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

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. ;-)

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.

Rebbi (Threads | Answers)

I agree that's a reasonable conclusion.

...and, one of the most important facts, one can try the Ohms out in your own listening room risk free to hear what they bring to the table.

I think anybody looking to plunk down mega-bucks on a pair of speakers (many on this site) would be well served to try the right size Ohms first....think of the money you might save and use towards your next pair of interconnects!