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

I use 180w/ch TAD Hibachi monoblocks currently in my second system with teh OHM 100S3s and have used these amps as substitutes for BCs in my main system as well.

These are SS amps made to sound more tube like, lower input impedance, lower damping etc. Sound with these is much different, bass not as tight, etc. That can work for or against you depending on room acoustics. Room acoustics in the room these are in are less than optimal, but not bad.

I much prefer the BC Class D amps with my 100s when I use them in my office, which is more optimal acoustically as well. Concrete foundation with thin pad and carpet there, versus typical plywood flooring and carpet in family room where my second system is. Bottom firing bass ports on Walsh speakers can interact strongly with floors like that.

SO I think BC Class Ds are much better overall for OHMs than the TAD Hibachis, though neither are a slouch by any means. When losser, fatter, whatever you call it bass is called for, amps with damping factor well under 50 might have an edge.

Thx for the feedback. It might be time to check out class d more deeply. The idea of a tube are or buffer with it is conceptually intriguing. I was looking at various Rogue integrateds awhile back but got scared off over reports on quality being variable. There are no techs in HI and shipping stuff for repairs gets really costly. My last experience with that added $400 round trip for a $1200 piece of gear. Reliability is as important as sound especially on heavy pieces.

Just a different take on the Hibachi vs class D question.

I personally prefer the 100s with the Hibachis vs my Bel Canto s-300 class D integrated for precisely the same reasons Map prefers his Bel Canto. Run full-range, I like the warmer sounding Hibachis to the tighter Bel Canto. There's certainly a different model class D amp in play here, but I think this one comes down to room/system/personal taste.

Just one more data point.

Personally, I find it extremely difficult to dial in a subwoofer so that it sounds like a Walsh. I happen to own a Velodyne SMS-1 and have flattened out the response of the room fairly well after my wife gave me permission to move the sub, but can still always tell when the sound is coming through my Outlaw sub.

My question is, why go with a 5000 if it still requires a sub? I'd rather miss the lowest 5 or 6 Hz than listen to timing mismatches.

"My question is, why go with a 5000 if it still requires a sub?"

No doubt, all smaller speakers including Walshes can play better when amp and speaker work is offloaded to a powered sub.

5000 does not necessarily require a sub though. I feel no need for subs with my 5s, nor with my 100s even in the right sized rooms.

Adding powered subs always ups the ante in terms of output capacity in most any case. But there are ups and downs with any solution, including subs, along the lines commonly discussed.

Adding separate subs means that you are now the speaker designer responsible for the integration top to bottom. How well that all plays out will depend.