do it if you have a somewhat powerful amp.
20 responses Add your response
TWo different beasts for sure.
Depends what you're looking for.
Original Walsh 2s can go quite loud and lifelike with a large sweet spot and big soundstage in larger rooms and outdoors in particular with 80-100 good clean watts or more.
Walsh 2s can be upgraded to new drivers that are improved in most every way from the speakers of 25 years ago but it costs $800 or so.
Do yourself a favor. The walsh require gobs of power. Power in the 300wpc range and more. A good or even decent amp with that kind of omph is expensive. I know Fs cost more than a small fortune to fix and are one of the most difficult speakers ever made to repair.
I only know this because the owner of Millersound has been fixing speakers for half a century is an obsessive perfectionist has probably worked on any speaker you name and has started to refuse anymore Fs, he dreads them. I have the older Heresy type I. I keep them for sentimental reasons, my first decent system I bought them when I was 16.
A couple of years ago I wanted to know what the change from the big alnico bel to the theoretically compromised ferrite disc magnet did. I found in they sounded pretty much the same but gave the nod to the originals. That Klipsch sonic was still intact.
So buy a really beautiful mint pair of fantastic early type Is and just install one of the several improved crossovers. The Ohms which I have auditioned sound quite dead and muted, It took me a while to drag myself away from tthe horns.
I bet you will be coming right back looking for a horn. I use 2 rigs now both cones types JM Electras and some Von Schwieckerts.
I can't remember when I last played the Heresys although tempted. Even more ridiculous I bought La Scalas a number of years ago that I never seem to use.
Here is the key.
Even though you can get them to play so loud it hurts with no power SETs they really thrive and sound much better IMHO with big SS amps. I theorize because of a mediocre crossover that doesn't feed the big woofers and an amp with little ability to grip with healthy feedback. (A dirty word) the power the woofers need to be heard ends up elswhere.
In addition of all the amps out there .I have 5 tube amps -2 that are my daily amps - the best synergy with Klipsch are SS especially a big McIntosh.
Despite it sounding completely silly, I am not kidding at all.
The OHMs will love lots of power but really only need 60-80 good watts (lots of current) to sound good.
Klipschs arfe more efficient will go louder faster but may also benefit from more power.
The two sound different and have totally different strengths/weaknesses. No way to know which is right till you try both properly set up.
I recently bought Ohm 100s and maintained for almost 2 months (I made several posts to this effect on various threads in this forum) that the speakers were mediocre as far as large scale dynamics. I was going to hang on to them anyway because I really like other aspects of their performance. The question ultimately has become moot. Whether it was break in time, a switch of amps, or both...the speakers are now much improved in this regard.
I won't argue that they're state of the art dynamically, but they have definitely improved to a point where there is no meaningful issue for me. I would certainly have gotten your point a couple of months ago, but today I'll disagree. Not "dead" by any means.
One more thought. Just to see if my impression of improved dynamics was
the result of my "acclimating" to the speakers or whether the
speakers had actually improved, I briefly dropped my pair of Zingali 3s back
into the system the other day. These horns are about the most dynamic
speakers I own (although, in fairness, my Merlin VSMs are probably just as
good. I chose the Zings because they're easier to flip back into the system
than the VSMs). Two impressions:
1)The Zingalis do sound a bit more dynamic. More significantly so at modest
spls, much less obviously as the volume knob went up to my preferred
2) I vastly prefer the Ohms overall.
One disclaimer - I use the Ohms with subs.
keep in mind that the poster is talking about original Walsh 2's from the 80's I believe, not newer ones with model 100 drivers of any series.
There is a big difference believe me (I've owned both concurrently and compared). The original Walsh 2s roll only go to 17000khz or so according to published Ohm specs whereas the newer drivers use a different tweeter and extend further.
Original Ohm Walsh 2s sounded a bit dead or flat compared to the newer 100s to me as well, which is why I upgraded.
Otherwise dynamics in general were also not to the level of the newer 100s with the same amp driving them.
Most people out there who own OHM walsh speakers own the originals, which were sold through various hifi chains in much larger quantities back then.
The newer series 3 drivers have only been out for a few years and only available direct from OHM. They cost more, and have teh level of overall refinement in the sound one would expect these days. The originals were still pretty good, but not in the same league soundwise IMHO.
The thing to do is pick up a pair of cheap Ohm Walsh 2's on ebay and order the upgrade for $800 or so. This gives you the best sound possible for the least amount of money.
Walsh 2's sold for $800/pair back in the 80s. New 100 series three cost twice that. The upgrade however costs the same as you would have paid back then but is in a totally different league.
Keep your Heresys.
Depending upon where you are located, you might want to come by and take my Walsh 2s off my hands - free. I have not used them in years, bought them at salesman's comp price back in the 80s. Match-grain oak. Cabinets are fairly good, "top hats" need re-clothing, one speaker needs the top driver repaired.
I am located near Washington, DC...
Although I read Mechans' post in a different way than you did (I don't know if he's auditoned only older model Ohms), I was just making a point about my experience with Ohms and dynamics:
I underestimated the speakers' ability in this area for quite some time because of certain variables which I didn't appreciate at the time - notwithstanding your posts which frequently pointed those factors out to me!. Mechans' experience may be due to the dynamic characteristics of the older models he's heard or they may be due to a situation like my own. Either way, I'm just cautioning others from repeating my mistake.
Rbaker, can you confirm if what you have are truly original Walsh 2s?
If they have the obelisk shaped cabinets rather than rectangular, and say "Walsh 2" on the labels, then that is likely what they are, unless, they were upgraded to 100 drivers.
Walsh 2's with 100 drivers have the crossover within the cage. Original Walsh 2's have the crossover board mounted in the bottom of the cabinet near the input connections.
If they are 100 drivers, then they could be either series 2 which became available in teh mid- 90's I believe or the newer series 3 which became available about 3 years ago or so.
By the way, within the last few months there is another new series of the larger drivers (not 100s yet, I believe) that have been unveiled on the ohmspeakers web site that supposedly use new drivers with better magnets and that are also said to be more efficient than prior series 3 (which is what I now own).
I own a pair of Walsh 2's. They are 25 years old and sound as good as the day I bought them. Many speakers have been in and out of my system. I cannot sell the Ohm's because while the other my mega buck speakers (my definition 8-10K) all sounded great in their own way, the w2's just sound right (do need a subwoofer in my opinion. To get the sort of imaging they provide, you otherwise need electostatics. They are just the best value I have ever found in a loudspeaker. They don't scream, they are well balanced. If you are used to the really bright high end of a horn, and like it, the W2's may disappoint. I've driven them with anything from a 50W NAD to a 300W McIntosh. I do not agree that they require a lot of power. The 50W was just fine...but depends on the size of you room. Good luck.
Thanks for all the input-I made the swap-mapman these are
the obelisk shaped cabinets-and do have the walsh2 logo,so far I am impressed with the sound.
They will replace the heresy's at our other home-I have owned several klipsch--lascala-in particular.No offense
to klipsch lovers but I just got tired of their sound.
The ohm's remind me of the ess amt 1b's I still have.
It amazes me that speakers 20-30 years old can sound as
great as they do-my main system has merlin tsm me with a
velodyne fsr-18--and IMO-it sounds awesome-but the ohm
and the ess are not far behind.Thanks.
Of course I may be a bit biased as the owner of 3 pair of OHMs, but if you were looking to swap, I think you made a good choice.
If you like the OHM sound, but think it could be even better, you have the option to upgrade to a more current, truly big league sound that can compete with most anything in most rooms for less than $1000!
Where else could you pick up a 25 year old design for nothing and have that option??????????????
By the way, I would like to add a pair of Klipsch someday when I have a need, but I would not anticipate them replacing either my 100s or 5s. Maybe my Ls, but I really do not use them very often at present.
I've been thinking about trying something different, a pair of Heresy's, possibly new Heresy IIIs in my sun room where the Dynaudio monitors are currently.
The bass with the Dyns in there near the wall (where they have to be, its my wife's room) can be quite heavy. I'm thinking the somewhat bass shy (from what I read) Heresy's angled up on the floor could work quite nicely. This room is my most lively, tile floors, cathedral ceiling, and windows all around.
Any thoughts? Would this truly be "Heresy"?
The IIIs are nice. I owned a pair in Cherry that didn't meet the WAF. I had a pair of Is in the 80s and the IIIs are better in every way. Bass is existant now. Highs aren't horn-harsh. I like the on the risers too. The 12" woofer makes for a wide speaker but the Klipsch Heritage speakers do quite well soundwise.