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

This weekend, i experimented with the ohm 100 series 3 speakers back in the sun room, which i have not tried in quite awhile in that in the past, the bass was always just too heavy in there.

What a nice surprise this time that they are sounding spot on! The only difference is this time they
are each sitting on a one foot square ceramic tile acting as a plinth under the bass ports in the bottom. They sit on a thick wool oriental rug on a tile floor, that i have always had trouble with acoustically. Its a keeper
now! I can see why all newer 1000 series models have the plinth on the bottom. IT helps avoid too much interaction between bass port and floor/room acoustics.

Triangle titus are back in the larger family room where the 100s were prior on my second system. Set up nicely on stands (for the first time ever in that room) and no sub this time. The m&k needs to be rebuilt, a project for another day.

The triangles too sound quite glorious, a natural mate with the warmer electronics in that system. I think i can live without a sub there for a while with no problem. The 100s sounded the warmest I have ever heard OHM Walshes sound in my second system, with the NAD pre-amp, TAD Hibachi monoblocks,and mhdt Paradisea tube DAC. The Triangles are more efficient and tend more towards the cold/analytic side and benefit nicely from warmer gear upstream, including a tube or two.

As it stands, i may just donate my ohm Ls that i custom rebuilt myself a
while back to my sister. They will work well for her i think. These are in
my
unfinished area and do not get used often, only on occasion while playing
table tennis. I can easily pick up something inexpensive to replace those
eventually just to try something different.

Well, the results of my power cord upgrade are in. If you had told me five years ago that for under $3K I could own a pair orf loudspeakers that allowed me to hear the difference between brass plugs and copper plugs on the same power cord, I would have probably said that wouldn't be possible for $30K. But here we are. Needing a rather long power cord in order to move my amp nearer to my Walsh 2000s, I had to stick with lower-priced brands. I once bought a pair of ICs from AudioArt Cables, and liked them, so I spoke with Rob Fritz at AudioArt about a 5.5 meter power cord. Since the long run was pricey, I went with the entry-level Wattgate plugs, which are made of brass. While the cord sounded okay, there was a frequent emphasis in high frequency sibilants that was not pleasent, most often on female vocals. I talked to Rob about it, and he suggested I upgrade the cable plugs to copper Furutechs in order to eliminate the issue. I have to admit I was skeptical, but I tried it anyway. Well, eureka! The copper plugs fixed the sibilance issue, and sound really smooth, with nice extension at both ends, improved dynamic slam, and excellent soundstage width. The power cord was a good deal, but I am still shocked that my relatively inexpensive system with my Ohms was able to resolve this tiny difference in the power cord's plugs.

Thanks for you thoughts, Wtf. Very instructive.

Bond,

Your findings with the different power cord plugs are interesting.

Are you sure the only difference was the type of plug? Could the connection to the cord itself perhaps have been more sound with the new plug versus old?

In any case, interesting that you heard a difference.

Hello all,

It's been a while since I last posted here. When I last did so, I was thinking of possible ways to improve the sound out of my original OW 2s. In the meantime, I got a great deal on a pristine set of OW 2XOs on EBay. Of course, UPS promptly trashed one of them in transit (hey, I got off light--they only trashed one). The mounting board was shattered and the tweeter was knocked loose & rattling around inside the can (what DO they do when shipping boxes?).

I called John S at Ohm who said to ship the cans back for repair and matched revoicing. (Some good advice from Mr. S: have UPS do the packing to deprive them of heir favorite defense, it's your fault for packi g poorly.) I sent them off and in about a week, they were back, along with a replacement mounting board. Even better, John S comped the "high repair" and new board, saying 'it's on the house.' Perhaps he was in the holiday spirit in the run up to the holidays, but a shout out and thank you to John.

The board repair and reinstallation were simple, except that the new board was slightly too big and I had to sand it down to fit. The metal bracket used to screw the old cans not the old particle board mounting panel also didin't fit, but they are unnecessary because the new plywood boards are much higher quality and sturdy enough to hold the screws and the can in place.

John S had told me that he still voices each pair of cans personally to maintain the house sound and that they are voiced as close as possible to the newest generation of Ohms. For that reason, he said, many people think their repaired speakers sound better than before, though the differences are subtle..

Because I still have the original 2s for he moment, I could do an A/B comparison with the repaired 2XOs. At first list, like someone who posted earlier, I wasn't pleased with the difference. The 2s sounded more precise and more detailed, especially in the high mids and up. In comparison, the refurbed 2XOs sounded, well, blah--flat and rather lifeless. On many recordings, the sound of the two sets was virtually identical. But on others, they were quite noticeably different, and the differences weren't subtle. The repaired 2XOs suffered by comparison--highs a bit too rolled off, lacking detailed harmonic and salient reproduction, weaker dynamics, and murky, indistinct imaging and soundstage.

I wondered if the repair had gone wrong or if UPS had managed to damage the cans somehow, but figured after all that hassle I'd just see if I'd get used to them.

Nearly two months later, I decided to give the comparison another try. The differences now are even more pronounced. Only now the 2XOs are vastly improved and now show the limits of the original 2s. Something in the can(s) seems to have needed some running in. Don't know what it might be--supposedly Ohm only glued back the tweeter and replaced a broken inductor coil. The clarity and overall sound of the 2XOs is now beautiful, and much more balanced. The sound is much richer, warmer, and better integrated top to bottom. The midrange is notably more robust, though the highs still sound a bit rolled off. Now, in comparison, the old 2s (still wonderful speakers btw) sound not only bright, but their sound is thinner and dryer. The detail I was picking up before was due to the accentuated highs. The 2XOs now image much better with more detailed resolution, and give a better sense of acoustic space in the room or hall. They still seem to be getting better, with the soundstage broadening out beyond the speakers. They didn't do this before when playing the same tracks, and the 2s never did this and still don't. I doubt that this is the result of my ears adjusting.

If this is an evolutionary improvement in sound, score one for Darwin. Now I'd really like to hear the most recent models (or maybe I wouldn't since I won't be spending that kind of money any time soon). But once again, I'm happy and grateful to have these extraordinary speakers.