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

Over the past several years I've used an ARC VT 130se, Cary 805, Prima Luna monos, Bel Canto integrated, Pathos integrated, and one or two others with the Ohms. Given that I've also rolled a half dozen different output tubes thru the PL (kt 66 being my favorite with the Ohms), I feel like there's been adequate variety in the speakers' diet. Different flavors from each amp, but the Onkyo is certainly acquitting itself well.

Marty

Great thread!! However, there are about few major reviews about the Micro Walsh Talls speakers; Jeff Torgay claims the speakers can not play very loud even with a lot of power. John Potis of 6 Moons claims they have good bass and will play acceptably loud even in a medium-sized room. Both these reviews are old and dated. In addition, I never thought the "large speaker large room", and its converse theory makes much sense, when the key to a great speaker is whether it is accurate, transparent and draws the listener into the music. Lastly, if omni-directional speakers offer many benefits, why don't more audio manufacturers make them.

Sunny,

The basic OHM CLS design has not changed much over the years. All including gen 1 from early 80's play as loud or louder than most anything else at comparable price I would say. I have used them outdoors for parties with listeners 50-100 yards away off 80 watt tandberg receiver and it went loud and clear with illusion of live music. I have never heard OHm walsh speakers be the bottleneck in terms of ability to go loud. Bigger models need more power and are capable of going louder with more bass extension, which is where the increased power demands comes in. Larger drivers are needed to go louder without compression and larger cabinets to go lower in most any speaker design. OHMs have this aspect nailed, few speakers do it better.

Tonal balance and detail has improved over teh years but the inherent design has not.

Omnis have a lot of advantages but most people are not used to them. Not all omnis are created equal. Walsh drivers have unique advantages. OHM has figured out how to do them well and keep it affordable. There is no better design for delivering the illusion of a live performance in ones home for reasonable cost IMHO. In my opinion, Lincoln Walsh got dynamic drivers right and most of the rest of the world works with a handicap accordingly. Of course, that is just my opinion. Most people are perfectly happy with traditional dynamic speaker designs. I like many myself, but always end up levitating back to the Walsh speakers.

Jim,

I respectfully disagree with you on the merits of the "speakers to match the room" idea. Unless you happen to have an anechoic chamber for a listening room, you're always hearing a combination of the speaker and the room. Below 150ish hertz, you usually hear mainly the room. Tailoring the bass balance of a speaker to the room size makes a ton of sense to me. BTW, you often see a debate in these threads about bass balance for this speaker model or that. (I can't believe you like the Acme model XYZ, it has way too much (little) bass!). I always wonder what the poster would say if he heard the same speaker he's trashing for bass balance in a much bigger (or smaller) room.

As to your other point (Why aren't omnis more popular?), that's a good question. Here's another question:

Let's pick a # and assume that of the next 100 folks who visit Audiogon, 10 or fewer have heard omnis. If the other 9o were to audition a well designed omni (like Ohm or MBL), how many would want to switch. Certainly NOT all 90. But I suspect that a fair number would think hard about it. Why the market hasn't addressed that opportunity, I don't really have a good idea.

Marty

With regards to amps, I tried a couple of different things w/ my 2.2000's and finally arrived at a Valve Audio Predator, which I heartily recommend as a good match for Ohms. The Predators aren't all that easy to find, but they are at least reasonably priced (I picked up mine used for about $1200.

B