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

" Well, if any of you guys want to give my arro's a good home"

Sorry, but I/m not looking to replace my Ohms.

Otherwise, for a smaller room, Arro's would be on my short list.

Rebbe, seriously, obviously only you know what satisfies you. Same with any of us. You don't have to justify your decision making process to others. All that matters is that you like where you are at and can now attain enjoyment from your system sooner rather than later.

Yeah, well I probably was getting a little defensive there.

It'll be interesting to see if the Arro's sell or not. If they don't, maybe I will break them in some more and see again how they stack up against the Ohm's

I do have to say that I can't imagine the Arro's besting the Ohm's in the soundstage dept. I thew some Diana Krall on the CD player today and it was spooky how beautifully the Ohm's rendered a "holographic" sense of things. :-) The same pieces on the Arro's, if memory serves, sounded flat by comparison...

The Arros are known for their imaging prowess. If the image seemed flat to you, then you hadn't set them up properly.

Because you haven't set up the Arros correctly and you haven't allowed them to break in beyond the 10 hours, then your comparison between the Ohm and Totem speakers is not particularly helpful to readers looking for insight. IMO.

You should absolutely keep the Ohms if you prefer them. I just don't believe making comparisons is worthwhile at this point.

Arro's shouldn't sound "flat". That should get better with break-in I expect.

I've heard Arro's but never a/b'ed them concurrently with Ohms.

I think the Arros should do extremely well with imaging (for a standard box design) at least at the sweet spot, but I do not think they (or any standard box design) will ever sound like the Ohms IMHO. Ohms image distinctly in their "own special way".

I have heard Arro's that were not set up optimally stack up well against larger and more expensive speakers from PSB and McIntosh that were also not set up optimally. They all sounded very good but could have sounded better with proper set-up.

I've heard other Totems set up better in the past that sounded similar to comparable Dynaudios at the time. I can honestly say that in a/b tests in my house, the Dyns, as nice as they are, cannot touch either pair of Ohms.

When I say "flat," I don't mean without dimensionality. I mean that they don't produce the sense of fullness and "air" that the Ohm's do...

Honest to goodness, I don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not I've given the Arro's a chance. I do believe that this thread will be useful to someone who's interested in the Ohm's vs. the Totem's, not as a final conclusion, but to get a sense of how they differ.

As the very least, I think I can conclude that:

1) The Ohm's sound better to me out of the box than do the Arro's, in terms of imaging, "holograpy" and bass extension.
2) The Ohm's are easier to set up than the Arro's: because of the large sweet spot, they're quite forgiving of placement, and will actually tolerate and even appreciate being fairly close to the rear wall (mine are currently only 19" out). And, although this may seem trivial, it's nice not to have to mess with floor spikes when you move the speakers around... really nice.
3) The Arro's are prettier than the Ohm's, and their fit and finish is more refined, although the Ohm's are far from bad in either regard.
4) The Ohm's present a 6 ohm load, the Arro's a 4 ohm load, for what that's worth.
5) The Arro's are around $350 more than the Ohm's.

Okay, I'm done. ;-)