2. speakers
  3. 123125-1644

Are Ohm-Walsh micros and 1000 series disrespected because of omni-directional design??

I never was a big fan of Omni-directional speakers because they are often disappointing.  I don't need the sound in back of me or 2 foot to my right or left.  However, I have seen many testimonials for Ohm -Walsh speaker on Audiogon, yet they are infrequently reviewed. 

Therefore, are Ohm-Walsh speakers disrespected because of  their Omni directional design??. I  noticed two issues on their website: 1) how do your determine which micro or tall column will be compatible for the dimensions of your listening area, especially if your listening area is only part of a larger room. 2)  A  buyer can easily mistake  the way they are priced. For example, the OW Talls (w-1000)  are $ 1000 each, NOT $1000 FOR THE PAIR.  So, that model is $2000 a pair, and there is lot of competition from conventional designed speaker, in that price category For example. the Golden Ear Technology. model 7, and the Magneplanar .07 both in the $1400-1500 price range and, some of the PSB towers, like the T-2 or T-3. or Monitor Audio recent series.. 

Would like some feedback about whether this Ohm-Wash design is disrespected  by the major audio press. Are  hardcore audiophile not convinced by the Omni-directional design and results, and so it never gets a f"air shake or serious audition,

sunnyjim

Showing 3 responses by martykl

martykl
3,578 posts
 
I'll agree with Maplegrove.  Some people find the idea of an omni to be misguided and I'm sure that some large percentage of those folks diss Ohms.  I think they're wrong, but I understand that they may feel the same way about me.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
On most material, I find that the imaging/staging from the Ohms is unusually convincing.  Placement in space is specific enough that sources can easily be located and the spread across the room, between and beyond the speakers, is continuous in way that feels very organic to me.  Further, there's a sense of weight and body to those localized images that strikes me as unusually natural sounding (vis a vis designs using narrower dispersion patterns).  I never quite understood this criticism of omnis.  It's even less appropriate to the MBL speakers, which (tho they have tonality issues to my ear) are about as SOTA in this area as anything I've ever heard.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Jim,

Your observation is on point.  The current Ohms are less true to the original Walsh design than are the HHRs.  Just one question:

What makes you think that that is a good thing (for HHR)?

BTW, I've never heard the HHR.  For all I know, it blows away the Ohms.  I just don't assume that that's necessarily true.  Particularly on the basis that you've identified.  John S's variation is certainly less expensive to produce.  It's also less fragile.  Beyond that, you'd need to do a side by side to determine which design you prefer.  Outside of Mapman (and John Strohbeen), I'm not sure who is on a position to make that judgement.
More to discover