I think this is part of Ohms problem, quality is so variable at times, and it is frustrating! Who wants to wait even longer for something that they have already waited a long while for, only to have to send parts or the whole speaker back?
I ordered a new pair of MWT’s back around 2010, they were supposed to be “new”. I got them and it seriously looked like they were recycled cabinets, the bottom plinths of both speakers were scuffed all up like a pair that had been around awhile. The veneer was bubbling and actually coming off at the seam. And just looking at the driver cans, it looked like they had collected enough dust and grit that the inner foam lining was covered. Not to mention the cans themselves were crazy crooked/lopsided.
I won’t even begin to go into all the issues that I had with my 2000’s or 3000’s. To me, it was a general lack of care or quality finish. Yes, they sounded good, but it was a frustrating experience, the 3000 drivers went back twice before things were right.
I don’t mean to disparage Ohm here, as I do love the sound of the CLS/Walsh speakers, just really hate the hit or miss quality aspect, especially for what one pays for them. Sad thing is, I know that they can do decent work! I’d really love to buy a pair of 1000 Talls for a room I am looking to set a system up in, but I really don’t know if I can stomach what I might get, and the pain in the ass I’d have to go through to get it fixed.
|
Cheap crossovers were previously mentioned by @ oldhyvec, I think. This seems to be a common problem. In my Magnepan 1.7s, the crossovers were cheap junk. Asi Teknology rebuilt them and moved them into an external box. Strikingly positive sonic improvement.
|
@jaymark -- my understanding of most Ohm Walsh speakers is that the main driver has no crossover and runs up to 8KHz or above, and that the single tweeter just uses a single capacitor to cut off frequencies below that point. To my mind, that high frequency -- well beyond the fundamental frequencies of any voice and almost all instruments -- makes the crossover design far less critical than most other speakers where crossover takes place in the middle of the range of fundamental notes of all vocals and almost all instruments.
|
Old Ohms and new Ohms are not the same Ohms.
|
@unsound -- you're right. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the mid-1970s. They had no tweeter, but the cone was made from different materials -- metal at the top to handle highs, but bonded to a paper at the bottom. Any original A and F speakers are almost certainly non-functional unless rebuilt, and Ohm Speakers hasn't done that for years, though a couple of other companies will do this.
The current Ohms use a more conventional cone, but do include a tweeter, but it is crossed over at a very high frequency, so the main speaker still provides the bulk of the sound.
|
I have owned W2-100s3 for about 14 yrs. Originally bought original W2s online in MA then sent to John to upgrade before shipping to me in HI. I previously owned Ohm C3s.I also own Kef R3s, Spendor LS3/5, JBL L110, Rogers LS3/5. The Ohms are my favorite for their openness. imaging, bass, easy placemtn and natural sound. My only issue with them is they are not good at low volume/low power for late night listening.thua the Kefs. I also have a wierd, packed room which is also my living room so the omnis work well in that space. For the money I think they are very good The cabinet work is good not great. Ohm Customer Service is good too as JOhn is reposnsive. They did take a number of months to break in and they like good power if you want them to respond best. There are some other speakers I would love to look at but they would all be quite a bit more than these cost, like $8-10K.
|
@bakufu I gather you are quite pleased with your ohm F5s. It leads me to wonder if you auditioned any of their other Omni speakers before settling on the F5. I am not saying your choice was wrong, far from it. I'm interested to know if the F5 was so much better that the cost was justified compared to their other offerings. I am strongly considering a pair to use in my rebuilt home (post fire) and want very much to understand how much better the F5 is before I throw down the money. I have a pair of Walsh 2000 talls at the moment that I really like. They are a bit weak on the low end but the overall presentation is quite nice. I love the lack of a rigid imaging point, that they provide a reasonable stereo image over a relatively wide area. I use them in my office on either side of the desk and find I can move around like people do when they are working and not lose the sweet spot. It is a very clean sounding speaker thru the upper bass and midrange and up into the highs. Very satisfied with that open airy sound with a broad image. Its hard to find fault other than the bottom end being a bit shy. Thats where the subs enter and its awfully good. How well do the built in subs in the F5 integrate into the rest of the system sound? IF I purchase a set of F5s I want them to be so good I have no desire to look elsewhere. talk to me...what has your experience been?
|
@livinon2wheels If I might throw my 2¢ in here, Ohm Walsh speakers are a bit unique when it comes to scaling of different models. As John Strohbeen used to say, all of them sound essentially the same. The differences are based on output required to fill different size rooms, and low bass extension. I can vouch for this as I own both the 2000s and a pair of MicroWalsh Talls. The F5 offers the greatest output capabilities and the deepest bass extension of the line, due to the powered woofers. I run my 2000s each with their own subs (Vandersteen 2Wq), so I get very good deep bass extension and output. The 2000s are appropriate for my room volume. Ohm has a chart on their site to help you determine which models will work in your room. If you go with a smaller model and want more bass extension and output, consider adding subwoofers like I did. Wonderful combo that leaves me wanting nothing.
|
@bondmanp I appreciate your input. I am currently running a pair 2000s in my office with svs PC 2000 subs (2) and that combo gives honest full range sound that I have no quibbles with. Its very satisfying to listen to and is truly reference quality to my ears. This system is destined for my office when we move back into the house.
As such, it leaves the larger entertainment room with no clearly defined system as of yet. According to Ohm's chart it fits the requirements for the 5000 or F5. But because this system must do dual duty, home theater and music, I am considering standard box speakers for that location. I think point source radiators tend to work better in multichannel applications than Omni directional speakers do. Though ultimately, I want to test that with SOTA samples of each type in that room and see which I prefer overall.
My thinking is that the current design of the Ohm omni, regardless of which model you choose, is going to serve the task better due to the somewhat hybrid nature of this design, i.e. the single tweeter added for frequencies above 8k. I think there is a certain genius to this approach as it provides some of the best characteristics of both direct radiators in a box and the omni-directional design in the same speaker, lending it to have advantages over other approaches. While they are not cheap by any means, they are at least within the realm of reasonable cost and due to their rather impressive performance certainly worthy of consideration.
|
Old thread but…
I’ve had F5s for gosh almost 20 years now but these are not current model and no integrated subs. They are in a larger size L shaped room. They do very well as is and I have never used a sub. I also have smaller model with 8” driver and no sub ever with those either. If you match the Ohm to room size as advised and power them adequately adding a sub done right can’t hurt but certainly optional.
I heard the powered F5s at a show a few years back. @bondmanp got it right. One thing to consider is if you would prefer the subs on board as with the current F5s or simply add separate sub or subs of your own choosing. Pros and cons either way. Hope this helps.
|
@livinon2wheels Well, you own them, so I guess you have formed your own opinion, but my 2000s also serve as the mains in my 2 channel/7.1 surround home theater. Whether in stereo or MCH, I don't feel the 2000s lack the ability to correctly place voices and instruments in their proper place. I replaced Vandersteen 1Cs with the Ohms and haven't missed anything about the Vandy's for a minute. I have long felt that the lack of imaging complaint regarding Ohm Walsh speakers is a myth. I couldn't live with speakers that just had a large stage with everything bleeding all over everything else. My 2000s don't do that, at least in my room with my gear.
Btw, I have a dedicated third sub for surround duty, an SVS 2000PB. I like bass! 😁
|
@mapman I am considering a pair of these for our open area floorplan family room area. The extra subs in the bottom of them should fill that area nicely with good bass. :)
@bondmanp I like them very much though I have to agree the quality control is a bit spotty. Nevertheless, I expect the 2000s I currently have I will keep forever, they are the stars of the 2.2 channel system in my office. I can't imagine hearing anything better and as I slip into old age with degraded hearing, I think anything any better might be lost on me.
|
@livinon2wheels ... I agree on q.c. issue. My early production 2000s had some issues with the finishing, and the caps had places where the staples under the grill cloth were pushing the cloth out in bumps. I mentioned this to John. He offered to redo the cabs, or refund part of my money. I took the cash, because these are in a basement system, and the finish issues were mostly on the part of the cabinet that is covered by the caps.
He wanted money for new caps, so I passed. A few months later, when I decided to keep the 2000s, I ordered a matching center channel speaker. Right after that order, I received a new pair of caps for the 2000s that were much better made than the originals. This was unsolicited. John was a prince to his customers. He will be missed. I hope Evan learned about customer service from John.
|
Saw this thread, which I previously responded to and it sparked a recurring question in my mind. For anyone who has the current 2000s and heard earlier Ohm Walsh 2 variants, what do you gain with the 2000s upgrade or new buy soundwise? I have been haunted by the sound of some Vandersteen Treo CTs I heard a few years back and have thought about selling ALL my speakers and buying those. Then I listen to my Ohms and how well they work in my so so listening space and think I am delusional. Then I recall that my 2-100S3 version speakers are about 15 years old and in theory better sound is available in upgrading to the 2000 units. So, anyone can articulate the benefits the hear? BTW, John's input was that the bottom end benefited from the 2000 upgrade. I am happy with that aspect of the speaker and if that is all I gain, then it is back to either keep them or go to the Vandersteens which are about 4x the price and of which I know nothing about their placement issues.
|
This thread is from 2021 and the OP never posted again. You might want to start a new thread.
|
The Ohm A's got me into this hobby......there was not an amplifier that was powerful enough for them in those days
|
@stringreen : "200 watts to make ’em sing, 201 to blow ’em up!". That was the refrain back in the day.
|
