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

I'd tend to agree that active designs address some real issues with a great solution. OTOH, there are some pretty crappy active speakers out there, too. Stop into any place that sells pro audio gear and you'll hear tremendous variation between the various brands of active monitors they sell.

There are also issues that may be far more important than distortion and/or compression caused by passive x-overs, depending on the installation. I'd always hesitate to endorse a single design approach because listener priorities and room considerations vary so much. That said, I'd still prefer to see my x-overs ahead of the power amp whenever possible, I'm just not willing (at this time) to trade away all other considerations to achieve that goal.

Marty

Kristian makes some good points - but the pro worlds and civilian worlds are very different. I listen to studio monitors all day long, and I'd never want a pair at home. I've heard every kind of passive and active monitor in studios all around NYC, but my living room is not a control room or mastering lab.

I've had my Ohm's since '04, I immediately knew they were great when I heard them, and I've had no reason to replace them. I love active monitors, and rely on them, but at home I don't want my head in vice, and my wife would kill me if I started installing room treatments. The Ohms are the best balance of neutrality and user friendliness that I can live with.

I don't think passive speakers are outdated - especially considering that there are many more passive designs to try than active - the only active monitors that I've heard are all cone 'n dome. When Ohm makes active speakers, I'll sell my amp...

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Grant, I believe that a major reason for that is that the mic + equalizer/analyzer, unless it is very sophisticated, doesn't discriminate between direct (early arriving) sound, and reflected (later arriving) sound, while our ears do.

Which would seem to say that unless the room is an anechoic chamber, a setup that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position is wrong "a priori."

Best regards,
-- Al

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Good hearing does not have a flat response.
http://www.engr.uky.edu/~donohue/audio/fsear.html