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

Hey Mapman!

I've been seriously into headphones for the past 3 years, and for me the planar-magnetic models from Hifiman also have similar sonic qualities to my Ohms, especially in the midrange and treble.

The Senns are just too rolled-off in the upper midrange for me, and I always experience a 'veil' in the details that I don't experience with my MWT's.

Which Sennheisers? Just curious.

A lot of the better Senns are said to benefit from good quality amplification. OHMs are teh same way.

I have portable Sennheiser Momentum over ear phones which are said to be somewhat easier to drive than teh "audiophile" models, but I find the amp used makes a huge difference still in terms of clarity. They sound best by far to me so far with the Bel Canto c5i I picked up recently and I hear the same results off teh C5i with my OHM 100s3.

OHMs are similar I find. The amplification and source used makes a similar difference. They can become somewhat veiled if things are not going right, but not so at all when they are.

Also I had modest STAX phones for many years up until recent. These sounded different somewhat with different amps but never veiled. Also I have heard very expensive Audeze off very good amplification which were very etched and detailed. Have never heard Hifiman, though I have almost jumped on those a few times based on what I read.

Long time no post, thanks to my company's draconian web blocking policies. But, a few things to add.

Subwoofing: As you may know, I augment my 2000s with a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers, which are now equipped with the battery biased Vandersteen crossovers. Those looking for top-flight bass extension for any speaker that produces a good response down to 40Hz has to look at these subs. I bought them and the crossovers used, and the blending with the 2000s is totally seamless. Also, they work perfectly in corners, as per their design goal.

Upper-mid/lower-treble range: The Ohm Walsh 2000 performance in this range is one of the main reasons I bought them. Many speakers hype this range in order to add detail and presence. But turn them up a bit, and - ouch! IMHO, KEFs have this exaggerated presence range to varying degrees. I listen to my 2000s at lower volumes when checking email, using internet radio or basic Pandora, and I never find them lacking at these lower volumes. In fact, I have to keep it lower, because if I turn the volume up even a little, I will get distracted by the beautiful music I hear.

Still better: A while back, I moved my amp from my rack to the front wall near the speakers. This required a long IC run from the preamp. It also left me with a lot of extra speaker-wire. Since I wanted to upgrade the speaker wire (Kimber 4PR), I left them in place and coiled up the excess on foam cable risers. Stuff happens, and I have never been able to afford a speaker cable upgrade.

I recently had a few of my audio buddies over for some listening, and I requested that no punches be pulled on the sound. It took one of them about 5 minutes to look at the coils of speaker wire and ask me if I felt my highs were a bit closed in. Why, yes, I do feel they are a bit closed in, with too much center image and not enough soundstage width. I had chalked that up to the room or limitations of the 2000s. Well, he informed me that a coil of wire like that acts as an inductor, and rolls off the highs. In about 20 minutes, he and one other guest had started cutting and reterminating my speaker wire for a much shorter run, and no coils of wire. WOW! I now had air, a wider soundstage, and much more open highs, with no downside (like excess brightness or etch). A great, free upgrade. Better than free, really, as I will sell the excess cable they cut up.

Not much to add to this thread other than these are truly non fatiguing speakers. Just got done with another multi-hour streaming listening set.
Source: 10 year owner of microtalls currently paired with a modest peachtree amp.