Maybe I was spoiled? Funny, but the soundstage aspects of the Walsh 2000s that I bought last year were not what made them keepers for me. Sure, the soundstage is huge and holographic, but properly set up (which mine were), the Vandersteen 1Cs I had before also could do some amazing things with soundstage reproduction. As a result, the first thing I noticed when I fired up the Ohms was not a bigger soundstage, but an amazing truth in timbre that the 1Cs lacked. Now, I have heard many loudspeakers that tend to bunch the sound around each speaker. If you are used to that kind of soundstage, then, heck yeah, the Ohms will knock you out of your chair with their soundstage abilities.
As time has passed, I have noticed some differences in the soundstage: Overall, the soundstage is not as far into the room as was the Vandys, different, not better or worse. That said, I think the Ohms do a better job of reflecting what is in the recording, soundstage-wise. The Vandys, I think, kind of created a lot of soundstage fireworks, whether they were on the record or not. Interestingly, the new McIntosh preamp has changed the soundstage presentation of the 2000s. Mostly for the better, with a little more forwardness in the presentation, and a bit more depth.
As time has passed, I have noticed some differences in the soundstage: Overall, the soundstage is not as far into the room as was the Vandys, different, not better or worse. That said, I think the Ohms do a better job of reflecting what is in the recording, soundstage-wise. The Vandys, I think, kind of created a lot of soundstage fireworks, whether they were on the record or not. Interestingly, the new McIntosh preamp has changed the soundstage presentation of the 2000s. Mostly for the better, with a little more forwardness in the presentation, and a bit more depth.
