Fixed (Easy!) a Major Design Flaw of the Ohm Walsh Model F


Not sure if it affects all units, but I see it in several images. They obviously didn't care about actual mirror image build back then. They likely didn't think it would matter, but it does. I also do not know whether this has ever been discussed previously in forums, magazines, etc; I'm not willing to search to see, because it doesn't matter that much to me whether it's been discussed previously. If so, great, the Ohm community is on the ball. 

I refer to the nearly haphazard alignment of the metal braces for the driver, which are not aligned in the same places on both speakers. In my work to get this speaker to sound as wondrous as they say it should I noted an irritating beaming of the treble. I have encountered such prior when speakers with tweeters such as ring radiators were on axis. I recognized the vertical metal braces were not symmetrical, and from a lot of experience in the past with performance non-conformity I knew that could be a major contributor to the issue. 

Solution? Let go of the idea of both cabinets being parallel, and make the driver housings/drivers (with the metal braces) symmetrical. Beautiful, a nice tightening of the center image, chasing away of an annoying over emphasis on LF due to a touch more mid-bass filling in unobstructed, and more midrange peeking through. This is an easy fix if you are plagued with this problem, and if you and the furniture authority you live with can handle it.  

I also went with a parallel (double) speaker cable setup by using two sets of cables with banana terminations. I used spade adapters to accommodate a set of spades, and they have hollow backs which allow the second set of banana terminations to be added. This is most definitely do at your own risk, and note that I have bypassed the fuse as well, so I'm a bit more daring with this set than I would with other speakers. I have not that much into them, so if they blow up, they blow up. They were on the way to the dump when I adopted them and had them rehabbed, so I have done a great audiophile work, earning all kinds of points as a Music Lover!  ;) 

I am disproving the old adage - at least in my world - of them needing 300 Watts and blowing up at 301 Watts. I have 600wpc on them and with the double speaker cables (parallel) they are responding beautifully. Still the characteristic muffled mid/bass which will not be eliminated. Please, not interested in arguing that; I hear dozens of speakers in my room and I'm talking about direct comparison to ones I use(d), so if your perspective is different, great. So be it. YMMV etc. 

I'm not pushing them to the limit, but more than I thought I might. I have done perhaps a dozen discrete systems to get them to this state of being very enjoyable. They have responded well enough that I probably won't get rid of them. The one trick I didn't use yet in this setup is to put them on hockey pucks to elevate the soundstage and alter the tonal mix at the ear and decouple from floor. Must remember to try that! 

Current setup:
Small Green Computer sonicTransporter and SONORE Signature Rendu SE
Clarity Cable Supernatural USB
Eastern Electric Minimax Tube DAC Supreme with Staccato discrete opamps
-DAC direct to amp; absolute necessity of using software attenuation in ROON! Do NOT go direct to amp without attenuation!)
Legacy Audio i.V4 Ultra Amplifier (NOTE: channels of this amp are NOT to be joined; I am using bewaring from one channel to achieve the speaker cable doubling for the single terminations of the Model F)
Iconoclast Cables with BAV (Belden Audio/Video) PCs 

I'm gonna have my new friend who has the Tekton Moabs come over to hear.  :)

All equipment with exception of Ohm speakers have been previously reviewed for Dagogo.com 
douglas_schroeder

Showing 3 responses by uncleang

Still the characteristic muffled mid/bass which will not be eliminated.

 

Have you tried experimenting with the batting inside the cabinet?

The density and the thickness of the batting does effect the SQ of the mid/bass specifically.

Certainly true for my Walsh 4's

 

Hi Doug,

My experimentation with the 4’s started in 1998 when I sent in the cans for a re-foam. At that time I noticed that the ’tufflex’ inside the cabinet was disintegrating.

I contacted JS at OHM and he said to go ahead and experiment with different batting material; my wife makes quilts now and then so I used that batting at first. That material was less dense than the tufflex so I used about 1/2" (two layers).

The original ’cradle’ that held the tufflex was ’U’ shaped made up of two nylon straps held in place inside the cabinet by 2" wide duct tape.

JS had told me that the straps should be placed 1/3 of the way down the cabinet and that the batting should be well tucked into the corners.

My first experiment was to lay the straps flat 1/3 of the way down as opposed to a ’U’ shape still using 1/2" of batting. I was shocked by the difference; more bass and treble but slightly recessed mids. mid/bass on voices was not neutral with chesty male voices and veiled female voices.

Out of curiosity I decided to use 1" of batting on the flat straps. More but sloppier bass, attenuated treble, sounded like a cheap box speaker and the mid/bass was a disaster.

My speakers are in the basement on carpet with thick dense under-padding layed over a cement floor. Since the vent is at the bottom I know this affects the overall SQ. With that in mind I placed the speakers on 1/4" acrylic plexi-glass (16"X16"). Well that certainly brings out the bass but I found the overall sound to be too live with too much reverb and accompanying listener fatique.

Back to the drawing boards. A few years ago my wife bought some batting for Christmas decorations i.e. snow on mantles look. This batting was thinner but denser than the quilt batting. So I decided to play with that.

I quickly realized that this new batting enabled me to dial in nuances that the other batting couldn’t. This stuff is just over 1/8" thick. I experimented with varying layers from one sheet to six. I also experimented on the flat vs: ’U’ shaped cradle..

What I’ve ended up with is a ’U’ shaped cradle with two sheets of this new batting. The treble and mid/bass are dialed in like never before. Female voices have an air that rivals electrostats and Leonard Cohen’s baritone is marvelous. The bass is not as prominent but very well defined and tight. That said, on recordings that feature bass like Nirvana’s ’Unplugged in New York’ it sounds very well balanced.

Got the cans back a month ago (2nd re-foam). John does a good job of making sure that they’re in sync prior to shipping... and they are.

Over the years I probably have spent around 200 hours trying to dial in the 4's to my preferences.... don't know of anyone else that has done that.  OHM's newer models don't offer that flexibility as that cans are not attached to the cabinets with 4 wing nuts.  However the newer models (since around 2003+) have the vent venting to a wooden base which most likely affords more predictable SQ.  

Can't make a comparison between my 4's and newer models as I've never heard any other OHM speaker other than an F back in 1976 which absolutely blew me away.

 

 

 

Well Doug, keep us posted; and if you decide to butcher the 'F' cabinets with your hole-saw.... well that will make for some interesting reading.  Hell, you might just get rid of that mid/bass muddiness, you never know.  If it works you'll have JS scratching his head thinking 'why didn't I do that 45 years ago.

Keep us posted. BTW, love your reviews on Dagogo.