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

Horses for courses. A few months ago, I listened to $20K/pair powered ATC towers that Kristian85 is "beholden" to (a larger version of the monitor that Holt loved so much). Along with a few other experienced audiophiles, I was less than impressed. Sure, they were very dynamic and played really loudly, but they lacked good soundstage rendering and image placement. Like many speakers that come from the pro-studio world, I found them a bit too analytical and not too musical. Here was a speaker at $20K that I liked less than my $4300 amp/speaker combo. IOW, this time, "different" was not "better". Of course, I am not bothered by Kristian85's preference for powered studio monitor speakers, and I hope he enjoys listening to music on them, but they are not for me, and many others I know.

I understand his observations of "different" vs. "better". I decided to try the Ohms specifically because they offered a radically different design from many of the speakers in my price range that didn't do it for me. For someone like me, who cannot afford to spend five figures on admittedly better speakers (not just different), the Ohms offer, IMHO, a fantastic value.

I had my last loudspeakers for nearly ten years, so I don't think I can be accused of having audio nervosa syndrome. I kept them as my mid-fi system slowly evolved to an entry-level high-end system. When I felt that improvements were no longer audible via my old speakers, I decided to upgrade. My intention is to continue to improve my source and amplification components (not because of audio nervosa, but because I have financial limitations) and hear how the upgrades manifest themselves in the Walsh 2000s.

For many of us, that's a large part of this hobby.

And Kristian85, if you are ever in central/Northern New Jersey, you are most welcome to stop by and listen to my Ohms, for more than 15 minutes, if you like.

The unique design of the OHMs (Walsh drivers) are what attracted me to them originally years ago based on the reputation at the time of the original OHM Fs.

In general, I look at truly innovative or different designs as a way to break barriers and perhaps accomplish something really different and perhaps better, particularly at certain price points. After all, there are many very good conventional designs that may all sound different but have more in common than not.

Of course there is innovation and then there is also snake oil...determining which is the case often requries some degree of technical acumen in addition to good ears.

I'd be happy to offer a demo of my system as well if in the Baltimore/DC metro area sometime if you contact me by mail.

Does anyone owning Ohm Walsh speakers listen primarily to classical music?
I listen to orchestral music mostly and I find the differences between speakers are often stark in the area of massed violin sheen and richness, woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring. Issues of imaging, soundstage, even, to a degree, dynamics are secondary to pleasing reproduction of the sounds of these beautiful instruments.
I would love to hear from people who share my focus.
I currently own Shahinian Hawks, which do an admirable job recreating the true sound of the orchestra, but their few small failings make me seek something a bit better and easier to drive.

Rplef,

That's a very good question.

Audiogoner Mamboni is a professional classical musician and major OHM proponent I believe.

Getting those aspects of classical music right as you decribe has been one of the driving factors that has landed me where I am currently.

massed violin sheen and richness - The best reference system I have heard to reproduce this was MAgico mini;s on very high end tube amplification and DCS digital source. Only recently with the move to tube pre-amp and high power S power amp have I been able to approach that as a reference, but currently I am in the same ballpark, though OHM and Magico presentation is much different.

woodwind timbral sweetness, and brass presence and ring - the OHMs and my system in general have been champs at this for a while now. The OHMs may be the best I have heard at reproducing large massed brass orchestras in a realistic yet non-fatiguing manner.

The wide range Walsh driver is the key to reproducing these things well. Proper amplification is also key. But once you get everything tuned in, the OHMs are top notch for classical IMHO. They have the muscle to do this exceptionally well overall in addtion which smaller designs do not. Monitors, even MAgico minis will never deliver the power and range of a large scale classical recording on a realistic scale, though the timbre is quite good. OHMs can.

BTW, I supect a full/wider range Walsh driver like those found in original OHM Fs or perhaps even newer versions of those might be able to take massed strings up a level in comparison to OHMs Walshes, which use a separate supertweeter. Full range drivers with no crossover are uniquely suited for this I believe.

However, full range Walsh drivers and other more conventional full range drivers (save perhaps the largest and best) may be challenged to deliver the muscle behind performances in general that the OHM Walshes can. Off loading the top end from the Walsh driver makes the OHM Walsh design able to go louder with more ease whereas OHM Fs were notorious for being subject to damage if overdriven. Dale Harder's newer Walsh designs appear to have alleviated that to some degree using more modern design principles and materials, though they still come with warnings against being overdriven.