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

Coot, my 5s are limited in a manner similar to what you describe if I use my 180w/ch TAD Hibachi monoblocks in place of my Bel CAnto Ref1000ms.

The TADs do pretty well with my 100s in our large open family room/kitchen area that opens up to the whole first floor of our 3000+ sq. foot home. At higher volumes though not even close to the 5s off the ref1000m amps downstairs in the 20X30 L shaped room, which does have doors and is more acoustically sealed.

Big, natural, clean sound at realistic volumes does not come cheap, unfortunately, especially in a larger volume area/room. Its the one thing that truly justifies a lot of the money spent towards the goal of the "ultimate sound" IMHO.

Class D amps will be your friend towards this end with the OHMs when the time comes. Either more power to the 5000s and/or adding powered subs, which by the way mostly all also use Class D amp power these days.

Its basic physics. Big sound needs bigger drivers and speakers and more power and all that ups the cost.

Modern OHM Walsh design speakers are without match I find in terms of their ability to go loud and clear (with the necessary amp behind them) for teh particular size and at the particular price point of each.

I think a lot of that has to do with the Walsh driver principle as JS has implemented enabling more output from any particular driver than might be possible using typical pistonic motion only driver design. If one reads up on Walsh driver operation principles, I suspect that is a result of the fact that sound leaves the cone at different frequencies from different locations along the cone. Also because the Walsh driver does not cover the higher frequencies, above 8Khz.

Lincoln Walsh's original design attempted to be full range. It succeeded fairly well at that but all implementations at the time were quite delicate and fragile and easily destroyed at high volumes if things went wrong.

Modern similar designs, like Dale HArder's, might have solved some of those problems, or I am confident at least are able to address them better to some extent, using modern technology advances at his disposal today that did not exist in LW's day.

Remember though that the largest modern OHM Walsh driver, like the ones in my F5s3s, appear to be only about 10" or so. I have not encountered it yet practically in my case, but that will become a limitation at some time, even if the design manages to squeeze the most possible out of a driver that size.

10" and even 12" bass drivers (not even wider range like modern OHM Walsh CLS) used to be common years ago, but few modern speakers use driver's larger than 10". Many modern speakers, including OHM to some degree, tend to use smaller drivers and be less efficient in order to fit better into most people's homes. Smaller lower efficiency speakers put more burden on the amp, especially to deliver high SPL full range sound in larger rooms. Huge, heavy, and expensive monster power amps, available to few, used to be needed. No longer the case however with modern Class D amp technology, which I consider to be one the greatest recent innovations in home audio technology. A perfect match made in heaven for JSs modern innovations with the Walsh driver principle.

The sky is the limit now for home audio enthusiasts with Class D amps. Especially when you toss a few into a sub cabinet along with a good quality 12" or 15" bass driver.

To clarify one point re: adding subs. I actively cross my set up at 72hz - that number reflecting the smoothest FR I could manage thru the x-over region. I suspect that diverting those large excursion signals below 72hz away from the Ohm allows for a greater sense of macro-dynamics. The really long excursions are now executed by the Rythmik subs which handle the job better. Freed from that work, the Ohm can handle its job better, too. The increased bass extention into the bottom octave is less important to me, since it's so rarely present on any of the music that I listen to. Since Coot's a pipe organ guy, it may be more useful to him - provided he's got one (or more) of those rare recordings that actually provides the bottom end of the pipe to a system that can handle it.

32-ft pipe = 16Hz. Not that uncommon in large organs.

Coot,

If it is the lowest notes of organ music that you are looking for, make sure your electronics, particularly pre-amp, is up to the task. I have found that to make the biggest difference with my OHMs over times.

My current ARC sp16 tube pre-amp is a wonderful sounding pre-amp, but not the most extended for low pipe organ notes. My old "mid-fi" Carver pre-amp was much better in that regard, but not in much else.

You might want to assess what you have currently in that regard and compare on paper to other options.

I would make sure that is covered first before doing anything else.

There may also be big differences in terms of low frequency response and distortion with source gear, particularly turntables and carts, more so than modern good quality digital.

At least that has been my experience with pre-amps and the OHMs with pipe organ music. Pipe organs aside, it does not matter nearly as much. If I listened to pipe organ music more often, I would be considering a different pre-amp I think, probably a very good SS one. It is good enough as is, but I have heard it can be much better, with my OHM 5s and in my room.

Pipe organs push the edge for low end extension versus pretty much anything else, so not just anything will do there anywhere in teh signal chain. Its not a huge consideration for many these days, so do not assume that just any gear is up to the task.