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

Agoner Foster_9 would be a good one to email for feedback on OHM versus Mirage. He has Mirage currently I believe and dabbled with OHMs for a while also.

Both have omni dispersion patterns to an extent for a larger than normal sweet spot but significantly different designs and approaches so I would expect a significant sound difference between the two in general.

Thanks for the tip, Mapman, I'll try to reach Foster_9.

Hyperion85 - Yes, Mapman, as usual, provided solid advice. I have heard various Mirage models. The better ones, like the OMD line, do indeed sound really good. But they are very different designs from the Walsh line. After 2 years with my Ohm Walsh 2000s, though, I have no regrets at all. In fact, as I have made improvements to the rest of my system, the 2000s have responded with more and more magnificent sound. I just listened to all 3 discs of the Riki Lee Jones compilation "The Dutchess of Coolsville." Besides wondering why I never paid more attention to Jones as an incredible performer, I was almost moved to tears by the beauty of this well produced Red Book CD.

To me, and this is where the Ohms may diverge from the Mirages, the Ohms present just the right amount of transient information, enough so that you can tell it's all there, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming at higher volumes, or so much that it masks other details in the music. This past Sunday, I heard a $40,000 speaker system on a rig that cost easily $100K, in a treated room. Was it a great stereo? Yes. Did it do everything better than my modest system? Nope. When it was cranked, this pricey system made me wince with a blaring quality in the upper mids. My Ohms almost never do that, at any volume, unless the source material is really peaky in this range. Listening to that Riki Lee Jones CD, I realized that if someone offered me those $40K speakers as a cash-free trade for my Ohms, I would turn down the offer. Seriously.

Give some time for your 1000s to break in (it's absolutely a big factor with the Ohm Walsh speakers). Experiment with toe-in, remembering that with this series, toe-in reduces upper-treble output from the super-tweeter at the listening seat, and toe-out increases it. Get the speakers level and level with each other. And try different locations if you can. When properly set up, the soundstage on these speakers is not only huge, but accurate to the source recording, with excellent image placement and solidity.

As I have often said about these speakers, I may upgrade many other parts of my system and try to improve my room, but the Ohms are staying for the long haul.

In fact I own a walsh 2xo, 4xo, pro 200 sound cylner and my best, ohm walsh 300 mk 2 rebuilt drivers by ohm upgraded to the 4000 series.

Armyscout41,

It's obvious from other posts you appreciate the Ohms and, along with Mapman, seem to have owned a number of different models. Care to elaborate on the differences between the models above? Have you heard the newer designs?

FWIW, I picked up a used pair of MWTs for surround speakers and also bought an Ohm Walsh center (smaller model). The center and MWTs are both very similar in voicing to my Walsh 2000s (current model). The MWTs were a little less dynamic than the 2000s, but with my subwoofers kicking in below 80 Hz, there was little apparent difference between the MWTs and the 2000s. One of the Ohm Walsh strengths, IMHO, is the uniformity of voicing throughout the line, even between older and newer models.

John Strohbeen goes for a certain kind of sound. If you like it, I bet you will like any speaker he has ever designed. The newer designs might just be more of a good thing if you like the Ohm sound.

Oh, and yet another mega-buck speaker that I would not trade my 2000s for: Just heard the Martin Logan CLX flagship, run on Pass amps and Esoteric source gear. They were very nice, but I still prefer my humble Ohms, at a little over 1/10 the price!