Discussion in 'Infinity Loudspeakers' started by Infinity!, Aug 17, 2015.
Has anyone ever heard both of these? If so, how do they compare? Thanks!
i have some infinitys with the walsh and some infinitys with emits. the walsh is interesting technology, and certainly it does it's job of adding some extra sparkle to the higher frequencies (the walsh was actually a super tweeter, and used to supplement another driver), the walsh simply can not compete with the emit on any level other than dispersion pattern (walsh is 360º), collector value, and as a conversation piece. i'm not saying i don't love my walsh-equipped infinitys (because i do), its just the emits are in a league of their own.
Oh okay, i kinda guessed that the EMIT's were better. :yes: The walsh tweeters just look so interesting and unlike any other tweeter ever made!
I have a pair of the Infinity Monitor, the initial model prior to the II and then the IIa. It is a three way system with the same woofer as the others, the midrange of the II and the Walsh. So, in this case, the Walsh tweeter is run as an actual tweeter and not just as a super tweeter. The highs are subdued, but not to a bothersome degree. Actually, one gets used to the balance of the speaker quite easily. Attached a pic, the grills, which were a foam type material, are long gone. They are sitting next to a pair of OHM G speakers, the smaller brother of the OHM F.
Actually the Walsh on the Monitor is used as a supertweeter, with the nice Foster dome midrange filling in below 5k Hz.
I Have a pair of Monitor 1's and a pair of Infinity Reference Studio Monitors (original owner of both) and I completely disagree with your comments regarding the Walsh. These two tweeters were used in a different manner. As a super tweeter the Walsh IMO has a much sweeter delicate tone than the emit in the upper HF range. Many tweeters have extended response into the the 25-30 khz range but when it comes to tone accuracy and smoothness they differ immensely. If you put your ear close to the these speakers using the same source and music its easy to hear that the emit is harsher than the walsh in the upper HF range. On another note the mid-range on the monitor 1 has great range and tonal accuracy. It reproduces high-mid tone as well as anything I have ever heard. The LF on the monitor 1 has very very good detailed tone layering and timbre down to 28/30 hz. We tested my specific pair at the NRL (my son works there) 6 years years ago and they performed as well as some speakers that were priced in the $3000-$5000 range at the time.
I tend to agree that the Walsh tweeter could be considered superior to the Emit in terms of dispersion and super high frequency capability.
I'd have to believe the Walsh might not work the 4000hz area as well as the Emit but then again I don't know if that application has been attempted, though it would be interesting to hear.
I have both RS 5b and monitor 2a
The walsh are really quite in a league of there own. While the rs5 emits are a great sounding speaker, those monitors with walsh so smooth and high, you would never hear a 4000 hz tone, I think they start at 10K.
I have experimented with multiple different voice coils and cannot reproduce their smooth highs, YET im considering trying to wind my own coil, original designer wanted to use titanium dome, tried that.
I get great sounding results but I don't want it to pick at 5k and hear it all the time. Looking for the right voice coils.
I agree that the Walsh has a much smoother high frequency response. I have Monitor II'a and RS-6B's. The Monitor II has a much smoother high end. I get listener fatigue when listening to the EMITs for long periods of time. That doesn't happen with the Walsh tweeter
Separate names with a comma.