Ohm Walsh 2 impressions

1

14G-])utch^

Active Member
Hey guys I just wanted to let you know my thoughts on the these.

I got a pair from a guy here in Westerville Ohio on Craig'slist. I bought a Soundcraftsmen A5002 amp from him and he mentioned he might let his Walsh 2's go if I were to help him install his kitchen. I did, and he gave me a choice between some Walsh 2's or 2 xo's. After listening to both, and talking to John Strobeen(spelling?) @ Ohm, I decided on the original model 2.

I've read a lot about them and opinions are all over the place. So, on to my own.

First, my system for reference:

Preamp: Soundcraftsmen Pro-power 4
Amp: Soundcraftsmen A5002 250watts/Ch @ 8 ohms
Turntable: Technics 1200 M3d x 2 with Shure/Realistic RXT6

For convenience I have 2 1200's running to a Rane TT54i. I use it as a phono preamp and it lets me keep the music going especially when I'm trying out a bunch of unfamiliar vinyl :) I realise this is possibly degrading the clarity etc. I will inform at a later date if I find much difference.

I have a difficult listening room. It is 16x20 with 10' ceilings. The wall they have to sit in front of is the 16' wall. What would ideally be a corner to the right end of that wall is instead a 6' wide 8' high door opening. The left wall has the same opening, but at 4' out from the corner. Both openings are to large rooms.

So you can imagine my challenge. Bass pretty much normally gets sucked out, and generally speakers sound terrible all around.

I was pleasantly surprised by these speakers. They have plenty of full, rich bass that is clean and tight. Quantity and quality. It's really surprisingly how good the bass is, especially considering the driver can't be more than 6-7 inches. The midrange and highs sound nice too. These sound really good with singing voices and horns and anything jazzish. The most surprising thing to me is they can do this in my room.

The prime listening area is very wide. It isn't really a sweet spot, more like a sweet zone. Being semi-omnidirectional, I can't say there is pinpoint imaging, but there is a "nice" image. Pleasant is a word that comes to mind. They have a different sound, due to the semi-omnidirectional design, that makes you wonder if you might tire of it, but you don't. At least not so far.

They can be driven quite loudly and still sound great. Some say they need to be turned up to sound best, but I like them at low levels too.

I would highly recommend them. In my opinion, and from reading other's, I would recommend that you pair them with a high power amp, 100 watts or more.

I plan on testing these on my Marantz 2385, Sansui G-8000 and Pioneer SX-1050 if anyone would be interested.

Supposedly the factory upgrade for these is an astounding leap in sound quality. I'd love to hear impressions from anyone who has done it.

Jon




Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
 
Register to hide this ad
moebuster said:
i've had a pair for 20+ years and wouldn't dream of parting with them.
one of the least expensive hi end speakers available.
Click to expand...

Is your experience similar to mine? I've only had them a week.



Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
 
I own the Ohm Walsh 3's which is a small step up from the 2's and I can tell you that I doubt you'll tire of the omni-directional sound, in fact it may spoil you for anything else. My Ohm's were the first speakers that my wife actually thought "sounded really good", I guess because her seat in the family room is far from the sweet spot she was finally hearing treble for the first time!

Not too long ago I decided to put my Yamaha NS690's in place of the Ohm's and while they sounded terrific they just don't "fill the room" like the Ohm's do. The Yammys will eventually be in my man-loft but for all around performance the Ohm's are hard to beat.
 
Thanks for your thoughts. I have searched and can't find anyone who isn't a professional reviewer that has done the factory upgrade. I'd love to hear comments on that.


Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
 
I've had Walsh 5's for about 15 years and the foam surround rotted and bass went down. Upgraded to W5.5000 a few years ago. I think the latest version is very nice and seems a bit more detailed.

The new surround is projected by Ohm to last 20-30 years. Check with John Strohbeen on your Walsh 2, as it may need work, or upgrade.
 
14G, I did the upgrade roughly 4-5 years ago, cannot recall but I was one of the first to get a pair of the 2000 series on an older OW2 cabinet. I thought the upgrade did provide a smoother treble response and also improvements in the midrange, bass maybe slightly more extended. It was more a decent step up but nothing in the "Oh my God" territory. It is a good bit of money, and you need to really weigh that one out if it would be worth the additional money. I still think some of the original drivers if properly maintained and all is well with them, do a fantastic job.

The OW2/Super 2000 as I think it was called at the time, was short lived for me as I moved up to a pair of 3XO cabinets with 3000 series drivers in them, as it really worked better in my listening space.

I love Ohms, have had them around in one model or another for quite a few years up until around 2012 when they went away for a pair of Larsen Model 4's and then last year a pair of Shahinian Obelisk 2's. These being all semi/omni-types of speakers which I truly love. Once you "get" the omni sound, it is hard to go another direction, at least it has been for me anyway. Not everyone's cup of tea for sure though. Enjoy them! Tim
 
pch300 said:
I've had Walsh 5's for about 15 years and the foam surround rotted and bass went down. Upgraded to W5.5000 a few years ago. I think the latest version is very nice and seems a bit more detailed.

The new surround is projected by Ohm to last 20-30 years. Check with John Strohbeen on your Walsh 2, as it may need work, or upgrade.
Click to expand...

The original Walsh 2, and 3 used a rubberized cloth surround, so they aren't susceptible to that deterioration. The newer Walsh 2xo, and 3ox, did go to a foam surround, like the 4,& 5 used. I'm not sure what the Walsh 1, or SCs used, though I still have a pair of original Sound Cylinders, and they don't (yet?) seem to need new surrounds... fingers crossed!
 
Frommer, right on the surrounds. I think the Walsh 1 was also a cloth surround, but unsure on the 1XO as most of the XO's were foam which helped assist with higher sensitivity specs.

On the SC's, I don't have much to go on except for a few used models that I have seen, but that is always suspect as to originality etc. of said drivers. The ones that I have seen have been both foam and cloth, so it makes me think that either they were changed by owners in the past, or even changes within the models from Ohm themselves. Not sure there.

Fun speakers though for sure. Tim
 
Yeah, I confirmed with John S at Ohm about the surrounds. Oddly when I asked him about the 2xo surrounds, he said they were "maintenance free" also. He kind of uses odd terminology regarding repairs and upgrades. So I don't know if that means nothing "user repairable" inside the magic cans, or if those surrounds are treated cloth. I think it would be fun to try to construct a "Walsh" type speaker with super high quality components, like Revelator woofers. From what I've seen, the woofer in the Walsh 2 looks like an average quality driver. It just amazes me about the quality of sound he squeezed out of it. Someone claimed the tweeter to be made my MB Quart. I wonder if the woofers were off the shelf or custom made.


Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
 
TimF said:
14G, I did the upgrade roughly 4-5 years ago, cannot recall but I was one of the first to get a pair of the 2000 series on an older OW2 cabinet. I thought the upgrade did provide a smoother treble response and also improvements in the midrange, bass maybe slightly more extended. It was more a decent step up but nothing in the "Oh my God" territory. It is a good bit of money, and you need to really weigh that one out if it would be worth the additional money. I still think some of the original drivers if properly maintained and all is well with them, do a fantastic job.

The OW2/Super 2000 as I think it was called at the time, was short lived for me as I moved up to a pair of 3XO cabinets with 3000 series drivers in them, as it really worked better in my listening space.

I love Ohms, have had them around in one model or another for quite a few years up until around 2012 when they went away for a pair of Larsen Model 4's and then last year a pair of Shahinian Obelisk 2's. These being all semi/omni-types of speakers which I truly love. Once you "get" the omni sound, it is hard to go another direction, at least it has been for me anyway. Not everyone's cup of tea for sure though. Enjoy them! Tim
Click to expand...

Yeah, $1400 for the upgrade is a big chunk of change for me. I'd be saving for quite a while, and if there is not quite an omg factor I'd probably be smarter to wait for a deal on a larger used pair. I'm satisfied for now.

Jon



Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
 
Jon, don't let my thoughts keep you from giving it a try, John is very good with his return policy, you have a good bit of time to try before you buy so to speak. It certainly isn't chump change though for the upgrades. Ohms are definately fun speakers to have, just be careful as you look at used, they can be a bit of a minefield, so try to get home demos or listen to them well before buying. Enjoy! Tim
 
14G-])utch^;7624949 said:
Yeah, I confirmed with John S at Ohm about the surrounds. Oddly when I asked him about the 2xo surrounds, he said they were "maintenance free" also. He kind of uses odd terminology regarding repairs and upgrades. So I don't know if that means nothing "user repairable" inside the magic cans, or if those surrounds are treated cloth. I think it would be fun to try to construct a "Walsh" type speaker with super high quality components, like Revelator woofers. From what I've seen, the woofer in the Walsh 2 looks like an average quality driver. It just amazes me about the quality of sound he squeezed out of it. Someone claimed the tweeter to be made my MB Quart. I wonder if the woofers were off the shelf or custom made.


Posted from Audiokarma.org App for Android
Click to expand...

Contrary to some folk's impressions, Ohm actually do use a proprietary driver. Though it looks like a generic cheap woofer, it's actually been massaged quite a bit. A Walsh driver doesn't act as much like a piston, as it does a transmission line, and the surround & particularly the spider are stiffer than usual. The idea being for vibrations to "ripple" down the cone, actually intentionally causing cone break up. Using a standard woofer, or worse, a "better" woofer, with longer throw, and stiffer cone, would upset the design, and almost certainly sound different, and most likely, much worse.

This is a bit of a contentious subject, and there are several folks here that will say they can make their own, or improve an Ohm by doing so, but I've played around with quite a few Walshes (owned Fs, SCs,1s,2s,3s,and 4s), and heard several such attempts, and I've yet to hear one that sounds better... and I'd wager none of them measure any where near as well either.
A Walsh speaker isn't just a box with a woofer facing down, if that were the case, my Revox Agora Bs, or old Audiopro subs would be Walsh speakers. There's a LOT more that goes into those cans than meets the eye.

I understand the reticence to pay for upgrades, or repairs, especially when they look so simple (once you crack open the can), but I believe John sells an excellent product, and considering their capabilities, that product is fairly priced. So, I tend to bristle a bit when I hear some say how they are "just cheap drivers in a can", and that the can is there only to keep you from knowing this. A particularly silly assertion, considering they have published several illustrations showing what's in the can.

The can serves a practical purpose, to keep customers from messing with them, and to hold the directional damping material where it's most affective. I suppose they could have used some cool looking frame to support that material, and dressed up the driver's frame, and made a spiffy little CNC'd bracket for the tweeter so they could leave the drivers exposed, but that would have raised costs considerably, and encouraged fools to "tweak" them. I think Ohm made good trade offs there, keeping the prices in line, and assuring consistency.
 
frommerstop said:
The can serves a practical purpose, to keep customers from messing with them, and to hold the directional damping material where it's most affective. I suppose they could have used some cool looking frame to support that material, and dressed up the driver's frame, and made a spiffy little CNC'd bracket for the tweeter so they could leave the drivers exposed, but that would have raised costs considerably, and encouraged fools to "tweak" them. I think Ohm made good trade offs there, keeping the prices in line, and assuring consistency.
Click to expand...

visions of Decware ERR's with the "spiffy" bracket...

(long time Walsh 2 owner here)
 
I too have pondered sending my 2's back to Brooklyn to be born again as SW2.2000's and may just do so this summer. Since I plan to keep them until I'm worm dirt, it only seems proper to make them live long and prosper.
 
I've been meaning to post something on the Ohm Walsh 2000 upgrade for some time. This thread gives me the chance. I've had the 2000s for about 8 months now after getting an excellent deal on them from John Strohbeen at Ohm, who has always been gracious and helpful.

I had the OW2s and XO2s before upgrading to the OW 2000s. In fact, I had to choose which I would trade in for the upgrade. In the end I chose to keep the 2s and trade in the 2XOs. They were a bit rolled off on the high end that deprived them of some of the lively vividness and a bit of accuracy. I didn't think that the XOs higher sensitivity and impedance rating affected the performance significantly in comparison with the original 2s. I didn't hear much "extra output" from them. Where the XOs excelled was their smooth and seamless frequency response. In comparison, with the original 2s I discerned a bit of a hole or suck out in the upper mids/lower treble, accentuated by their better high end extension. (However, these were over 25 years old, so YMMV.).

I can understand that people may differ as to which model they prefer, as these differences are very subtle. Both had very impressive bass extension and definition. Ohm seems to have made the most of that big cabinet. And of course their soundstaging was simply amazing. I ended up giving my original 2s to my father-in-law. He loves their enveloping sound and realistic accuracy on classical recordings. He says they best his Vandersteens in all around performance.

The OW 2000 upgrades (mounted on the original pyramidal cabinets) are wonderful and, I think, a substantial improvement over the 2s and 2XOs in almost all respects. Unlike some who've compared the 2s and 2XOs, I think the differences in sound materially improve on the weaker points of the original design while retaining and reinforcing its notable strengths.

I should note that my 2000s are working under awfully adverse circumstances. My room conditions are appalling. First, according to Ohm's guidelines, the 2000s are small for the size of the room (16x30x8), which is ostensibly better matched by the 3000s (which I cannot afford). Second, this large room has a 10' picture window without any sound damping drapes. Not optimal circumstances, but they're not going to change. My main listening position is about 10' from the speakers. My amp is a vintage Sansui, the Japanese market version of of the AU-819: 90wpc conservatively rated with lots of current, very fast and neutral, revealing and detailed, with a damping factor of 100. My sources are a Squeezebox Duet through a Musical Fidelity V-Dac (most of the time) and a Rotel CD player. (The Duet is clearly the weak link here, but not so bad as to impair appreciation of the rest of he system.)

The soundstage and "sweet sweep" are still extraordinary, the sound enveloping and engaging, and the 2000s continue the superb dynamics of the OW lineage. Percussion of all sorts sounds marvelous on these speakers. When coupled with their great bass performance, these superb dynamics allow the 2000s (and prior models) to handle all sorts of music well--they are not just good for classical and jazz, but also do justice to rock and blues, etc. without inducing fatigue.

I'd describe the Ohm "house sound" as more musical than analytical. The 2000s are neutral and accurate, with none of the artificiality of more analytical and more forward sounding speakers. When combined with the enveloping omni presentation, the sound is more akin to live performance than a dissection or laying bare of a recording. The wide "sweet sweep" or sweet zone also make these speakers for how people actually live. You can certainly benefit from sitting dead center and listening analytically, but with these you don't have to in order to enjoy excellent sound. Freedom from the head-in-vise listening position is liberating. I don't know why, but music seems to float throughout the house in a way that no conventional speaker I've heard can match.

That said, the two signal advances made by the 2000s are in reproduction of detail and better resolution at low volume. My greatest reservations about the earlier models were that they missed low level details (interestingly, without making them sound veiled), rather diffuse imaging, and the significant worsening of these problems at low volume. Yes, as often noted, Ohm Walshes respond well to power and perform better at higher volume. However, I find that the 2000s are much better at reproducing fine and subtle detail, and they do so much better at lower volume. They still like power and the sound still holds together and improves when played loud, but they now come closer to peak performance at modest listening levels (a good thing for familial harmony!). And the 2000s amply fill the large space with music.

Perhaps due to their better reproduction of fine detail, the 2000s also image more precisely and with greater stability. OWs are perhaps still not the speaker of choice for the imaging obsessed, but they generally do an excellent job of this while fixing the image within a massive soundstage. I've got Monitor Audio Silver 2s and Linn Tukans in other systems, both bookshelf models that are superb at imaging, and the OW 2000s are not quite as sharp and solid, but they come close--much closer than the earlier models, especially at reference listening levels.

Moreover, imaging and soundstaging is highly dependent on recording quality. Better recordings on the 2000s approach the sharp, pin point imaging of good conventional speakers. Likewise, on some better recordings the soundstage extends laterally off to the sides of the speakers while losing no spatial precision. Fortunately, poor and mediocre recordings also sound good on the 2000s (as they do on the earlier OW models). If you like a lot of older music, especially rock, r&b, soul, and pop prior to modern recording and production improvements, these speakers are for you. They are generous to poor recordings as they are revelatory on good ones.

In short, the 2000s delivered the improvements over the OW 2s and 2XOs that I most wanted to bring them near parity with the strengths of conventional speakers, while capitalizing on great strengths of the quasi-omni design. I'm delighted with them. They cured me of upgrade-itis (if only with respect to speakers).

P.S.: There is something admirable and commendable in a company that has spent decades refining a single design concept and the craft of making excellent gear (in the US no less!) that delivers excellent value. In an era of endless technological fad chasing and products of dubious value added, it's nice to see this sort of commitment and engineering-driven incremental improvement by a company that stands by its products--even ones decades old.
 
John, well put! I cannot find a thing I would add or take away from this. A very good summation! I am glad you are enjoying the Ohms and that you have found the upgrade to be a very wise move. Enjoy! Good to hear from you! Tim
 
Hey Tim! Good to hear from you too. Thanks for the backup. Glad your ears are still happy! Sure there isn't a set of MWTs out there for you? :yes:

@Frommerstop: You're absolutely correct. I remember the first time I peaked into the OW2 can with a flashlight and thought, "That's it?" But even the most cursory reading on the tech it embodies leads one to realize that that is no inverted Radioshack driver. I can't imagine what it took to synchronize the radiating sound waves at all frequencies (the requirement for a "coherent line source"), while also getting the bass extension and control--and at a comparatively reasonable price point. I'm no engineer, but I'd say that's pretty damned impressive.

I always wonder what a pair of OWs would sound like with an old Infinity omni tweeter in place of the Ohm's conventional tweeter. :scratch2: Anybody know of an attempt to do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom