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

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?

Put another way, what happens when the recording has reverb and then the omni speaker, by design, intentionally adds more due to room interactions?

"But what do you think about waveguide's, at least in theory?"

I find directional speakers in general to be an unnatural way to reproduce sound naturally. Some designs do it very well, but to me sound in the real world is largely not directional in nature (save perhaps at a live amplified concert event of some sort).

Having said that, in lieu of having studied waveguide theory in detail, my gut feel regarding waveguides is that they may be a useful approach if done correctly, but as was pointed out the key would be in the execution, which I could only judge were I to hear it. Theory alone seldom describes real world phenomena completely, especially in nit picky areas like hi fidelity audio.

Cdc: FWIW, I am upgrading to Ohm Walsh 2000s from Vandersteen 1Cs. In my room, with my gear, the 1Cs actually produced a different, but similarly 3-D soundstage as the Ohms. I was surprised by this, to say the least. I have noted above that the 1Cs actually extended into the room more than the Ohms. The 1C is a 2-way design with a minimal baffle, and open top plate. So, technically, it is not a basic dynamic "monkey coffin" design. I will repeat that the Walsh 2000s do a better job of localizing performers and maintaining a stable image than the Vandys did. If I keep the Ohms, it won't be because of an improved soundstage over the Vandys; it will be because they offer better imaging, almost no congestion at peak levels, amazing truth in timbre, and good low-level detail retrieval. IOW, the Ohm Walsh's are anything but a one-trick pony, which is how I think many people think of them until they hear them. The more I think about this, the more credit I give to the Ohm's design, which is as close to a single-driver design as possible, with a super-tweeter that comes in at about 8kHz, IIRC. Note that even the MBL, and, I think, the Duevels, use more standard crossover points in a multi-driver configuration.

That said, I have never heard a single driver design that I could live with. These were mostly at shows, but I found they sounded "peaky" in the upper mids and lower treble - exactly the range that I find very smooth on the Ohm Walsh 2000s. Although the bass reproduction was also dissappointing on these single-driver designs, I could, and do, live with subwoofers. Since my hearing is very sensitive in the upper-mid/lower-treble range, the Ohms provide a very enjoyable listening experience for me. They are not rolled off in this range, but I think they just lack the roughness and distortions that all but the most expensive crossovers seem to exhibit. YMMV, of course.