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

Mapman, I understand your comment, however my point was (I think) slightly different.

Kristian81 has commented that he was buoyed by the fairly flat in-room response of the Ohm loudspeakers. Even an ideally mated loudspeaker and amplifier may not produce a flat *in-room* response when measured with a meter. This would most often be a product of the room, not the speaker/amp match.

My point is that while a flat in-room response may be what audiophiles are told to seek (resulting in a transparent, un-colored reproduction of the source material), many listeners will not prefer the resulting sound to one that is "bumpier" (that perhaps has a midrange bump, etc.).

Unless one has tried the experiment of setting their system's response to be flat in the room, then it's difficult to comment without it being speculative. It goes around again to going by what we're often *told* we should want without ever actually hearing what the result of a flat in-room response sounds like.

That said, it will not surprise me if a few contributors here say that they prefer a flat in-room response because it's more faithful to the recording.

Different courses...

Kristian makes some good points - but the pro worlds and civilian worlds are very different. I listen to studio monitors all day long, and I'd never want a pair at home. I've heard every kind of passive and active monitor in studios all around NYC, but my living room is not a control room or mastering lab.

I've had my Ohm's since '04, I immediately knew they were great when I heard them, and I've had no reason to replace them. I love active monitors, and rely on them, but at home I don't want my head in vice, and my wife would kill me if I started installing room treatments. The Ohms are the best balance of neutrality and user friendliness that I can live with.

I don't think passive speakers are outdated - especially considering that there are many more passive designs to try than active - the only active monitors that I've heard are all cone 'n dome. When Ohm makes active speakers, I'll sell my amp...

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Grant, I believe that a major reason for that is that the mic + equalizer/analyzer, unless it is very sophisticated, doesn't discriminate between direct (early arriving) sound, and reflected (later arriving) sound, while our ears do.

Which would seem to say that unless the room is an anechoic chamber, a setup that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position is wrong "a priori."

Best regards,
-- Al

I remember one time using an Audio Control C-101 equalizer to EQ my system's room response so it measured flat. The Audio Control unit came with a microphone and automatic EQ software to enable this to be done.

The funny thing is the results absolutely sucked, and the Audio Control manual (which is perhaps the best manual I've ever read...helpful and humorous at the same time) said they'd probably suck.

I'd be very surprised if most listeners would really prefer flat room response given the opportunity to A/B the options.

Good hearing does not have a flat response.
http://www.engr.uky.edu/~donohue/audio/fsear.html

a setup that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position is wrong "a priori."

Best regards,
-- Al
Almarg (Answers)

By *set up* are you referring specifically to the EQ I used, or by *set up* are you including any system that measures flat at the listening position?