Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2.

Manufacturer: Ohm Acoustics Corp., 241 Taaffe Pl., Brooklyn, NY 12205-4383; 718/ 783-1111

Price: $1,400/pr

Source: Manufacturer loan

Reviewer: Gregory Koster

My basic criterion for reviewing speakers is whether I would buy them for my own use, either in the main system in my living room or in the smaller system in my basement rec room. I don't go off the audiophile deep end for any single virtue ("Of course since these mini-monitors don't have any bass, the bassoon sounds like an oboe -- but the all-important imaging is so great that you can tell exactly where the bassoonist is located, and that she is sitting on a Samsonite folding chair ...") but I do expect full-range sound, natural timbres, good imaging, and the ability to play at live-music volumes.

Non-audiophiles, however, have a very different set of criteria. Whenever a friend who admires my system asks for advice, we usually move along nicely until we get to the speakers. They resist the idea that deep bass requires large cabinets and they absolutely reject the idea that the speakers, whether large or small, must be positioned in a way that recreates a stereo soundstage. One friend followed my advice to assemble a decent system around a Carver receiver (separates were ruled out), but the best I could do on speaker recommendations was to move her up from Bose to Boston Acoustics.

When I saw the way she had set the system up, however, I realized that I should have saved my breath: one speaker was in a corner, with a massive system cabinet to its side creating a closet-like alcove, while the other was way over on the side wall in an elongated L-shape. She loved the system, but I suspected that with a setup like that she would have done just as well with the Bose speakers.

The Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2 speakers are the perfect recommendation for a non-audiophile. I don't mean this to damn them with faint praise. They are not likely to satisfy an audiophile, but their virtues would immediately be apparent to my friend and their flexibility might ultimately encourage her to begin to see what audiophile sound can be.

The Walsh name may be familiar those who have followed this hobby for a while: the late Lincoln Walsh developed a unique driver approach in the early 1970s and Ohm introduced a Walsh-driver speaker with great fanfare. The concept was very clever, but apparently the theory was ahead of the curve of materials science. Instead of mounting the speaker cone on the front of the cabinet, pointed toward the listener, Walsh mounted the cone on the top, firing downward into the cabinet. The "back" surface of the cone thus becomes the primary radiating surface, and the sound radiates in a 360 degree pattern. The benefit of the Walsh approach is that the circular wave launch eliminates "off-axis" distortion: there is no primary axis, so positions to the sides of the speakers receive the same sound as the front.

But this approach raises three obvious problems: the cone must create a uniform wave launch across its vertical dimension, despite its angled shape and the tendency of materials to flex; the acoustic energy radiating from the back and sides of the speakers will create relatively large secondary reflections that may interfere with the stereo image; and a single driver can't reproduce the entire frequency spectrum with even frequency response and low distortion.

The Ohm company has spent the last two decades working on these problems, and their current line of Walsh speakers claims to solve them all. The Walsh driver cone is made from a material "in which sound travels faster than it does in air (supersonic)." They claim that with this material, and with the correct cone angle, "the driver generates a vertical wavefront that radiates sound equally in all directions, like an expanding drum." The net effect is a sound source that appears to be a one-inch diameter cylinder about 6 inches tall. Secondary reflections are reduced by positioning a block of Tufflex behind the cone driver to absorb the high frequencies in one quadrant of the sound wave. If the speakers are oriented so that the Tufflex is at the back they have a rear pattern similar to a normal cabinet-mounted driver. The side quadrants remain unblocked to retain the wide dispersion that is the Walsh hallmark. Alternatively, if it isn't possible to position the speakers well away from side walls, they can be turned sideways so the Tufflex block is on the outside quadrant. Finally, the Walsh cone is supplemented by a direct-firing supertweeter that assures that the highest frequencies will be directional enough to avoid rear reflections altogether.

I understand why it is undesirable to use the Walsh driver at these frequencies, but the documentation is silent on the features of this supertweeter that would enable it to avoid the common high-frequency driver beaminess and mesh with the Walsh driver's wide-dispersion sound, and on how it can work at all in the alternative, side-firing speaker orientation. The claimed benefit of this design is a sweet spot for stereo imaging that is fully as wide as the speaker placement. If true, this would be great news for audiophiles and duffers alike. My fear was that the wideness of the spot would prove to come at the expense of its sweetness (i.e., the imaging would be uniform but mediocre). My findings, though decidedly mixed, were not at all what I had expected.

Critical Listening: As noted above, Ohm suggests positioning the speakers either with the supertweeter pointing forward (and the Tufflex block at the rear), or with the tweeters pointing in (and the blocks on the outsides). In either approach the wide dispersion of the speakers makes it especially important to place the speakers ahead of any objects in between (such as a TV set in a home theater). They also suggest that the front wall be reflective and dispersive, not absorptive, and that the speakers be placed not more than two feet away from the front wall. Finally, they suggest that in most cases the ideal placement will be along the long wall, at different distances from the side walls (but at least two feet from the corners).

These are fairly flexible placement guidelines, and they fit the layout of my main listening room quite well. Speakers always go along the long wall, and there is enough space to allow a range of locations that put the acoustical center somewhere along the couch on the opposite wall. Experimentation proved that Ohm has it right with their suggestions: pulling the speakers out until they cleared the TV cabinet in the center improved imaging dramatically, and an asymmetrical placement eliminated a touch of bass boominess. The best position was 24 inches from the front wall, 7 feet from one side wall and 6 feet from the other, tweeters facing forward. I kept the grilles on at all times, because these speakers look so strange without them that I don't think anybody would listen that way.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Electronics for this test were the Sony 608ESD CD player, Legacy High Current Preamplifier, and Parasound 2200 II power amp. Reference speakers were the Vandersteen 2Cs, placed in the same positions as the Ohms (which actually provided better sound than my usual, more decor-oriented, setup). This was a relevant comparison, since the current version of the Vandersteen sells for about the same price as the Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2 but uses a completely different design approach. I used my trusty Radio Shack sound pressure meter to set equal levels on pink noise, and proceeded with my standard repertory of CDs for the critical listening.

My notes from this first critical listening session continually mentioned a lack of high-frequency extension. When Ohm read that draft of the review they checked the test pair and discovered that the crossover included an incorrect part. They informed us that they had contacted all purchasers of that production run to retrofit the correct part, and offered to send another pair for retest. That's an exemplary customer service policy. But I hope the real customers received better service than I did, since a year went by before I got the second pair. The second pair had several bits of stray solder marring the finish, and during the course of this short retest several bubbles have developed in the veneer surface. This would surely be covered by the warranty, but my experience with these two pairs raises some serious quality control issues.

The following notes are from the second critical listening session, conducted under the same conditions as above with the revised pair of Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2 speakers:

Dvorak / Serenade / Schwarz (Delos 3011) Imaging was better than expected -- the orchestra spread evenly from speaker to speaker with good localization -- but the Ohms produced a very reverberant sound, making this Delos sound more like a Telarc. Lower mids were full enough to excite the room resonance; on the reference the bloom was minor and clearly defined at the bass pitch -- on the Ohms it was more noticeable and not pitch-related (like reverb added to the recording), so that it became the overall characteristic of the sound.

Rosemary Clooney & Woody Herman/ My Buddy (Concord 4226) The soundstage didn't feel as wide on the Ohms as on the reference, and except for the center position locations, weren't as well defined. The bass, which could be identified as electric (not acoustic) on the reference, could hardly be heard on the Ohms. The singer was positioned back in the orchestra and was not as prominent as on the reference. Overall this recording was darkened, with less bass impact and an overall soupy feeling.

Liszt/Mephisto Waltz/Nojima (Reference Recordings 25) This is a beautifully recorded Hamburg Steinway piano (not a Bosendorfer as I had been mistakenly identifying it), which presents a very clear soundstage: pianist at the left speaker (identified by fingernail clicks at various points), piano soundfield fairly well focused slightly to the left of center, hall decay brief but clearly evident. The Ohms produced a darkened piano sound with no clear image size. The piano lacked resonance and authority, and the sense of the hall was missing.

Canteloube/Chants d'Auvergne/Auger (Virgin 90714) The first pair of Ohms had sounded veiled and darkened on this recording. The new pair goes to the other extreme: the highs were more pronounced than on the reference, giving the orchestra a thin sound and making the voice sound harsher and edgier. The Ohms didn't emphasize the mic ringing on this recording, as many bright-sounding speakers do, but they gave the entire recording a digital edge.

Holst/Planets/Previn (EMI 47160) The bouncing bows at the beginning sounded mechanical, unlike the very natural effect on the reference. The long orchestral swell, which on the reference was a powerful elevator ride, seemed more like a series of steps. In their favor, the Ohms avoided the sense of compression at the FFF, but the tympani were missing and the sforzando lacked the authority of bass impact.

Prokofiev / Romeo & Juliet / Schwarz (Delos 3050) The opening of cut 8 showed a clear contrast on the reference between the lower choirs (tubas and violas?) and the lighter answering section (trombones and violins?), and the heavy brass attacks had a strong "blattiness." The Ohms darkened the lower choirs and showed little contrast at the next section; the brass attacks didn't have much impact. There was an overall feeling of a heavy veil.

Bach/Toccata & Fugue/Noehren (Delos 3503) The Ohms hid the hiss (or organ blower sound) in the quiet passages, didn't feel like they went quiet as low in the bass, and gave the recording a slightly lighter feeling (from more pronounced highs and less bass energy). The reference had a real "you-are-there" feeling, sitting fairly close to the organ in a small hall; the Ohms didn't produce that sense of "there-ness."

Bach/Toccata & Fugue/Guillou (Dorian 90134) This recording has a distant perspective with gobs of hall reverb. The reference again was "there," this time midway back in a large church. On the Ohms the reverb took on a life of its own and completely dominated the music.

Riu, Riu, Chiu/Nowell (Sampler 8606) This recording is all high frequencies and percussive impact. The Ohms sounded basically similar to the reference, but with even more high frequency tilt than usual.

LEDR and Depth Tests (Chesky JD37) "Soundstage"- I had expected the Ohms to do poorly on these tests if their omnidirectional character took away the localization cues that Chesky had expected. But the "extreme left" position, for which I was able to provide a clear speaker to side wall space, was clearly located at a position beyond the speaker. This is the best I have ever heard this effect. The extreme right position was vaguely localized, but there was some furniture on this side that probably caused unwanted reflections. Center, left speaker and right speaker positions were very good, but mid-left and mid-right were a little vague. "Up" didn't seem to have any focus for the first half of the left run, then went straight toward the ceiling before curving in a little on the last foot. The right-side run was better, resembling the reference. This seems reversed, given the "Soundstage" results, but it held true on repeated runs. "Over" had trouble leaving the speaker position, then produced a nice curve. Both directions showed this strange effect. "Lateral" also seemed to stick to the speaker, then jumped to near center and proceeded all right (again, in both directions).

"Depth," which had been poor on the first pair, was now similar to the reference, showing audible differences back to nine feet (the final jump to twelve feet is rarely audible in my room).

To be sure that I had given the Ohms every chance, I also did a check-test in the basement rec room. This room is smaller than the living room and has less-noticeable room modes. The overwhelming warmth and reverb that had marred the Ohms upstairs was not present here, but imaging at the sweet spot was still not as precise as I like. The soundstage, however, was indeed as wide as Ohm claims. Moving out of the sweet spot, with the speakers in the forward-firing orientation, produced no change in timbres and very little fall-off in imaging. As far out as the speaker position I still got the full L-R soundstage, with the same natural-sounding placement as a side seat in a concert hall. Away from the sweet spot, the Ohms produce far better imaging than other speakers. In the alternative, inward-firing orientation, imaging was really vague, but the forward-firing setup provides a really large listening area with acceptable imaging.

Conclusion: The Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2 achieves the broad sweet spot claimed for its unusual design (when positioned with the tweeters firing forward), and its sound is warm and extended enough to provide pleasant listening on all but the most demanding recordings. The sound is too colored for an audiophile recommendation, but they have enough strengths that I can recommend them strongly in certain circumstances.

Positioning both drivers on the top of the cabinet and the binding posts on the bottom creates a continuous veneer surface around the front, back and both sides. A short fabric tent sits on top of the cabinet hiding the drivers, but otherwise the overall impression is of a piece of fine furniture. The basic price offers a choice of walnut or light oak; a few hundred dollars more opens up the woodpile to offerings such as mahogany, ebony, rosewood, teak, cherry, and koa. I had pairs in both walnut (very handsome) and oak (which would have been quite nice except for the finish flaws noted above), but l would be tempted by the more exotic options. If your friends laugh at the Vandersteen double-knit sock, they will love the Ohm Walsh alternative.

The Ohm Walsh 100 Mk2 speakers aren't small (39" x 14" x 10"), but they are very attractive and the slight taper of the grille tents makes them seem smaller than they are. They fit well with a range of decor, and their overall appearance should be acceptable to almost everyone; they are certainly among the best looking speakers in their price range.

Another major benefit, with both sonic and decor advantages, is the vertical orientation of the main driver. This speaker's energy is flexing up and down, so there is no reason to worry about the cabinet moving back and forth. Spikes are therefore unnecessary, and the supplied carpet casters provide maximum convenience at no sonic cost. This is what I feel is the real advantage of the Ohm Walsh design over other non-audiophile speakers: the casters make it very easy to try out new positions. Even if your friends wouldn't consider keeping the speakers out in the room all the time, you may be able to suggest pulling them out for serious listening; and once your friends experience the difference that proper positioning makes, they may be ready to try the full audiophile treatment next time. -- GK