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

Clean records->excellent tweak!

WIth their bottom ports, what the Walshes sit on can make a big difference with how they interact with the room and the resulting sound. I need to try something like that in my tile floor 12X12 sunroom where every speaker I try including the Walshes tend to have a bass bump.

I had stability issues with my uneven floor as well. I had Sound Anchors make me some three-point spike cradle bases for the 2000s, with similar results to what Phaelon got. Note that even concrete has resonance. My preferred audio guru likes absorption for source components and amps, but prefers coupling for loudspeakers - hence the spiked bases.

I added a K-Works Ersamat to my vintage Thorens table with excellent results. Not as exotic or labor-intensive as making a deerskin mat, but easy and effective, IME.

As for LP cleaning, I spent a little more than Phaelon on the KAB EV-1, which likewise does an awesome job on used LPs. Listened last night to a Denny Christianson Big Band LP ("More Pepper"). Not the best big band LP I've ever heard, but the sonics were spectacular, and the bass was equal to anything I've heard from digital!

I am going to hear KEF's The Blade tonight. I'll post my thoughts at some point.

Once again - I have heard a respected company's Statement Speaker, in this case the KEF Blade, and come away impressed, but not depressed. The Blade is a wonderful speaker, with excellent detail retrieval, image solidity and extension at both extremes. Of course, they sounded like a point source, a design goal that was met. Yet, the soundstage was confined to the area between the speakers. In that regard, I still prefer the Ref 205 & 207 to the Blade.

Bottom line: While the Blade is actually fairly priced at $30K, my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy.

"my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy."

I'm in a similar boat. Have heard lots of great systems and speakers. Still content.

Gotta say though that it took a lot of tweaking to my system over the last few years subsequent to the OHM Walsh upgrade with some additional expense associated to get to the point where others reference systems I hear do not leave me wanting. The OHMs are pretty forgiving and many may not care, with most gear, but it really takes a lot of focus and work to get things to that highest possible level. It usually takes a lot of hard work to achieve great things. Nothing unique there!

Mapman - I agree completely. While I really enjoy listening to my system as it is currently configured, the Ohms respond very well to upgrades. I am currently evaluating a pair of Vandersteen MHP-5 crossovers (I have a pair of Vandy subs) that replaced Vandersteen's basic crossovers. So far, the Ohms let me hear the improvements in the crossovers: Smoother mids and treble, better low-level detail, more stable imaging, and more bass (to the point that I will probably dial back the subs).

I am also planning several IC and power cord upgrades. As always, I will post my impressions here.