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

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I don't think passive speakers are outdated - especially considering that there are many more passive designs to try than active - the only active monitors that I've heard are all cone 'n dome.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?

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?

Any system, unless the measurement equipment is extremely sophisticated and has response characteristics in the time domain that closely correspond to those of our hearing mechanisms.

In other words, a system that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position, based on test tones, will give equal weight to sound that arrives via the direct path from speakers to listening position, and sound that arrives via reflected paths from walls and furniture.

But our ears don't work that way -- consider the Haas Effect, for example, which describes the fact that, within certain limits, our hearing mechanisms give greater emphasis to early arriving sounds than to later arriving sounds (which are presumably reflections).

And adding to that is the fact that even in the frequency domain the directional characteristics of our ears are unlikely to match those of the measuring microphone. So the microphone will "hear" reflections from side walls, for example, differently than our ears will.

Best regards,
-- Al