direct radiators, if you measure for flat on-axis response. On-axis measurements don't capture all of the reflected energy so the omnis are providing more treble energy than the on-axis measurement reflects (sorry for the pun). Of course, as Jordan notes, some of this will be room dependant.

OTOH, if you measure for flat power response, the omnis are likely to show a better correlation between measured data and what you actually hear. They will not sound "thin" unless they measure "thin". My observations on this matter are based on my own experience using both on-axis and power measurements in my room with speakers using just about every radiation patern you can think of. I'd add that this point doesn't validate the use of power response, it merely points out that different designs tend to perform best on different tests.

My main point here is that using any FR test measurement to make a point like Jordan's is deceiving. No single test that I've ever seen is particularly reliable in predicting the way a speaker will sound in a given listening room. And the test you choose will tend to either validate or diminish the performance of one design vs. another, irrespective of the way that said speaker actually sounds.

I'm pretty sure that Ted Jordan knows this all too well. His comments should not be taken for an attempt to educate, but rather should be understood as an attempt to market his product. More power to him - and you could do worse than buying one of the better single driver Jordan based loudspeakers, like Carolina Audio.

Marty

Matrykl

The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor.

Which is why I didn't like the Deuval's and most active speakers although I like both concepts.
But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?