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

04-20-10: Kristian85
This thread...emphasizes perfectly how audiophiles are nearly unable to seperate better from different sound. Note the OP's initial OTT excitement over the MWTs, as followed by the rollercoaster ride that was the ensuing months of public anxious wrangling over what was really best, those or the Totems. After all the Ohm gushing, the OP finally decides he doesn't really like them.

Bullseye.

Yes, I would agree also that many often mistake different for better and it can be hard to not waver when one believes the grass might be greener elsewhere.

Kristian may be a trained listener, but I'm a trained measurer. In my listening room, the Ohm 100s are unusually flat (on-axis at the listening position) with a smooth, gently falling FR from north of 10khz down to below 150hz - where destructive room effects take over. I address those room effects with hemholtz devices and EQ'd subwoofers. Bottom line: this is an usually neutral design (same caveat: measured on axis in my space) from the upper end of the bass on up and, subjectively from the upper bass through the upper limits of my hearing (about 14khz, last I checked).

The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the omni-directional dispersion pattern. Conceptually, this should smooth off-axis response, but, in truth, I've never confirmed that. I can say with some confidence that the spacial impact (can't tell you how to measure that!) dominates the subjective impression that this design makes. The final decision will likely be subjective and have little to do with "sub optimally flat FR", unless the listener in question objects to this particular (gentle) deviation from dead neutral.

The "gushing" for Ohms upon first listening is almost certainly due to the "omni effect". MBLs (a subjectively less neutral design to my ear) get the same kind of reaction - WOW! Some love it at first, then tire of it and move on. Others stay the course. I'm just about a year and a half into my time with the Ohms and generally prefer them to several other highly regarded (and IMO fine sounding in their own right) speakers that I also own, each of which cost many times as much as the 100s.

This is the preference of my "somewhat trained" (app. three hours/day at the piano and/or guitar over the last 2 years) ear. I accord my opinion no more weight than any other (Kristian's included), but I do hold the measurements in high regard.

Marty

Kristian85,

Your nose is so far in the air you can't see in front of it. You criticize the OP for having audiophile nervosa because he found a sound he preferred to his Ohm's?? Pray tell, I'm sure that's never happened to you, right? How do you suppose one gets to be the trained listener you claim to be if they don't take the same journey the OP did? Perhaps you bypassed the whole process and just got a certificate in "learn critical listening" from University of Phoenix. Maybe the OP should continue his lessons in "learning critical listening" by buying different loudspeaker designs but direct his "anxiety" so it's more dealer-bothering than manufacture-bothering? would that be satisfactory for you?

My system and the OHMs in conjunction are pretty flat based on my ears and test recordings I have used.

There was a review in stereophile back in the 80s (still available on-line) that indicated some midrange variation with the original Walsh 5s.

A follow-up review withdrew that criticism after some tweaks by John Strohbeen.

The current drivers are 3 generations removed from the originals and flat response is one critique of the Walshes seldom seen these days.

I had original Walsh 2s and now the more recent models and drivers. The newer drivers are much more refined and copetitive with modern speaker designs than the originals from 30 years back or so.