Agree with the @bondmanp but would only add the more resolving and able the gear upstream the more the Ohms are able to work their magic in delivering the music with pretty much any recording out there.
Showing 16 responses by mapman
link to new active thread here that is very relevant to this topic: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/and-now-for-all-you-omni-fanatics?highlight=Omni |
My understanding is similar to @bondmanp but the variance I recall being mentioned I believe by John Strohbeen, maybe somewhere in his blog on OHM site, is version to version over the years more so than model to model. Not sure. A call or email to Ohm would probably provide a more concrete answer. Would be interested in the answer. I think I recall aluminum being mentioned recently with at least some latest versions as well. Mine are one generation older....series 3, pretty sure they are not aluminum. THere are 4 generations/versions over the years since the early 80’s: original usually designated X, series 2 and series 3 usually designated X00 and current line designated X000. |
Well KEF literature on the product or Uni-Q certainly makes little or no explicit claim regarding coherency and the crossover is not simple. But the Uni-q is essentially a point source driver so there is that. I guess its reviews where I’ve read reviewers refer to the sound as coherent and on the grand scale of things overall I would agree. Pretty sure I’ve read Ohm uses a very simple crossover. You might have to ask them to find out for sure. No doubt the product is advertised as coherent and that is how it sounds, and that unique design is what makes them the hardest to replace for me of any I have owned. I suppose technically a port works more away from absolute perfect coherence than towards it but do those low frequencies matter as much when it comes to a coherent sound? To some extent I would think so. Then again the KEFs come with port plugs so you can easily take those rear ports mostly out of the equation if preferred. All design aspects contribute to the end result. Some do that better than others when it comes to top to bottom overall coherency. I think I know a coherent speaker when I hear it...but who knows? I’m confident some are way more coherent sounding overall than others. I do know I tend to prefer those that clearly have some strong elements of overall coherency on their side as opposed to the opposite. I had Triangle Titus monitors for years that I seem to recall used a simple 1st order crossover and were advertised as coherent overall. I would agree. HEy but those were FRONT ported! I had Dynaudio Contour monitors the same time as the Triangles. Very nice in many ways of their own but not particularly coherent sounding in any special way at least to my ears. |
Well here is the published skinny: https://ohmspeaker.com/technology/#coherent-line-source-driver Says they are “coherent” ie Coherent Line Source. All I can add is they both look and sound coherent to me. I also have kef ls50 metas. Those look and sound coherent to me as well. |
Tube preamp works great. Just make sure amp input impedance is 40-60kohm or higher for minimal distortion and best results. 200w/ch into 8ohm is good. 500 will only push things further. My setup with larger Ohms is Audio Research sp16 tube pre to Bel Canto ref1000m Class D amps 500 w/ch into 8 ohm doubling power into 4. Doubling power into 4 ohms is another desirable amp attribute for best performance with larger Ohms. https://photos.app.goo.gl/96SbeuZEWj5ueG8T8 No reason to fear Class D. Good ones sound great these days and Ohms love it. More bang for the buck and more efficient/cost effective/compact and easy to deal with. God Bless technology and innovation! |
I run my ohm100s (8”driver in refurbed Walsh 2 cabinets) off 60 w/ch 8 ohm Bel Canto c5i. Drives them to modest listening volume on a large family room up to upper 80s db which is a decent and safe volume but you probably need more to go louder. Some use Ohms with active crossover and subwoofer. That can get you up there done right. I threw the kitchen sink at my larger Ohm 5s (12” driver in large refurbed Ohm F cabinets) and that setup is the bomb at any volume. Bel Canto ref1000m monoblocks, 500 w/ch 8 ohm. Like most the larger Ohms tend to be more efficient and will go the extra mile compared to smaller. |
The latest OHMs are 3 generations of product newer than Original Walsh 2’s from the 80s. I had original Walsh 2s I owned since ~ 1982 versus gen 3 similar Ohms from 2008 I a/b compared before upgrading. The 2008 model was much more refined and detailed than the originals, so I replaced the originals with the newer model. There is a calculator on the Ohm site to determine best model per room size. You can also always call or email Ohm and provide the info to get guidance. Be assured this company will not steer you to anything more than what you need. |
Currently I have 2 Walsh models one generation older than the current line. Refurbed Walsh 2 cabinets with 100 8" driver and refurbed Ohm F cabinets with 5 12" driver. Also my original Ohm Ls that I uograded myself. 1000s are latest and greatest with new cabinets and slightly smaller than my smaller pair. Larger models do more bass in larger rooms if needed. The newer Walsh models are much refined from the originals first sold in the early 80s. I compared new versus old walsh 2s with 8" drivers both side by side before trading in my old pair towards my current larger pair. |
Why are you considering them if you doubt the quality? In any case there is an extended in home audition period so you can return if they don’t work out for just shipping cost I believe. I’ve owned various OHm speakers among others since 1978 and currently run 3 pair in different rooms along with three other brands in 3 other rooms. The Ohms are unique and the ones I spend the most time listening to by far so call me a fan. Lots of info in threads here and elsewhere but if any questions ask away. |