Ohm Walsh 2 Speaker Upgrade P3: Listen & Compare

In part one I told you about the history and design of the Walsh 2. And in part 2 I showed you how to install the upgrade kit offered by Ohm to turn a Walsh 2 into a Super Walsh 2.2000. Ohm promises that the upgrade kit will provide extended bass, higher, more defined treble and an ability to play louder. In this video, we’ll put those claims to the test.
#speakers #speakerreviews #electronicsrepair #stereo #stereorepair #speakerrepair

[@FluxCondenser]

Check out my other video about the first stereo cassette deck ever made! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnfPeGejZdqki9E

[@Skorpiosan]

Thanks for all the work you did. I had my Walsh 2s since the 80's and I still have them. I have thought about upgrading for a long time but after watching, I've decided not to upgrade. I don't have to have the fancy analyzers or equalizers to conclude that there's not much difference between the original and the upgraded one. In fact from what I heard in your comparison, I like the original one better. Thanks again. Saved me lots of money.

[@FluxCondenser]

Eduardo Tolentino, I think the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach is best with these speakers. I had fun installing the upgrade and it made for some good videos, but other than that, I wish I had kept mine original. Glad the videos helped and thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.

[@The911nut]

Thank you for these very informative videos. It helped me restore a pair of Walsh 2 I got from an original owner. I took them outside after removing the cans and blew out over 30 years of dust and cob webs with a leaf blower. I did have to repair one woofer as the bottom of the can was rattling and the cloth surround had lost all its coating. I added a dust cap and rubberized the surround with rubber cement. I left the bottom cover off as there is not purpose to it. All cleaned up and polished, these speakers sound great and have plenty of bass and treble sparkle. I will not "upgrade", seems like it may not even be an option with the passing of John Strohbeen. Thanks again, best source of information on these speakers.

[@ckarjala]

You are a saint for going through all of this. The measurements, the audio tracks with multiple speakers, the different rooms, I'm both grateful and impressed. Thank you.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thank you!

[@cdavidhord]

I'm always amazed by what you do, the time you take, and the detail you employ. It is always a pleasure to view your informative, educational video presentations.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thank you, Dave. Very much appreciate hearing that. Thanks for the support.

[@JollyGreenJ]

I have a pair of 3's that I was thinking about upgrading so I'm really glad you were able to put these videos together.

[@FluxCondenser]

Glad they helped. Take care.

[@ibleebinU]

The upgrade sounds better to me. Nicely done!

[@kofthebaskervilles]

I got my 2's in the mid 80's. I use them with a polk subwoofer and the combo is amazing. More than i deserve. Great video. I won't be upgrading.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for sharing!

[@inndeep7020]

I have walsh 2's and I love them. Thank you.

[@FluxCondenser]

My pleasure, Inn.

[@ER-rt9le]

Picked up a working pair of ohm Walsh 2 speakers today for 40.00 only missing the top speaker cloth grill. I binge watched all your excellent videos on them(WOW) and glad I watched them all for your conclusion on if it was worth the expense to upgrade. Now I know to be content with getting lucky at my finding these and I’ll restore as best I can. Thanks for all the hard work and I just subscribed to channel :)

[@FluxCondenser]

You are very welcome and good luck with the restoration.

[@sandroreis5593]

Great 3 part series. Subscribed.

[@abielpangga6314]

subbed for the effort you went for this. incredible video and series.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thank you, Abiel. Really appreciate that and welcome aboard!

[@BradHohle]

@fluxcondenser, Thanks for the detailed and illuminating videos concerning the Walsh 2 upgrade. I bought a pair of Walsh 2's in the early 80's and have used them continuously. I currently power them with a new version of a Dynaco ST120 tube amp (VTA) with tube pre and phono stages. I simply love to listen to my Walsh 2's day in and day out especially with some of the remastered/cut/pressed vinyl available now days. I have been contemplating the 2.2000 upgrade for some time now but have decided based on your findings to "not fix what's not broken". I've spent a lot of time in the movie industry tuning rooms with pink noise so I appreciate your time and effort but the comparisons were most interesting to me. I've never liked the B&W "shrillness" that people describe as accurate and I heard that in your comparisons. While I do like the additional low end of the W2.2000 upgrade, I too am sensitive to 250 Hz and given the 250 Hz bump, the expense and effort to upgrade have decided to leave the originals alone and continue enjoying them. Thanks again.

[@FluxCondenser]

I think that’s a good decision, CaliSuper. It’s interesting that you note your sensitivity to a 250 Hz bump as I agree, that’s the last place in the lower frequency range that I think an emphasis is pleasing. It’s also interesting that you find B&Ws shrill. I say that not because I don’t find that to be the case (that’s not important) but, because the original Walsh 2s are among the most “sparkly” sounding speakers I’ve heard. They’re very revealing in that department and I mostly enjoyed that, but at times, compared to my Fortes or B&Ws, it could be a bit overwhelming on some recordings. Just goes to show that we all really do hear things a bit differently and personal choice should be a big factor in speaker selection. Enjoy your Walsh 2s. Wish I never upgraded mine!

[@BradHohle]

@@FluxCondenser I think "strident" is a better term for the B&W's and they are great for mix QA etc but fatiguing to me for listening for pleasure. I checked my Walsh2's and they are close to the wall (by necessity) and set to "average" bass and treble switch positions as per listening tests. I've only noted too much "sizzle" in a few recordings. To clarify my worry about the bass bump besides the upgrade $$$ and PITA labor factor is that currently I run a Grado Prestige series cartridge with all tube pre's and amp with no tone controls whatsoever and I love the sound of all my well mixed/cut/pressed records as they are and don't want to mess that up and put an EQ loop in somewhere. I've EQ'ed mix rooms and screening rooms from 8 seats to Radio City Music Hall (6000 seats) and can appreciate what equalization and time alignment can do but I also appreciate when things fall into place how good things sound when no processing is needed. - Brad

[@FluxCondenser]

I agree. With good recordings, good equipment and a good listening room, EQ shouldn’t be required in a home setup. If it is, something’s wrong. I couldn’t live with the upgraded 2.2000s without the EQ running so they’re out of my system. Personally, I love the B&W sound and they are consistently among the best speakers I audition regardless of price. That goes for the vintage models as well as their newer offerings which I find to be spectacular. Again, to each their own! Great chatting with you. Take care.

[@georgemarch3933]

thank you for your review,,i have the 1st gen,,i brought them to the factory for repair about 15 years ago and they gave me new drivers with tweeters i guess..i was thinking about doing the up grade,even spoke to john ,but after seeing and listinging to your post,i said no way,in fact i played my speakers for the first time in 3 years and they sound so good filling up my room,,still look and sound modern...im getting a new amp, M 6 SI,and streaming devise and now im up to modern times,,,

[@jonk915]

Thanks for the review and my handed-down Walsh2 speakers will remain "stock". There is something up with them, I believe the coil may have become loose. I will consult with Ohm on repairs. Once again, excellent review(s) and safe travels abroad.

[@FluxCondenser]

Yeah, you may have the issue I had. The coils are glued in place and seem to become dislodged easily.

[@Mike82ARP]

Thanks for posting this. Subbed. It was a lot of work on your part. In my 50 year audio hobby I've owned/reviewed over 40 pairs of speakers. Three of those were Ohm products and as I look back, they were among my favorites. One thing that was not addressed were the original cabinets. Clearly, they are different than the current Walsh 2000 cabinets and I wonder of some of the boom you were hearing may be attributed to the old cabinet design. I say this because I have not experienced the boom of which you speak. The models I listened to were the MicroWalsh Tall, The Walsh 100 and the Walsh 2000.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks, Mike. Yes, I’ve often wondered the same. When speaking to Ohm they indicated that the difference in cabinets shouldn’t amount to much difference, but I’ve always had my doubts.

[@marcfruchtman9473]

Super impressed with your ability to record the output of the speakers which so closely matches the original mp3 while also clearly demonstrating the differences of each speaker set. Tho, I will admit, I didn't always notice differences for every speaker change.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thank you, Marc. It really was a fun experiment and I was happy with the results.

[@leekumiega9268]

Thank you for the whole series showing exactly what is involved with the upgrade , Your conclusion saved me $1400. as I now will keep my Walsh 2's original.I was thinking of a recap of the crossover but looks like I would have to remove the braces to get to them if the board can be removed through the top. The 2000's cabinet may of been designed to tame that bass boost but I would of thought that the highs would of been better and imaging the same or better not worse. Lastly I find it interesting that Ohm states and I concur that the originals work best 12 to 18 inches from the rear wall but you found 24 inches worked best.

[@FluxCondenser]

Glad to be of assistance, Lee. I think you’re making the right decision.

[@CaptainCrunch823]

Upgraded version sounds better to me. Thanks for the great video!

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for watching!

[@jeronunkoffunk9437]

Thank you thank you sir, I ve enjoyed and been thoroughly educated, as when I was about 19 or 20 back in 90s my dad had found me an old beat pair of ohm Walsh 2's from Salvation Army. I did enjoy them even more so than an old whipped pair of OHM Fs he'd found also. Unfortunately my cabinets started falling apart and I sold them off By the time I was 30 yrs old. I ve considered getting another pair and just maybe replacing existing caps and usual revamps. But thanx again for confirmation of what I'd kinda suspected! I ll most likely keep them original

[@FluxCondenser]

Jeron Unk of Funk Carter Glad to help, Jeron. I wish you luck finding a new par of Walsh 2s. I’m sure they’ll bring back a lot of great memories!

[@danashay]

Woof. Middling pair of 'phones, and a hearing problem here. Was very interested in checking out the ohms. Still will, but, you really set that back a little. Gonna keep my eye on you. By all means, carry on!

[@FluxCondenser]

Dana, I would definitely still look at Ohm. The Walsh 2s really did have a special quality before the upgrade. Worth an audition. Thanks for the clever comment. I’ve got my eye on you, too.

[@user-ed2oh9qc6h]

I took the top hats off my 2X0s. “Extra output” and They have the sound that is genuinely neutral signature as 2s and same paper cone material. Upper bass coloration or “lower uni tone” I hear like the 2.200s Much compared to the 2s, mine have a much more massive Very fine fr high tweeter motor assembly than I see on 2s, the highs are very, very fine, sharp and very sparkly with absolutely zero fatigue. It’s just sounds so perfect. Inverted Mylar dome in my pair. and the Walsh drivers 2X0 Magnet is quiet a bit larger than the original 2s and the bass is just crazy. Nearly 1inch wider in diameter motor magnet. I have owned many very expensive speakers. And i have to say these may Be my very last speakers I will ever buy. I also discovered the Walsh drivers where Filled with Ferrofluid in the VC. My pair also has no blocking material in the rear which I have not had issues with. Their was stickers on the speakers that also said the drivers have been upgraded and replaced. I called Ohm and they said they sometimes manufactured custom pairs to the taste of the customers. And a fully OMNI pair wit

[@dantruong1162]

Thank you for this long but great walkthrough/teardown, even the waxing. I might want to get new grills, they seem less ugly than the original metal or plastic frame ones: I was going to make my own. I own 7.

[@FluxCondenser]

Glad you enjoyed the series, Dan. Yes, Ohm’s replacement grilles are quite nice and an improvement over the originals. They are black, though, which changes the look quite a bit.

[@billd9667]

Now I know why few speakers measure up to my old KLH 6s, other than the Large Advents. They sound great for their age. While I’m sure that diffraction and dispersion are an issue with those compared to newer speakers, they kicked butt back in the day.

[@FluxCondenser]

Absolutely. They’re still very musical speakers. The midrange doesn’t really hold its own compared to more modern speakers, but the bass is very controlled and pleasant. The acoustic suspension design really works well.

[@65oh7]

For $1400 i would be a bit offended they didn't offer the upgrade labor as part of the deal. For the $30 to refoam my thrift store Advents and being an entirely defunct company, manual labor makes much more sense. For me, it all sounds like a pair of OLAs so adding the track straight in for comparison was very useful. The raw recording on my speakers was closest to that of the original 2s. Good content! I've been searching around for info and teardowns on Ohm Walshes just for a bit now (I can't afford, college loans, but window shopping is fun) and your series was really well timed.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for stopping by and glad you enjoyed the video. I’m guessing your OLAs sound very similar to my KLH Model 6s. Same heritage.

[@MichaelLivingston-me]

Amazingly, I hear the differences in your comparison. As far as the treble is concerned, I believe you're not hearing a loss in treble, rather it's the increased bass which alters the balance between low and high frequencies reproduced. This sort of sound balance shift becomes more noticeable when speakers are purposely designed to emphasize one or both ends of the audio spectrum. B&W is characteristically titled toward the high end. It's the sound signature they wish to set forth.

[@FluxCondenser]

In principle, I absolutely agree. However, practically speaking, the effect is the same as having a reduced high frequency response. At the same perceived volume level, a bass-boomy speaker will not be able to put as much high frequency information into the room as a less boomy speaker (the boomy bass contributes greatly to the perceived volume). One can turn up the volume to increase the high frequencies on the boomy speaker, but the overall volume will increase as well, including the boomy bass. Note that in the graph where I show the B&W 802 response superimposed over the Ohm Walsh 2.2000 response, those curves are not volume-level matched. I have no doubt that if an original Walsh 2 and one upgraded to Walsh 2.2000 were played in the same room AND matched for similar perceived volume levels, the high frequency output of the 2.2000s at that level would be less than the original Walsh 2s. I couldn’t do this comparison, as once I “upgraded” I no longer had the original 2s for comparison. In the sound recording comparisons I demonstrated in this video, though, I did make an effort to level-match. After reading your comment, I opened the project in Logic Pro to see if I could detect an actual (not just perceived) difference in high frequency output between the two speakers at the same volume level. Using the software’s spectrum analyzer, the original Walsh 2s show increased high frequency response at the same volume level compared to the upgraded version. That confirms another listening test of the recordings I also did where I could hear what the spectrum analyzer showed. The upgraded speakers have lost their sparkle. B&W speakers are tuned to be fairly neutral to my ears and I’ve never found them to be especially bright. They’re not mellow in that department, either, so I get your point. But overall I like the balance they strike. Of course, the models vary and changes have been made over the years, so we should be careful about generalizing too much about a brand’s “sound.”

[@audiorick841]

Very comprehensive, thank you for taking the time and sharing with us. I am about to pull the trigger on a Ohm 2000 set. Now I am wondering if the brand new 2000 series have the same main bass bump as you experienced. 🤔

[@FluxCondenser]

Eric, I believe the 2000s use the same drivers as the upgrade for the Walsh 2 so there may be some emphasis there. Then again, it’s a different cabinet which may end up being better suited to the drivers. I’d be curious to hear about your results so please report back. Also, as I said in the video some people like that upper bass emphasis, but I want to believe it’s not quite as exaggerated as what I found with their newer speakers and indeed, the original Walsh 2 were pretty neutral. Good luck and thanks for the comment.

[@audiorick841]

Flux Condenser Thank you your trusted advice. If I pull the trigger and exchange them against my Tekton Double Impacts. I will let you know how they sound 👍🏻

[@astrocomical7159]

The first OHMS sound much better than the upgraded one and I agree with you. The Klispch surprised me and sounded nasally.

[@nyguya4865]

Enjoyed the series. Did you try to adjust the toe-in? Usually, 60 deg (equilateral triangle) is preferred over the 45 deg you did in Part 2. If it improves, you can rotate the tops to keep the cabinet square.

[@jkjome4095]

This three part series was educational and very well put together. Thank you. I own a pair of original Fortes and am considering purchasing a pair of Walsh 2s to keep all original. In your opinion, which do you prefer and why?

[@FluxCondenser]

That’s a tough one, but here are my impressions (and keep in mind this is based on my recollection of the Walsh 2s before I “upgraded” them. I recommend the Walsh 2s, but not the upgrade). When I first received the Ohm Walsh 2s I had been listening mostly to my Forte’s in that particular room. I’ve owned the Forte’s since 1986, so I’m very familiar with their sound. In comparison, the Walsh 2’s had a nice “sparkly” quality to them (high frequency cymbals, etc. were portrayed beautifully) and I liked their vocal presentation which seemed more lifelike and less fatiguing than the Forte’s. Additionally, the Walsh 2’s imaging properties seemed less “unboxed” in that you didn’t need to be close to the middle of the room for the full stereo effect. The Walsh 2s couldn’t however, match the Forte’s for dynamics and the ability to fill the somewhat large room with loud volume. The Forte’s are just much better in that department. They can make a drum kit almost sound like it’s really in the room and the Walsh 2s aren’t nearly as convincing. The Forte’s bass was more extended and convincing as well. When switching instantly between the Fortes and the Walsh 2, the Walsh 2s sounded lifeless. This was largely due to the fact that the Fortes are more efficient and play louder with the same amp power. Doing more level-matched comparisons still revealed that the Walsh 2s provide less impact. People say the older Klipsch speakers are great for rock and it’s easy to see why. So, the Walsh 2s won for more natural vocals, high frequency delicacy and more airy imaging. The Forte’s won for bass, loudness and dynamics. Two very different speakers and having the choice between both in a room would be a smart call in my opinion. You’ll have a lot of fun comparing them and each will provide something the other can’t.

[@jkjome4095]

@@FluxCondenser Wow. I am very grateful for your wonderful and detailed reply. You mentioned the fatiguing characteristic of your Fortes. My '87 Fortes had this issue when I got them a couple years back... even with tube amplification. I ended up replacing the crossover's capacitors using the Crites Crossover Repair Kit (the only modification I recommend for Fortes) and it did some wonderful things. The listening fatigue went away. The highs and mids were now smooth. Also, I got more bass output which seemed to be more controlled and punchier. I'm curious if you've replaced your capacitors to return your Fortes to factory spec?

[@FluxCondenser]

I generally keep my vintage equipment as original as possible as the goal is to hear them the way they originally sounded. I haven’t tested the components in the crossovers of my Fortes lately, but most likely will at some point in the coming year or two. If necessary, I’ll use the same values as the originals for replacement without modifications. I’ve found the slight vocal harshness in the original Fortes is a consequence of the design of the horn. Klipsch made improvements in subsequent versions with the Tractrix horn design introduced in 1989. The Tractrix specifically addresses the “honikiness” issue.

[@hardknock1278]

I have 4 pairs of 2XO, and a 3.. love them..

[@FluxCondenser]

Nice, you’re quite the Ohm collector!

[@braxtkj]

I believe you have to play with toe in toe out or use room correction to get the highs back. Thanks for going above and beyond to showcase the Ohms. Also try pulling the Ohms 3'or 4' from the front wall or maybe in the middle of the room. You sacrifice bass but you will achieve a marvelous image height like 6' speakers maggies etc. This is all i learned from reading forums.

[@braxtkj]

Also if you have the Ohms on a second floor with plywood underneath instead of concrete you need Auralex Acoustics SubDude-II to tighten the bass.

[@braxtkj]

i see you found a way to tame the bass on the second floor most people wouldn't go inside the cabinet but i like what you did. ill recommend your video for people think about buying.

[@mikedupuis9723]

Cool. I've looked at those speakers before.

[@randallmilton]

Fantastic series. About to refurb my 4XO’s. Both pairs of Ohms were head and shoulders above the other speakers in the listening test (especially the Fortes.. yikes!)

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks, Randall. Good luck on the refurb of your 4XOs. I’ve never had an opportunity to audition them.

[@dcfincher]

The upgraded 2.2000s have a thicker, muddier sound. I prefer the sound of the originals.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for your input. I agree.

[@CybershamanX]

I'm curious what position you left the switch on the inside of the cabinet at. Default/center? :)

[@FluxCondenser]

I kept everything in the center default position.

[@monkey401]

Thank you for putting this video together. It's pretty clear you've put a lot of thought and work into producing it. From owning two pairs of Walsh 2's (keeping my second pair), your recording of the 2's reflects what I'm hearing from my Walsh 2's. My thoughts with the 2 vs 2000 driver is that overall they sound more similar than different. The sound signature is still there. To my ears, the 2000's have fixed what I believe to be the 2's weakness. I'm referring to that tad bit harsh/unrefined sound in the 2's upper mids to high registry. I don't hear this in the 2000's. Another area I think the 2000 has improved over the 2 is that it does sound more natural and realistic (at least from your recording). Is the $1400 upgrade worth it? I'm not sure, but the law of diminishing returns certainly applies in this case - it's certainly not exponentially better. It is interesting to note that I also own a pair of vintage Ohm FRS-15 (larger driver and a few generations newer than the Walsh 2). To my ears, the FRS-15 and 2000 sounds a lot closer to each other than the Walsh 2. You mentioned that the 2000 has lost some of the 3D sound imaging compared to the Walsh 2. When comparing my FRS-15 to the 2, I also notice the same thing. The FRS-15 3D imaging is there, but it isn't as apparent nor does it jump out as much. I originally thought it was the size of the driver speaker (smaller speakers tend to image better) but since you report the same experience with the 2000 driver, it’s possible that that slight harsh/edgy sound of the 2's may potentially help create that imaging effect? I've talked to John Strohbeen on the phone a couple of times and he thinks the 2000 image better and more precise than the 2. But your experience seems to suggest otherwise. Either way, the original 2 holds its ground in many respects. When I talked to John, he said the 2’s are one of their best built speakers because they didn’t anticipate a future upgrade and built it to last. That explained the a pain in breaking out the bottom part of the speaker. One last important note to share: Ohm Walsh are inefficient speakers and amp wattage does matter to optimize its performance. From trying a Denon X2200 AVR (95 watts), Outlaw Audio RR2150 (110 measured watts), and Peachtree Audio 220SE (220 watts), the Peachtree made the FRS-15 sing (I didn’t have the Walsh 2 at that time to compare). WOW. The highs, mids and lows were more dynamic, crisp, and punchy. The 3d effect was really spectacular. It was an entirely new speaker and experience. I also didn’t have the Outlaw at the time of the Peachtree, but it was a night and day difference between Peachtree and Denon AVR. I’m curious as to what amp you used with both tests and whether you’ve tried other amps of different wattage or quality with the 2.2000?

[@FluxCondenser]

Daniel, I read with great interest your comment. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I said in the video, I do feel that the reduced high-end on the 2.2000s robs them of the airiness and unique imaging qualities of the originals. I doubt lack of power is the problem as the speakers are boomy even when only drinking up 10-20 watts. The Ohms aren’t especially efficient, but I wouldn’t say they’re especially inefficient, either. I have the ability to instantly switch between all my speakers, and the Ohms are very close in sensitivity to the B&Ws and KLHs. The Klipsch’s, obviously are much more efficient and play considerably louder with the same settings. Note that all the recordings were level-adjusted to compensate for differences in efficiency. The amps used are the following: Big Room: Proceed Amp2 (150 watts/ch), McIntosh MC2105 (105 watts/ch), Dynaco ST70 (35 watts/ch). Small Room: Denon Receiver (60 watts/ch).

[@monkey401]

I do agree that using a different amp wouldn’t make any difference if the goal was to compare the old to new driver. Glad you found my comments interesting.

[@TheKoltrane]

​@@FluxCondenser What is your source/preamp? From my experience, Walsh's are kind of picky. The amp is really important too but a good amp is only as good as the components upstream from it and that is especially true with Walshs. Listening to your sound clips, they sounded a lot more "soggy" then the other speakers. That is somewhat due to the lack of treble but I would argue it has more to do with the equipment you use. Also you're reference speakers, the Klipsh's and B&W's both naturally have boosted treble. The Original Walsh 2s can sound that way if you put the treble control to "High". When you mix speakers that have a forward presentation with warmer, possibly rolled off, vintage gear, you get something that might resemble neutral, when in reality its just gear thats compensating for each other. My theory is that you have some kind of voltage issue. Either your source isn't quality enough or its your preamp. I think of it like this, its just a math problem. Voltage * Current = Wattage. Some speakers use tricks to mask inefficiencies in that equation (boosted treble, like in your reference speakers) where as Ohm Walshs tell you exactly what's happening. If one of those metrics aren't up to snuff you will hear it. I feel like both your issues could be fixed by looking into this. The transient nature of treble and the quantities of precise power needed in the 250hz range could give evidence of something wrong upstream if those are suffering. The Ohms might honestly just be better speakers then your equipment and they simply show a more accurate representation of what you're actually listening to. These speakers, new, are $2800. And they are just that, modern, state of the art speakers, so if you put a bunch of decent vintage gear behind them, you're not going to get something that's all to impressive. They have a really high ceiling on their ability to improve with better quality gear, but with that level or resolution, it can sound really poor when the electronics are lesser. I would do research and get quality modern gear, and a resolving lively source then I am sure you will have much better results. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to be combative or offensive. I just hope that this can maybe serve as a differing perspective for you to bounce off of your own. I am looking forward to hearing this story unfold and wish you happy listening! I would love to heard your thoughts on this perspective of mine. Let me know how crazy I really am ;)

[@FluxCondenser]

These were tested with very good amps, and source components, newer and vintage. Everything from McIntosh, Lexicon, Proceed, Nakamichi, etc. Hi-Res digital, CD, reel to reel, well recorded cassettes and streaming. A total of three preamp/amp combinations were used and in the smaller room, a Denon receiver which produces a clean 65 watts/channel. Note that the Proceed AMP2 I used for most listening is a very well-regarded Mark Levinson dual-mono design providing 150 watts/channel. The preamp used most was the also well-regarded Proceed PAV. My other speakers (and the original Walsh 2s) simply are not plagued with a boomy 250-500 hertz peak. It’s as simple as that, and not due to a source component or amp somehow making these speakers and only these speakers have an emphasis in that region. If you follow my channel you know that I repair and restore audio equipment and certainly understand how the electronics in these devices work and affect sound. Simply stating that “better” components must be used is not useful unless you can point to exactly how a source component or amp is going to give one speaker a bass boost while not giving it to the ten plus other pairs of speakers I own. And although newer, solid-state equipment was mostly used to audition these speakers, I take issue with the suggestion that my vintage equipment is somehow lacking or overly warm. I’ve serviced, and tested (and even built in the case of my Dynaco collection) most of my vintage equipment and they all measure flat when they leave my bench, whether solid state or tube equipment. That vintage “warm” sound is really overstated when everything is working correctly it certainly won’t create an unpleasant upper bass peak that the upgraded Ohms produce. You say it’s a “math” problem. What is the math that you’re using to support your thinking? You mention voltage x current = watts. A lack of wattage isn’t going to create an upper bass peak for one, and secondly, these were mostly driven with an amp that easily produces 150 watts per channel into 8 ohms, more with 6 ohms, and can provide peak wattage in excess of 250 watts. You also mention a “voltage” issue. What exactly do you mean? Again, as someone who services this stuff, a “voltage issue” doesn’t manifest itself as a bump in upper bass on just one particular speaker model. I also disagree that these are modern, state-of-the-art speakers. If you’ve seen my previous videos in this series, you’ll know that the design is very much from 1982 and the only change is the woofer, tweeter and crossover and there’s nothing state-of-the-art about the components. An upside-down 8” woofer with a soft dome tweeter glued to its back. There’s no DSP, no radical crossover using exotic components, the orientation of the drivers is the same as the originals. Ohm is a tiny company hand-building speakers in Brooklyn. There is no cutting-edge R&D department with endless money and resources. Their speakers have used the same basic design for about 40 years. I’m not knocking them, but state-of-the-art, these are not. Their expense is largely due to the hand-made nature of the speakers and the fact that their unique design limits them to a niche market. Ohm is far from perfect and in the second video, I discussed how Ohm actually sent me dented cans the first time around. When done well, their speakers can produce good sound with unique and pleasant imaging. This upgrade, though, is an attempt on their part to use a newer drive unit (designed to work with their very different newer style cabinets) with an older cabinet design. Is it any wonder things didn’t work out? Additionally, these are not particularly inefficient speakers (about average) and their 6 ohm nominal load is not difficult to drive. Also, the testing did not report any “tricks” being used in the Klipsch or B&W speakers as far as high frequencies. The issue isn’t a lack of high frequencies with the upgraded Ohms (though they are less bright than the original Walsh 2s which affects their imaging). The midrange is fine. The very low bass extension is especially good for a speaker of its size (in a small room). The problem is that all of those good qualities are overwhelmed by a peak in the upper bass that I find particularly unpleasant. Another disadvantage they possess is that the diminutive 8” driver with a not-especially large magnet/voice coil can only move so much air, so naturally, they’re less dynamic and able to create a lifelike experience in a larger room. Still, though, I found that even my tiny Sonus Faber speakers provided a much more neutral, pleasant sound to my ears than the Super Walsh’s. You or others are free to disagree, and that’s why I made strides in the video to encourage people to make their own decisions. Blaming the other components when the sound signature of these speakers is clearly their own though is, in my opinion, misguided.

[@TheKoltrane]

@@FluxCondenser I guess my heart is just hurt a little by this review. I have a pair of Ohm Walsh 2s that I have been dreaming of getting upgraded and I feel the need to fight the person who is destroying that dream :P What you said about a new speaker, tuned for a different cabinet, not sounding ideal in a vintage cabinet makes sense. I just don't get why your review is so different then other reviews I have heard. I also wish would would have went a little more in depth as to why you theorize these speakers are having the issues. You seemed to just dwell on that bump without trying to come up with some understanding as to why they sound that way, making it seem like it was just inherent with the speakers instead of a consequence of using a cabinet designed for a different speaker. I really think that you should talk to Ohm about getting a customized diver. It would be interesting to hear if they can create something better suited for that cabinet. I know Ohm doesn't really have much in the was of R&D (They told me they don't even have a dedicated listening room) so I doubt they will put much thought into it unless people show interest/work with them. It would just be nice for this to actually have a happy ending (which you were deceptive about in your review, since you really don't seem happy with them). So if you work with them and give them feedback on how to best optimize these drivers for the cabinets (which seem very well built, maybe you feel different?) then people like me who want to update my own pair of Walsh 2's, might have a more enjoyable experience. At this point this is becoming another crazy person's ramble, but I don't think it would be that bad of a deal for them to makes some kind of 2.1500ish driver for people who want to upgrade to the most optimized experience for the vintage cabinets. I'm sure it would increase confidence in the people wanting to take the leap and lead to more sales without having to produce as many cabinets. I just really appreciate Ohm for the company they are. Obviously your experience hasn't been the greatest (damaged cans and such) but they have definitely been willing to work with you and go out of their way to give you the best product they can produce. Now I guess, ultimately that product might not be to your liking, but you will never know unless you give them another chance.

[@P3HD]

In your placement it appears they were always straight forward. Did you ever spin them off axis as is mentioned in the document? "If you want more treble, rotate the speakers outward. If you want less treble, rotate the speakers inward". I wonder if that would have given back a bit more sparkle.

[@FluxCondenser]

Hi, Dan. In the straightforward position, the tweeters are aligned inward at 45 degrees. Rotating them outward puts the tweeters facing directly forward. I experimented with them in many positions in the room, but can’t recall if I toed them outward to have the tweeters facing frontward. As I listened to the speakers often with the tweeters facing directly toward me (and getting right up to them) I’m not certain anything could be gained by rotating them outward. In the same position as the original Walsh 2s, the upgraded speakers were noticeably less “sparkly.”

[@P3HD]

@@FluxCondenser , I could hear the difference. I am having some custom built right now by the guys at Ohm. I am going to inquire if the tweeters are maybe rolling off a bit. I saw that also on spectrum analyzer. My ears arent what they used to be and I do prefer a bit more "sparkle" as you put it. I am also equalizing the room a bit with a good old ADC-SS33. Bought an Audio Control from ebay and it was DOA.

[@FluxCondenser]

@@P3HD Let us know how it works out.

[@twenty4seven368]

Ive had a pair of original 2’s and 2.2000 for over a few months. I’ve compared both side to side and here’s my thoughts. The 2’s do sound more neutral but also less dynamic, airy, detailed, and sharp. The 2’s are also slower sounding. I do agree that the 2.2000 has a mid bass and treble bump as shown in your measurements. In my experience 2.2000 has better sparkle and evoke more emotion. In the end all speakers are compromises.The 2.2000 is better, but for certain songs like this one, the mid bass can be too much. It does help to have a receiver with equalizer for some songs. However for 80-90% of the songs I listen to, it’s not a problem. Its tuned perfectly. I kept the 2.2000 because it is the better speaker.

[@FluxCondenser]

Interesting observations, twenty4seven, thanks for sharing. I’m so glad to hear that you’re enjoying your 2.2000s. I really wanted to stress in this series, that ultimately, it comes down to personal taste. I prefer the original 2s, but what I prefer shouldn’t really matter to anyone else. Happy listening!

[@zeprls]

I have a pair of Bose 10.2 series 2’s that go after the same type of effect that the Ohms do and they are spectacular. Set up properly and with only a 35 watt tube amp they are tough to beat. If you can find a pair, I’d love to see a comparison.

[@FluxCondenser]

Great observation. The Bose 10.2s not only look somewhat similar to the Walsh 2s, but as you say, are designed to create the same “stereo everywhere” effect. I’ve never owned Bose speakers (I have been editing my videos with an old pair of Bose headphones lately, though), but from what I’ve heard they often get a bad rap. I’ve heard Bose systems that sounded remarkably good for their size and I actually just recommended a satellite/sub Bose system to a friend as I thought it would be ideal for his situation. He loves it. I’ll consider purchasing a pair of 10.2s for evaluation, thanks.

[@zeprls]

@@FluxCondenser I have a few systems set up throughout my house and in this particular location it was going to be a set of Forte’ 2’s but they where not ideal location and sounded very thin. The 10.2’s blew me away. Series 2 is the way to go if you can find them. They are one of the best Bose ever made and I’m a Klipsch guy.

[@FluxCondenser]

Ha! And I’m a Klipsch guy that’s becoming a B&W guy! Thanks for your input, good stuff.

[@robertfrancois6064]

My car has a Bose system and it sucks

[@jonuiuc]

Ahh darn, seems like bad luck that the one section that you are sensitive to is the one place it's tipped up. I actually like a bit of boost in upper bass as it sounds wimpy to me without it, but I am sensitive to stuff above 11k so almost always try to attenuate there, so I feel your pain.

[@abielpangga6314]

for the 5 speaker comparison, I definitely found the new ohm Walsh to sound the best. I don't know if this is just this particular track to support overly boosted midrange sounding speakers and because its mainly a piano, the midrange will help that piano sound more "realistic". the new ohm walsh has the fullest sound out of all, the old ones i have no opinion cause i don't know what to say about it, the klipsch sounds a bit "boxy"?, the b&w sound super good at first but the more i listen to it, the more i just feel the pianos sound realistic because of a very boosted midrange. the klh sounds like it is covered.

[@abielpangga6314]

i think if someone is happy with the old walsh sound, buy a sub to make the speaker sound well rounded.

[@mikedunn7156]

The klipsch sounded worse of all on my phone through my car stereo. On the klipsch there was an audible dropout of certain frequencies that made the piano sound totally incomplete.a frequency range was totally missing.

[@bruceschermer1041]

Does anyone have the original drivers left over from this conversion? I have a bad driver and need to replace it. I am unwilling to buy the upgrade. Will pay something reasonable. thanks

[@FluxCondenser]

Have you reached out to Ohm to see if they can provide you with the suitable driver?

[@bconthetrack7178]

I love the sound of the ohm Walsh 2 better!

[@FluxCondenser]

Yeah, it’s pretty great as-is.

[@JollyGreenJ]

Ohm says the replacement grills are perforated metal but that doesn't appear to be the case?

[@FluxCondenser]

The frame for the new grilles is indeed made from perforated metal and it’s quite well done and sturdy. The frame is covered with cloth on the outside. Hope this helps.

[@monkey401]

Having a walsh 2 , i just picked up a 2.2000 and have been listening to both for a week now. The 2000 driver is definitely an improved version of the 2. I guess my ears aren’t sensitive to the mid bass bump because I don’t notice it. I made a recording to compare both last night but due to copyright issues, I’m not sure if I can put it up.

[@FluxCondenser]

I’m glad you’re enjoying the 2.2000. As I said in the video, just because I don’t prefer the “bass bump” that doesn’t mean that others would not. Also, are your 2.2000s upgraded Walsh 2s or are they actual model 2.2000s? I believe the cabinet of the 2.2000s is different from the Walsh 2s and that may account for a difference in sound between them. On KZbin you can almost always use copyrighted music on your channel, and KZbin will simply demonetize the video. The video will stay up, but you won’t be able to receive advertising revenue from it.

[@monkey401]

@@FluxCondenser the top opening are made for the 2000 driver as it fits perfectly. I did take a peek inside the 2.2000 and the wood bracing looks similar, with the exception to the tube that is attached to the bottom port hole.

[@FluxCondenser]

@@monkey401 I see, are both speakers the dimensions with equivalent internal volume?

[@monkey401]

@@FluxCondenser yes same dimensions

[@monkey401]

Perhaps I’ll put up the comparison video one of these days to see if you also notice the mid bass bump on the 2.2000s.

[@factrefute4427]

DO YOU STILL HAVE THE OLD CROSSOVER I LIKE TO BUY EM FROM YOU?

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for the interest, but I’ll be keeping those.

[@flashbizz6110]

How much would a mint ohm 2 cost today? Thanks

[@FluxCondenser]

Not sure. Check eBay.

[@flashbizz6110]

@@FluxCondenser thank you

[@davij2727]

I like the original speaker setup. I feel they just need a separate small base sub.

[@MichaelLivingston-me]

The Walsh is an unusual looking speaker. Not sure they do anything for me. Maybe if I heard them in person I would be impressed.

[@FluxCondenser]

I think with the right setup they’re definitely worth a listen if you get the opportunity.

[@jjackson4827]

I'm going to disagree with the reviewer here regarding the upgrade. I did the upgrade which took about an hour to complete. It wasn't difficult unless you are challenged with screwdrivers or cordless drills, and I wanted to follow the instructions to the letter. The sound profile that I notice is a fuller deeper sound. The highs are a bit smoother not so bright and there seems to be more mid-range if that is possible. I'm sure mine were due for some version of an upgrade given their age anyway. I would say if your Walsh 2's make you happy, skip the upgrade. If not, $1450 for the 2000.2 Super Walsh is half the price of the Walsh 2000 Tall Speakers. In comparing the Walshs to other speakers that I have, I find them to be different more open, not necessarily better or worse.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for sharing your experience with the upgrade.

[@bruceferrara3917]

To my ears..I hear a more balanced and open sounding speaker in the upgraded Walshes. They also put the piano where it should be in the recording, relaxed but ful and detailed. The originals are definitely worn out sounding and closed in. The B&Ws are too forward and unnatural sounding,,,would be exhausting after a bit, sounded a little cartoony. The Klipsch sounded a bit unbalanced...a bit bright and the body of the piano was a bit scooped. The Walsh 2000s sound the most refined and aiming toward what I imagine high end wants to achieve

[@dmptcb]

I think I’ll keep my magnepan 2.7 paired with Peachtree 300 Maggie’s have more open sound and very accurate sound and I have a sub but don’t need it

[@FluxCondenser]

How does that relate to this Ohm Walsh 2 video?

[@New-tu3mn]

The original design seems to have slightly more presence. Otherwise, sound very similar over Apple ear buds.

[@stephenhall3515]

Definitely the original W2 is closer to natural sound. While not stupidly overpriced I think the basic price with delivery should be lower.

[@materferguson]

I think the 2.2000 makes the piano sound more realistic.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for sharing your input.

[@zhodge0]

I'm just going to repair my ohm 4's they sound great before the bass distorted and it will cost less than a grand.

[@FluxCondenser]

Good luck, Douglas. Let us know how it works out.

[@louishamilton9648]

Upgrades sound more focused to me....

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for your input, Louis.

[@SUde-vd1qo]

I have to say I prefer the original Walsh2 - the upgrade was overly romanticized just meh... great series!

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks for your input. Glad you enjoyed the series, take care!

[@erics9754]

I liked the old ones better.

[@ernieschatz3783]

Thparkle!

[@dmunz7015]

Nothing a good EQ couldn't fix.

[@FluxCondenser]

In the video I did attempt to fix the issue with an equalizer. It helped, but did not cure.

[@FluxCondenser]

In the video I use a graphic equalizer.

[@FluxCondenser]

Thanks, Ultamit. Yes, I’m familiar with parametric EQs which are certainly more precise than the very basic graphic EQ I used. I don’t have a lot of experience with them other than plugins for Logic Pro software. A parametric EQ could possibly tame the offending bump of the Walsh 2s, but it’s a fairly wide set of frequencies that are overly pronounced. Either way, I prefer not to use EQ to correct for speakers as I have too many that sound wonderful without the need for such measures. If I had truly problematic listening rooms that couldn’t be corrected with absorbers/diffusers, though, I think a parametric EQ wouldn’t be a bad idea. Of course, this holds only for my vintage audio equipment setups. Many newer multi-channel processors include very sophisticated automated room EQ correction and even my older Lexicon MC-12 “computer-corrects” for the bass EQ.

[@mikedunn7156]

Did no one get the memo. The ohm Walsh are supposed to be 18 inches or less from the back wall. They are designed to use wall reflections, even almost no treatment on your walls, even in front of window yes windows might be best. I don’t know about the 250 hs base boom but thes speakers are not like other speakers and go against the traditional science of speaker placement and sound deadening wall treatments and pulling them 2 or 3 feet from the wall. If you do these things you will destroy the sound of the speaker. That’s your main problem.

[@edwinedwards6796]

My ears would be more satisfied with Walsh 2

[@peskykrogan6145]

Well the Klipsch and the KLH-6 have to go the B&W are good but the OHM 2.200 yer are better.

[@FluxCondenser]

Actually, the “upgraded” Ohms are by far the worst performing speakers of the bunch. And this has been confirmed by every listener I’ve invited to the space. They’re so bad, that I’ve completely removed them from my system and I don’t see myself ever connecting them again. They’re unlistenable to me and were far better before the upgrade. The bass boom is simply unmusical and unrealistic. By comparison, the Klipsch Fortes are more dynamic with better controlled, more realistic bass. The KLH 6s have very smooth bass response compared to the Ohm’s excessive boominess. And the B&W 802s are superior to all the speakers in that comparison. Compared to the others, the B&Ws do the best job at getting everything just right.

[@clydebaker3484]

Sorry sir.if someone offers to make u happy with money back or another set it makes me feel as if you pay to much attention to your PINK meter.Good luck!

[@FluxCondenser]

Sorry, Sir. Don’t understand your meaning. Further, I ask that you kindly be a gentleman and leave my pink thing out of this.