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

BlueR,

Theoretically, there is probably little if any practical sonic difference attributable between damping of 300 versus 1000. The consensus seems to be that most speaker wire electrical properties alone negate any differences once damping passes 50 or so. I moved from Carver amp <50 damping to Musical Fidelity at around 50 to current Bel Canto with damping 1000. The Bel Cantos seem to have the most controlled, dimensional and articulate sound top to bottom of any of these with the OHMs by a wide margin. There are many factors that might account for how a Class D switching amp performs versus conventional Class A or A/B. In a nutshell, the 500 w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m amps drive my large Walsh 5 effortlessly and without breaking a sweat at any volume I have attempted. They retain mostly the same sound quality at any volume, however as the volume goes up teh music becomes more full bodied, dynamic and lifelike, like blowing up a balloon. Never any sign of strain, clipping or noticeable distortion at any volume. Things just keep expanding and becoming more full bodied and lifelike as the volume goes up. Midrange is very clean and articulate. Vocals are lifelike and lyrics clearly understandable with most any decent or better quality recording.

Thanks for the response Map.

I recall reading that John Portis at Stereophile was a big Ohm fan and adopted an Electron Kinetics amp as his reference piece, in part because (if I remember correctly) of its high current and damping that matched well with Ohm Walshes. My Sansui is supposed to deliver plenty of current, but doesn't deliver high damping specs--hence my question.

As you suggest, there are so many other factors that distinguish amplifier performance with a given set of speakers that we'll likely never conclusively settle the matter.

I know that the whole damping debate continues, and that it theoretically shouldn't matter above 100 (that's the figure I've always come across), but I'm in no position to adjudicate the claims pro and con. I don't even claim to understand the physics/electronics theory underlying the arguments about damping.

If/when I hook up the NAD and/or Adcom, I'll let you know if I hear any differences. (Bel Canto 1000 wpc amps will likely have to wait for another lifetime.)

This really is an extraordinary thread. It's turned into an Ohm's-eye view of all things audiophilic. What does this say about Ohm speakers--and about Ohm-heads?

Jwc,

the late john Potis, who ironically I found out lived right down the street from me, was a long time OHM fan. I asked him about amps for my newer OHMs a few years back via email and he responded at the time encouraging me to throw the kitchen sink at them amp-wise, including damping. He was one reviewer whose opinions and insights I learned to always take to heart!

John was a great reviewer with a lot of respect. It was his review about the MicroWalsh Talls that convinced me to give them a try. His viewpoint is missed in the community.

Just scored a circa 91 Denon DRA-545r stereo receiver for $20 at Goodwill and man I can't believe that it bested the zpre2+niles si245 separates. It even sounds better than my main system which is the marantz avr+b&k amp. I was just testing it using pandora in kindle fire and compared it to the three setup and it bested them both (using the ohms as the speaker). It just sounded so airy and holographic and to think that it was just a 64kbps pandora stream.

This leads me to believe that the newer avr with all the bells and whistles crammed into it are not up to par with the sound quality of the old when it comes to 2 channel music. I think I'm going to use this as my preamp along with the parasound amp as my main 2 channel system.