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

Jwtrace,

Will do!

"I agree with Mapman that much of the soundstage presentation takes place behind the speakers, but not entirely. On "The Goodbye Look" from Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly," the percussion, especially the marimba parts, reach out into the room toward you. On "Let's Face The Music And Dance" from Diana Krall's "When I Look In Your Eyes," the piano part also reaches right out into the room."

Yes that can certainly occur with regularity on certain recordings where the stars align.

There is one extended high note Mel Torme hits at the end of a tune on the CD recording of "The Classic Concert" that seems to envelope you from above and behind in my room. I was strtled and jumped up out of my seat the first time I heard it....very surreal!

Bondmap - I have MWT's, and I auditioned 1C's a few years ago. I'm a Vandy fan, but I chose the Ohms.

Image depth was one of the things that I gained with the Ohms. As mentioned, the overall presentation is a little behind the speakers. Vandys were the first speakers that I heard that had that front to back imaging that made instruments sound real. The Ohms do it too, with much easier placement and a much larger sweet spot.

It is very easy to get the speakers to disappear, since owning them, it's very hard for me to like conventional speakers, like I used to. The music spills into the room, and never sounds like it's emanating from a box...

IME, the Ohm 100s are a bit more neutral than the Vandy 2 series, which -IMHO- has slighly elevated upper bass and slightly rolled presence/treble. Each of those two qualities is subtle, but taken together the combo of these two characteristics make the Vandy 2s seem just a touch "warm" to me. Tonally, the Model 5 or the Quatro is closer to the Ohm - just flat neutral. Of course, those Vandys have powered bass modules, so there's some "wiggle room" in their tonal balance - but when set up for max neutrality, they're pretty spot on, IMHO. As are the Ohms.

Imaging is a different story. The Ohms bring a certain "weight" to the images that I've heard only from omni designs. This is a really significant difference and separates the Ohms from most other speakers that I've heard. In other respects the Ohms and Vandy 2s image similarly, though I feel that the Ohms may go a bit wider in projecting believable sound sources outside the speaker than I've ever heard from any Vandy speaker. There are enough variables here - I've heard a half a dozen Vandy 2 set ups over the years, but never in the same room/system as the Ohms - that YMMV.

I'd mostly agree with Mapman, but would beg to differ in the comparison to MBL, as the 101s can create the illusion of 3d space extending into your lap in a way that is, IME, virtually unique (and certainly beyond what I get from my 100s in this regard). Actually, to be more accurate, I've heard some minimonitors that can also create the illusion of images way forward in space. The ProAc Tablettes come to mind. Either way, the Ohms are more limited in this regard than the best imagers I've heard.

Hope this helps.

Marty

"101s can create the illusion of 3d space extending into your lap in a way that is, IME, virtually unique (and certainly beyond what I get from my 100s in this regard)"

I've only heard the 111s, not the 101s, so I cannot compare those.

The 111s at least did not extend forward or image in a manner radically different than the OHMs that I could tell, at least in the room I heard them in with the high end MBL electronics and with the source material listened to, both of which were top notch.

MBL 111s list for $34000. OHMS top out at ~ $6000.

101s could be a totally different story. My understanding is that the dynamics on those are at a totally different level than 111s.

My assessment was that the OHM dynamics are at least as good as and perhaps even a bit better than 111s I would say, at least based on my limited exposure to the 111s.

MBL 101s go for over $60000/pair I believe.

There was nothing about the 111s running on tens of thousands of dollars worth of MBL electronics however that made me feel like the OHM 5s, at least, are at a comparative disadvantage in a similar somewhat large listening room.

I went into the MBL demo fully expecting a significant difference in sound based on the design and cost differences but did not hear it, more as result of the prowess of the OHM 5s than any shortcomings of the much more expensive 111s.