Good point Newbee. Tube rolling could be just what the doctor ordered! |
"the room is full of sound now, and the imaging is precise'"
Bingo!
Very cool! |
I'd like to see some unbiased reviews of D-Sonic M3 versus M2 to find out what the difference really is. |
Guidocorona here on Agon does a lot of work with Class D amps. Maybe email him and see if he has heard these. |
Never heard or heard of the Wolcotts.
Looks like another interesting omni design. |
"Is there a reason why there is a cover over the drivers?"
1) protection
2) aesthetics (what's inside sounds great but ain't pretty) |
Your welcome.
I'm just glad it worked out for you which ever way you went. |
REbbe,
Glad to hear about Dad.
Does he like music? Let him listen to some stuff he likes your system if possible during recovery! |
Artist: Ellington, Duke
Release Date: Sep 23, 2003
Format: CD
Record Label: Bluebird RCA (USA)
UPC: 828765561426
|
" the ohm's only trick(which is no trick at all...just using the room intead of fighting it) is the 'sweet spot'"
That is a very good way of putting it. |
"They don't have that Hi-Fi, super detailed sound with images floating in space - it's more tactile than that."
I've found adding a tube or two in the source or pre-amp section moves them towards this more so than SS.
For optimal balanced sound, top to bottom, tube power amps are not recommended however. |
"fact that they ... convey weight"
For larger scale ensemble recordings that require this, as well as rock/pop, I think this is where you would hear the biggest difference between Ohms and other speaks in the same price range, including Totem.
They will hold their own with most anything else in their price range for less demanding recordings as well. |
Rebbi, congrats, now you can listen and know for sure! That's the only way.
From your description, I think the Ohms could well be your ticket....we'll see! |
Mine are both refurbished units from Ohm. Fit and finish are fine if not exceptional...probably not in the same "fine furniture" league as say Dynaudio or Quad. |
The Ohm website is the best source for pricing info as mentioned.
I believe the range for new speaks with standard cabinet finishes is ~ 1000 for micros for smaller rooms to about $6000 for 5's that can be adjusted for either large, medium or small room sizes.
Ohm occasionally offers newer Walsh CLS drivers in refurbed cabinets at a discount. I think you have to call them and ask to see if something is available there.
They also often take trade in of older Ohm speakers with cabinets that can be refurbished even if the drivers are not in good working order. This can bring the price down further. |
Rebbe, for what its worth my wife has very high standards in home furnishing and has never complained about any Ohms I've had over the years in our living or sun rooms.
I think size-wise, they will be more or less the same size as the Arros, ie very minimal footprint which works great for WAF.
The big decision for most is whether to keep the cover on or off.
For a number of years, I re-did the covers of my old Ohm 2s myself using nice loose weave fabric to replace older covers that were worn. The thing I liked about the custom fabric I used was that it was loosely woven and when the light shined through them, you could see the "cans" inside in an almost translucent fashion...very cool!
I think the new black ash finish will look very sharp! |
" The suspense is killing me"
Me too!
When my big, heavy, Ohm 5's shipped from Ohm, the cabinet boxes were reinforced with solid particle board for protection.
I'm in the next day delivery zone for UPS in NY, so they only had to survive in their system for less than a day and arrived unscathed. |
What Jaybo said is a good start.
I think Ohm recommends separation equal distance from listening position in order to direct the tweets towards the prime listening position.
If the speaks are too far apart, you can get a hole in the sound stage in the middle, so just listen for that and move them a bit closer together if needed to get focused imaging near the center of the soundstage. |
I'm not certain but I don't think the smaller CLS drivers on the micros take too long to come into their own when. |
Rebbe,
I know you never sounded totally thrilled with the Totem Arros.
I don't know of anything conventional that can definitively beat or out-class them in that price range other than the Ohms though.
Glad it all worked out! |
The ones to truly thank are Lincoln Walsh for coming up with the basic principle that the Ohms realize back in the 1960s and John Strohbeen for delivering cost effective, high performance, robust and well supported implementations of Walsh's design over the years. |
Yay, I'm not whacked (nuts), or if I am I'm not alone!
I'm thrilled that you are thrilled so far. |
I really think your Unico hybrid amp is practically a perfect match to bring out the best in the Ohms, so I think you will be very well set.
The Ohms are one of the few low cost speaks I know that are capable of transcending their class in regards to performance due to the unique and innovative design.
The large surface area applied with the Walsh style drivers compared to traditional drivers of comparable size, along with the high phase coherency and wide dispersion pattern nature, are the main reasons these are almost in a class of their own for the size and asking price IMHO. |
Rebbe,
Any trace of too much "sound bouncing off the walls" and adversely affecting imaging?
I know imaging accuracy was one of the areas that you had concerns about with the Ohms early on in your search.
This is one of the areas that the newer series 3 drivers really shine in comparison with the older Ohm Walsh CLS designs from the 80's that many are most often familiar with. |
100s with ~120w/ch Musical Fidelity A3CR.
It mostly doubles power into 4 and 2 ohms which helps deliver a balanced sound top to bottom with the Ohms at low to moderate volume.
It replaced a 360w/ch Carver m4.0t which did not at all nearly double into 4 and 2 ohms and produced a less balanced sound with less authority in the bass at low to moderate volumes. It went plenty loud though and sounded balanced at higher volumes but the low end was not as complete at lower volumes. |
Note that the large Ohm 5's in my system are much harder to drive properly as I described above than the much smaller 100s. Micros should be easier still.
I likely will someday go to a higher power amp that also doubles into 4 and 2 ohms for the larger Ohm 5's, most likely a 250w/ch or 500 w/ch Class D amp like a Bel Canto, Rowland or something similar.
The A3CR has been an over achiever with the 5's so far though. I was not sure the A3CR would be powerful enough for the 5's when I got it but it sounds great and goes pretty loud and clear, so I've held off for now on something more powerful.
The A3CR leaves nothing to want with 100s.
I also recently introduced a tube DAC into my system and this has been a revelation with the Ohms. If I upgrade my pre-amp, would strongly consider a tube pre-amp there. |
Zkzpb8:
The Ohms are very neutral so they let the sound of the DAC come through. Each DAC will sound different.
I'm using the Paradisea with both my Denon player/recorder source and a Roku Soundbridge for accessing a music server and internet radio. Compared to the DACs built in each device, the Paradisea in general offers the benefits commonly attributed to tubes versus solid state mainly improved 3-D imaging and microdynamics combined with a more analog like smoothness with less digital edginess. It makes my digital sources sound more like my analog phono source.
The exact sound is a function largely of the tube used (and RCA phono IC used to connect the DAC to the pre.
Rolling different tubes defintely has major effect on the resulting sound. The stock GE tube is what I am using. THe used unit I purchased also came with a second vintage Tung Sol tube (see recent posting I made to my system for more info on the differences). There are other tubes that can be tried as well.
I'm using an Average Audioquest Toslink IC from Roku to DAC and a similar coax IC from CD to DAC. I do not notice any significant difference in sound between the 2.
Overall, the Ohms are more open, smoother, and dynamic overall with the Paradisea and digital sources. I would not go back to SS for this. They sound better now with digital sources than ever before.
Though I like the effect the tube DAC has on digital sources, I also do not feel a need for tubes with my phono rig either at this point. If I changed my pre-amp, I might just stick with the single tube in the DAC and continue with a good SS pre-amp that just lets the sources shine through naturally.
Tubes power amps in general are not a good match for Ohms I believe because of power demands and difficult loads to drive. But a single tube further upstream near the source can really make some magical things happen. |
I've confirmed with my system that 100s and Walsh 5s sound mostly the same in a small to moderate sized room.
If you do not have bass deficiencies, there is no reason to go larger in a room of a particular size.
Larger rooms will benefit in bass and overall performance weight from larger Ohm Walsh models.
In my largest room, ~ 20'X 30' and L shaped, the difference from 100s to Walsh 5 is marginal as I've described.
The Walsh 5's could go in much larger rooms than any of mine. |
Sounds like a shootout is in order! |
Arro's shouldn't sound "flat". That should get better with break-in I expect.
I've heard Arro's but never a/b'ed them concurrently with Ohms.
I think the Arros should do extremely well with imaging (for a standard box design) at least at the sweet spot, but I do not think they (or any standard box design) will ever sound like the Ohms IMHO. Ohms image distinctly in their "own special way".
I have heard Arro's that were not set up optimally stack up well against larger and more expensive speakers from PSB and McIntosh that were also not set up optimally. They all sounded very good but could have sounded better with proper set-up.
I've heard other Totems set up better in the past that sounded similar to comparable Dynaudios at the time. I can honestly say that in a/b tests in my house, the Dyns, as nice as they are, cannot touch either pair of Ohms. |
Rebbe,
Live and learn. We've all taken some financial hits I think over the years one way or another with this hobby.
Next time, in order to mitigate the risk of potentially taking a loss, consider either buying used first (so you can sell without taking a hit if needed) or only from a vendor (like Ohm) that provides a money back guarantee if not completely satisfied. |
"Jaybo, whether the Arros will dramatically change to resemble the Micro Talls or not, you must agree that 10 hours on any speaker is insufficient time on which to base a judgment on their performance."
I would agree also.
One thing I would say with certainty is that the Totems will not provide the wide sweet spot and ease of listening that the pseudo-omni Ohms do. I suspect the bass will not match the Ohms as well. Other than these two things, the two are more similar sounding than different from what I have heard. |
" Well, if any of you guys want to give my arro's a good home"
Sorry, but I/m not looking to replace my Ohms.
Otherwise, for a smaller room, Arro's would be on my short list.
Rebbe, seriously, obviously only you know what satisfies you. Same with any of us. You don't have to justify your decision making process to others. All that matters is that you like where you are at and can now attain enjoyment from your system sooner rather than later. |
...and, one of the most important facts, one can try the Ohms out in your own listening room risk free to hear what they bring to the table.
I think anybody looking to plunk down mega-bucks on a pair of speakers (many on this site) would be well served to try the right size Ohms first....think of the money you might save and use towards your next pair of interconnects! |
Rebbe,
You certainly have nothing to lose by giving the comparison more time. The Arros are very good speakers, as are all Totems I've ever heard...they are supposed to sound as you now describe them. I'm guessing using the spikes now if you weren't before would make a big difference.
Have you done the sand filling thing yet? I would expect that to help as well. |
In general I think they "open up" further in terms of weight and impact and become more "natural sounding" and detailed in particular through the mid range covered by the Walsh style driver. |
Tvad,
Yes, it does apply similarly to most cone speakers without a doubt. Some drivers take longer than others to "break in" physically or equivalently "open up" sonically, that's all.
In the case of Ohms larger drivers take more time than smaller ones. |
How about Holst's "The Planets" performed by Dutoit and Montreal Symphony on Penguin Classics? |
Martykl,
Wow. Thanks for sharing! Will look forward to your updates. |
"John at Ohm told me that both the 100s and the Micro Talls work best at 2' from the front wall - the former for far field listening at greater SPLs, and the latter for nearfield at more modest levels"
Makes sense.
Smaller drivers will be more challenged to produce higher SPLs at a distance, which is why the larger models are designed for larger rooms.
I've had both my 100's and my Walsh 5s in my main but small 12'X 12' listening room in more of a near-field scenario. The larger drivers added little or no value there. The smaller drivers actually sounded better in that they fit the room better and had more room to "breathe".
The level adjustments on the Walsh 5's specifically were useful, but one might accomplish similar adjustments just as effectively with a good control pre-amp.
In my largest room, the 100s hold their own very well but the 5's deliver a performance of larger scale and impact to better fill the larger room. |
probably at least 100s for a room that size i think.
check with js. |
Rebbe,
Its funny that I listened to a good mastering of "Gaucho" on CD on a pair of Quad electrostats at a local dealer when I was auditioning speakers prior to getting the newer Ohms and it was one of those 10/10 golden listening experiences where I said "this sounds perfect...it can't get any better than this".
Unfortunately, I only have an old home made cassette recording of Gaucho at home, so I have not been able to try to reproduce the same results there.
The $11,000 Quads were my reference listening experience though at the time when I decided to go with the newer Ohms for a chance to match the experience at less than half the cost. |
Rebbi,
A device with a name like "Bottlehead Seduction" has to sound great!
Seriously, glad your experiencing some magic moments!
We had a bunch of people over yesterday and I had to push the big Ohm 5's only 6 inches or so from the rear wall and have been listening to them there.
I'm really liking what I'm hearing even so close to the rear wall. There seems to be a swag of extra authority and meat to the bones with the rear wall re-enforcing the rendering. Imaging accuracy and depth of sound stage is still quite good as well.
I was playing an old vinyl recording of Bach music performed by E. Power Biggs on pipe organ on Columbia Masterworks label earlier and it was quite an involving experience. I'm not sure one could pull this configuration off as well from what I've read with other more true omnis. |
" it sounds awfully good to me right now"
That's all that matters.
A lot of sonic magic in particular with acoustic music happens with phono in my setup as well.
I have a new Audio Research sp 16 tube pre-amp with phono stage coming in a week or so. That should shake things up for teh better for me I'm hoping as well. |
In my case, before acquiring the newer Ohms, my Triangle Titus 202 with sub was one of my references for great integrated bass.
I run both Ohm 100s and 5s in rooms of appropriate size without sub and have zero concerns or reservations regarding bass. That's their trump card over the Maggies they replaced as a matter of fact. I will say that in my larger room, the only shortcoming of the 100s compared to the 5s in in the satisfying bass department, but in the 100s current location, a 12X12 room, zero issues there.
Also, I recently replaced my old SS Carver c-6 pre-amp with a new Audio research sp-16 and the improvement in low end can be heard clearly with most any recording of any quality. With good quality recordings, I don't think I've heard better and I've auditioned quite a few systems of late looking. |
I'll have to give mine a try with my old M&K sub sometime! |
Rebbe,
My best advice is trust your ears to determine which sound you will live with most happily over an extended period of time with the music you enjoy.
No two speaks will sound the same with the same benefits and disadvantages. This is particulary true when comparing two radically different designs as is the case here.
Avoid wishing one did things the other does. Just listen to each on its own terms for as long as it takes and decide.
The Ohms will cost you a premium at this point so be sure you are comfortable with that as well.
Regarding speaker placement, I recommend carving out a few hours to tweak and listen continuously as much as needed until you settle in on what sounds best.
My gut feel is that the Ohm MWTs will do better on larger scale more complex recordings at more realistic listening levels particularly in a nearfield listening scenario, but the Totem Arros will be hard to better at the other extreme, ie lower to more moderate volumes, simpler more acoustic music types. |
Reb,
I base my gut feel above on the assumption that the Arros will play out against the MWTs similarly to how my Dynaudios play out against my 100s, more or less.
With more acoustic, less dynamically demanding material, sitting in the sweet spot, the Dyns give up nothing to the Ohms at least in my smaller rooms.
For larger scale, more dynamically challenging recordings, at more realistic listening levels, the Ohms not only rule but compete in a bigger league only with other much larger speakers.
Of course the Ohm 100s are somewhat larger than the MWTs, so that has to be considered as well.
Anyway...sounds like a win/win situation for you which ever way you go. Keep us posted! |
Ohm has a reputation of taking care of their customers and getting a lot of repeat and referral business.
John Strohbeen is a unique guy. He doesn't fool around or beat around the bush from my few exchanges with him. A true MIT-trained engineer!
About 10 years ago when I was auditioning speakers for the first time in a while, the two that caught my ear were Dynaudio and Totem (can't remember the models). I ended up buying B&Ws instead mostly for the bigger, full sound than the other models in the same price range.
Now the Dynaudio Contours replaced the B&Ws. Then I tried the Ohm 100s. Then I decided to buy the big f-5s to replace my Maggies as well.
I parted with the B&Ws but find would find it hard to part with the Dyns. Luckily, I have enough rooms with in-wall speaker wiring to support multiple pairs of speaks. |
Rebbe,
Do the tweets on the Ohms face your listening position when you compare with the Totems?
I'm wondering if the tweak is to reposition the super tweet to point towards you better in your listening position?
Ohm often repositions the tweet from the normal 45 degree forward/inward orientation for special purposes. For example, in their surround speakers, they orient the tweeter upwards.
Assuming the Dynaudio/Totem similarity in timbre, this might have the effect you are looking for if the tweets are not facing your usual listening position currently. When the tweets face me, the timbre of both my Ohm Walsh speaks very much resembles the Dyns, which are inherently more forward sounding while the Ohms tend to be more laid back, in particular, when the tweet levels at the listening position with the Ohms is lower.
The down side of tipping up the super tweet is that it does tend to collapse the soundstage a bit. Some will like this and some will not.
With the much larger 5's, there are 4 three way adjustments for the timbre for low bass, mid bass, midrange and highs that can be tweaked also. I've played with quite a few combos to hear the effect. Not the case with all other models though.
If the tweets are not facing your listening position directly as they would in a near equilateral triangle listening configuration, try toeing the speaks differently so the tweets face you directly and see what you hear.
Just some thoughts. |
