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

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.

I'm buoyed by the reports of fairly flat in-room FR of recent Walshes. I'm certainly intrigued.

Now, if the goal of hi-fi [to the source material] is truly that, then good active speakers are far superior to any passive. Audiophiles' preference for loudspeakers with passive crossovers over actives is a matter of not being used to the *far* lower distortion of good active speakers, and unwillingness to get rid of those phallic symbols that are audiphile amplifiers.

ATC's outstanding reputation precedes them as evidenced by nothing but excellent reviews from professionals and amateur audiophile magazine reviewers alike. This is supported by the usual and erroneous criticism that ATCs aren't "musical," as if a component could have that characteristic to begin with. "Musical" means the response slowing, phase problems, sloppier bass response, and much higher general distortion of passive speakers as driven by amplifiers that have difficulty controlling the drives through passive crossovers. Some folks are used to this and therefore prefer it; you won't hardly find any top professionals who still use passive monitors to really hear what is on recordings.

Audiophiles are about 30 years out of date. Professional speaker and audio technology is so far ahead of audiophile technology it's silly; I suggest you explore Event Opals, K&H, and many others, including AVI (for a speaker system with SOTA sound that makes redundant a whole system), Emerald Physics (their speakers are at the top of the curve technologically) and the superior Linkwitz Orion system.

Passive loudspeakers are seriously outdated technology; imagine if your new cars still came with pushrods, solid rear axles, sliding pillar front suspension, and drum brakes. Passive loudspeakers with big, overbuilt amps (only necessary to overcome the detrimentals of passive crossovers) and preamps are nothing more than that.

The biggest joke in audiophilia is Audio Note and their ridiculous $100K or whatever it is two-way with the massive silver-loaded passive crossovers; as if you could ever maker a silk purse from a sow's ear. If that company wasn't so steadfastly regressive, it would have made a far supeior version of that speaker for far cheaper by making it active with dedicated amplifiers. Period. That mega-buck crossover still has an order of magnitude higher distortion than an electronic one. It would be like Ford selling a version of the Mustang with a silver-plated and diamond crusted solid rear axle and claim it is better than the stock car's solid rear axle. 20 times more expensive than independant rear suspension, and still nowhere near as good. The same goes for Wailson Audio and their way-over priced elephant coffins, and all the other purveyors of high-priced passive speakers.

One way o another, speakers (including OHMs) must be mated with amps that are well suited to diving them optimally. Optimally often infers the best case for achieving a generally (if not exactly) flat response. Same true with OHMs.

Active speaker designs see to be one way and perhaps the easiest to accomplish this. The designer does the integration for you. That's a great and perhaps the easiest approach in general for many I think, but certainly not the only way. Matching amp and speaker yourself certainly provides more flexibility and variety in end results, so it may take a while for someone to stumble (or objectively determine) what the right match is. The right match for an individual may not be the same as intended by the speaker designer, although one would expect the designer to be the most qualified to make the determination of how to meet their sound goals technically by integrating amp and speaker..