If you're going to get speakers why limit yourself to Obelisks. Listen to everything in your price range. |
I have some brand loyalty, so prefer to hear more about how the product has evolved (or not). I've owned 2 sets of Obelisk, Hawks, and "the Box" before, so am drawn to the Shahinian sound. The Hawks were my favorite, but they need to be played a little loud before they bloom, and I have a small and bright space. The Obelisk sound great at low/mid volume and that's important to me. |
I'd say because once some people own them they dont' want anything else.:)
All the models have been using metal for a long time now. The newest obs, the twos, have better cabinets and bracing, different drivers. For those that like Shahinians they are supposed to be quite good. Too bad you have to travel to New York to hear them. |
I'm glad to hear the recent ones retain the customer loyaly, maybe they have figured out how to tame the metal dome tiger. If I could put a set of Shahinians and Maggies in a blender, I would be fully content.... |
Delapole - Don't be too scared of the metal drivers. I was quite surprised to read that the speakers I recently upgraded to (Ohm Walsh 2000s) use aluminum drivers. Although I didn't try to confirm this with the manufacturer, I would not have guessed it in million years. I had thought that the metal dome tweeter in my previous speakers was one reason for my lack of long-term satisfaction with them. However, I am becomming more convinced that, while the drivers themselves are important, a good speaker designer (like Shahinian) can design a good crossover, cabinet and voice the speakers to sound pretty much however they want. The drivers themselves can be limiting factors, but within their performance limits, the same drivers can be made to sound quite different by different designers. Just listen to a Dynaudio speaker, then listen to any number of other speakers that use the same drivers and you'll see what I mean.
In short, if you have confidence in and respect for the ability of Shahinian and have no reason to believe his approach to voicing has changed much, you should be happy with his more resent products. |
Bond, are you over here too? Yes, I can confirm the 2000 main driver is aluminum coated. I believe the tweeter is a silk-dome though. Still, a little different than the older drivers.
I too have been wanting to try a pair of Shahinian's, probably from the Compass on up. I would probably stop at the Obelisk though as that would be the maximum that I could ever see myself spending on a pair of speakers!
I have heard the Arc and Obelisk before, but it has been a long time ago. I liked what they did then. Maybe someday, but my Ohm's are doing the business for me right now.
I agree with your take Bond on drivers. Good post! Enjoy the music! Tim |
I guess I should be more open minded, it's just that the matals drivers that I have give a serious listen to were not my taste (Monitor Audio, NHT, B&W). I tend to fall in love with ribbons (maggies, apogees) and silk domes (vienna acoustics). I like a "softer" sound but not muted.... Maggies would be my mainstay if not for the WAF. |
Well, Delapole, I hate to sound like a broken record, but you might want to audition a pair of Ohm Walsh speakers. I recently upgraded to them. Like yourself, I prefer good detail retreival without the harshness that some highly detailed speakers suffer from. The Ohms were ideal for me in this respect. Plenty of minute details without any harshness, unless the recording is simply unredeemable - you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's butt.
Although ribbons don't usually do it for me (usually too directional), I do share your taste in dynamic loudspeakers. The Ohms have a modest form factor, so usually pass the WAF test.
Frazeur1: Yup, I 'm all over da place!!! |
I owned some Ohm Walsh speakers some time ago; I loved their sound but never like the estetic. Maybe with a custom veneer I could live with them. they just look "old" and 70's to my eyes. The more I toy with my current Duevel BLD's, the more I'm leaning away from a change. |
I have the latest Diapasons with metal domes. Prior to that I had the older version (non metal) Brand new they sounded really bad compared with the older version. After a LONG break in period I concluded the new drivers sounded better. I then sold the old pair when I was convinced the new speakers sounded better. Shahinian just released the Obelisk 2. I'm sure it sounds awesome. |
A reasonably priced, very nice looking omni is available from Decware. It appears that the design is a knock-off of Ohm, but I've never heard the speaker so I can't comment on SQ. I think it's available for in-home audition/money back, so if you like the Ohms, except for their appearance, it might be worth checking out the Decware.
Marty |
I know this is an old thread, but sometimes it is good to just revisit, especially when it comes to Shahinians, as there is so little written about them, so just a few comments if I may.
After toying with the idea of finding a pair of good condition Obelisks at a price I could afford, I gave up and just enjoyed my Ohm Walsh 3000's. But last year a pair of demo Obelisk 2's became available at a price I could not pass up, and finally my speaker search is over.
Now on to a couple comments from the above questions posed:
I have never been too worried over what the drivers of any speaker are particularly made of, metal, paper, silk etc., as if the manufcture/designer has done his part, I then just leave it up to my ears.
I can confirm that with these Obelisks, like Holzhauers Diapasons, these did take a good bit of running in to sound their best. Even as these were demo models, they hadn't been played in a good while. Right out of the box they sounded quite horrible, lifeless and not open in the way any Shahinian I have ever heard could sound. But within several hours things went from bad to good, and then given a few weeks I felt all was as it should be. Possibly a brand new pair would take much longer, I do not know. According to Shahinian, it should not take very long at all.
I do not find the metal drivers in the Obelisk bright at all, although if sitting close to them and listening height is quite a bit higher than the cabinets, I could see them being obviously "brighter" just by being more on axis with the mid-domes and super-tweeters. To me a lower seating position and being a good deal back from them is a good way to go.
Not having a pair of the older Obs to compare with the series 2, it would be difficult at best to make any real comments on which is "better" or in what ways. The newer Ob does seem to be a bit easier to drive, and the midbass to midrange seems to be smoother, but again, that is just based on former impressions.
I would love to get an opportunity to listen to Hawks and Diapasons someday, but things would certainly have to change system wise, let alone money wise! I believe I can safely say that I will be stopping at the Obelisk 2 level, and really, I cannot complain as these are some of the very best transducers that I have heard.
While Richard Shahinian is obviously a classical guy, and seems a lot is made over what types of music can be listened to on Shahinians, I cannot for the life of me understand this. I rarely listen to classical, and the Obelisk just do amazing things on jazz, rock, just about any kind of music I have thrown at them. A speaker does not have ears and doesn't hold prejudice against the music it is fed!
With the above said, do not let metal drivers worry you, or the types of music that a Shahinian will play, it is all good. Just be sure to feed them well with a good, fairly robust amplifier and good source. Enjoy! Tim |
I own a pair of Hawks and would be more than happy to entertain folks at my home in Marin County, CA for an audition.
All invited. Just send me an email and we can make arrangements.
Also, I had a pair of Ohm Walsh 200s a few years ago. My Shahinians were in the factory at the time for updating. The Ohms seemed to me to have much of what I loved about the Shahinian sound, especially the expansive reproduction of large spaces and the cohesiveness of the image without any sense of gaps or discontinuity in the entire sound field. Thus, for example, when listening to a symphony orchestra in a hall one hears a very integrated and unified orchestra. Many speaker designs tend to appear to --just a bit--break up the solidity and continuity. In my limited experience, I have found omni- or poly-directional reproducers to be less prone to this distortion. To me, the two principal differences between what I am generally calling the Ohm sound as opposed to the Shahinian sound were fullness (maybe richness or roundness would be better terms?) and timbre. When I got my Hawks back, I did unblinded aide by side comparisons (the differences between transducers are usually large enough to be effectively apparent without the need for elaborate masking techniques) and found the Hawks to be 'better' in both ways. While, for instance, both did a good job of making a string section sound spatially substantial and integrated with the rest of the performing group, the Hawks (and, I believe, other Shahinian designs such as the Obelisks) provided the rich overtones and mid- and upper bass support that give massed strings their irresistible beauty. As for timbre, again the Ohms did not reach the level of overall accuracy (which includes solidity and complexity) attained by the Shahinians.
It is true that my Hawks 'come alive' best at higher volume.I do not know about the Obelisk IIs but from what I have heard (and experienced also with a set of older Obs I once had) Shahinians poly-directional designs all seem to benefit from good, high-current power.
As for bass, Shahinian's modified transmission line/passive radiator combo, used on all his more expensive designs, provides depth, power, explosiveness and detail which usually greatly impress auditioners experiencing them for the first time. Also, for electric bass (read: rock and roll) the sheer dynamism of this kind of bass is quite satisfying.
My invitation to interested sound hounds is open and serious. Come hear my Hawks. |
Rp,
I'm curious if when comparing OHm and Shahinian if you found that each sounded best in a different location?
Omni/wide range speakers tend to be easy to set up for good results, but I find a fair amount of tweaking is needed to get the best results in each case, speaker by speaker, room by room, and the placement differences with omni or wide range speakers in the same room can be larger than usual since the dispersion patterns and associated SPLs at any particular listening location can vary greatly compared to more directional designs. |
you'd be well advised to return them to the factory for updating as needed. it will not be inexpensive but should offer listening satisfaction. vasken shahinian will not change anything that does not need it. see their site for contact info. |
"I'm curious if when comparing Ohm and Shahinian if you found that each sounded best in a different location?"
To be sure. But the differing physical configurations made direct comparison a bit more complex. The Hawks are modular, with a large bass module covering frequencies up to 250hz, which supports a multi-driver pyramidal box that is movable by itself to distant locations. I have found the treble clusters function best on stands out into the room five feet or so whereas the bass unit gets boomy and peaky out there and sounds best out from the back wall only about 2 feet. You can't do this sort of fine tuning, of course, with the Ohms or most other designs. As far as the Ohms, They preferred to be in more or less the same place as I put my woofers. Their bass definitely benefited from the corner support and the image and sound stage remained excellent and even wider with no hole in the middle to speak of at all (just like the Shahinians). These things are very room dependent, as you say.
By the way, to my ears the sound loses not a whit of coherence with this spatial separation of bass and treble. If anything, the sound opens up even more and the image appears even more free of the generating source. Do not forget, the Shahinian designs do not depend on phase coherence for their sound. I do not really understand the mechanics of the (quasi-)single driver used in the current Walsh designs but I can't imagine they are phase coherent either. |
I find much to like about both designs, the Ohm and Shahinian. They obviously are more alike than not for many reasons. I do find my Obelisk to be more detailed and the ability to have a more dimensional layering of vocals and instruments, maybe even more 3-D? I also find the top end of the Obelisk to be a bit more present and realistic, some may tend to think of this as brightness. But I also thought at times my Walsh 3000's could sound a slight bit "dull" on the top end with triangles and cymbals.
Both speakers obviously do the wall-to-wall staging very well, but again I find the Obelisk to be a bit more fuller and dimensional. Ultimately this can come down to placing of each speaker, as my 3000 seemed to be smoother across the bandwidth being closer to the wall behind it than the Obelisk.
I do think both speakers to my ears do enjoy a more healthy dose of power/current from the amplfiers, pretty much an even thing here. I never thought either speaker was particularly great at playing lower volumes and retaining the detail or overall musicality-and that is my own thoughts, as I have heard many comment and say they felt both were good for listening at low levels. Just might be my own preference here.
Again my observations come from Ohm 3000 vs. the Obelisk, and really a better comparison price-wise would have been the Ohm 5000. But the good thing about Ohms is they all pretty much retain the overall "house sound" of Ohm across the range in my opinion.
In my room I do have a bit more trouble getting the bass right with the Obelisk than the Walsh, and am still playing with this aspect. One thing I did find the other day, was taking up a large area rug which is laying on laminate flooring over concrete slab, improved the bass on the Obs to no end. It did however also affect the upper registers making things a bit brighter and more live in the room. So more time to play and experiment here. The Ohm did not seem to be so picky in this regard. Again, room tuning is every bit as important as any box, cable or tweek in my opinion.
Rpfef-your comment on the mechanics etc. of the Walsh driver is a toughie, it always seems to open a bit of a can of worms at times. I have seen the insides of quite a few of the current CLS drivers that Ohm uses now, a bit of a difference from the "real" Walsh single driver of the A/F. Regardless, the CLS drivers do indeed work, and very well I might add. I will leave the phase coherency thought to others though. Also, thanks for the invite to listen to your Hawks, would love to, if I ever get out your way to sunny Cali, will look you up! Thanks too for your comments, again, rare to find many folks commenting on Shahinians, we should start up a new forum....
Map-good to hear from you, haven't heard much from you on the Ohm threads recently, I still watch from time to time. Hope all is well with you! Tim |
"But I also thought at times my Walsh 3000's could sound a slight bit "dull" on the top end with triangles and cymbals. "
No doubt OHMs can sound flat on the top end compared to many high end speakers. The Dynaudios I use concurrently on teh same system as the OHMs is a good example.
However, I have each pair of speakers in different rooms, and find that good tweaks, whatever they may be tend to benefit all speakers. OHM Walsh typically will show whatever they are fed as much as most any speakers I would say, but they are the least hot on the top end of any I have owned, though the later generations less so it seems to me than the originals, which were very soft on the top end and not nearly as refined. Tweeters used have changed over the years as I understand it.
In the end, its how you set things up to meet your goals I think mostly.
Also regarding coherency, the OHM Walshes are the best I have owned at this by a wide margin. The OHM CLS (coherent line source)driver is advertised to be "coherent" and I would agree. In general, coherency is an attribute usually attached to any good Walsh driver implementation. The limitation of the OHM Walsh line speakers in this regard is that the Walsh driver only covers up to 7Khz or so, but if one does the homework one will find that is where most music lives, little happens much above that. "Air" is one attribute of sound that does. That is probably the one area where I would say the Walshes may not compare as well as some more directional models in that the tweeter is positioned to not be direct facing in the standard CLS configuration. Any good, flat or balanced speaker designed to have direct tweeter exposure to the listener is likely to have more "air" in the sound, but soundstage width will be impacted negatively.
Its possible the Shahinians provide more direct tweeter exposure and more "air" accordingly than a standard configuration OHM Walsh.
The classic model OHM I, which predates the Walsh line, is teh OHM design that most resembles the Shahinian approach I would say. Those are beasts! I would love ot have a pair. They become available refurbed from OHM from time to time for VERY reasonable cost. |
I had my Obelisks completely updated a couple of years ago
it cost about $2000. I liked them before, but loved them afterwards. I also have a set of Compass' that I listen to near field with outstanding results. I listen to rock, jazz and classical with both sets. I would strongly suggest getting yours updated before changing. Call Shahinian, they are very easy to talk to and do business with. |
I find much to like about both designs, the Ohm and Shahinian. They obviously are more alike than not for many reasons. I do find my Obelisk to be more detailed and the ability to have a more dimensional layering of vocals and instruments, maybe even more 3-D? I also find the top end of the Obelisk to be a bit more present and realistic, some may tend to think of this as brightness. But I also thought at times my Walsh 3000's could sound a slight bit "dull" on the top end with triangles and cymbals.
Both speakers obviously do the wall-to-wall staging very well, but again I find the Obelisk to be a bit more fuller and dimensional. Ultimately this can come down to placing of each speaker, as my 3000 seemed to be smoother across the bandwidth being closer to the wall behind it than the Obelisk.
I do think both speakers to my ears do enjoy a more healthy dose of power/current from the amplfiers, pretty much an even thing here. I never thought either speaker was particularly great at playing lower volumes and retaining the detail or overall musicality-and that is my own thoughts, as I have heard many comment and say they felt both were good for listening at low levels. Just might be my own preference here.
Again my observations come from Ohm 3000 vs. the Obelisk, and really a better comparison price-wise would have been the Ohm 5000. But the good thing about Ohms is they all pretty much retain the overall "house sound" of Ohm across the range in my opinion.
In my room I do have a bit more trouble getting the bass right with the Obelisk than the Walsh, and am still playing with this aspect. One thing I did find the other day, was taking up a large area rug which is laying on laminate flooring over concrete slab, improved the bass on the Obs to no end. It did however also affect the upper registers making things a bit brighter and more live in the room. So more time to play and experiment here. The Ohm did not seem to be so picky in this regard. Again, room tuning is every bit as important as any box, cable or tweek in my opinion.
Rpfef-your comment on the mechanics etc. of the Walsh driver is a toughie, it always seems to open a bit of a can of worms at times. I have seen the insides of quite a few of the current CLS drivers that Ohm uses now, a bit of a difference from the "real" Walsh single driver of the A/F. Regardless, the CLS drivers do indeed work, and very well I might add. I will leave the phase coherency thought to others though. Also, thanks for the invite to listen to your Hawks, would love to, if I ever get out your way to sunny Cali, will look you up! Thanks too for your comments, again, rare to find many folks commenting on Shahinians, we should start up a new forum....
Map-good to hear from you, haven't heard much from you on the Ohm threads recently, I still watch from time to time. Hope all is well with you! Tim |
The newer Walsh thousand series definately steps up the game with regards to the tweeter, it is a much better one, and not as "dull" as the older models, and I was able to do quite a bit of comparison when I had my 3000's and the older 3XO cans. The differences are not huge by any stretch, and when I say dull, they just aren't as detailed as the newer drivers, and that is detail not at the expense of brightness in my opinion. I find it hard to explain really.
As regards to the Shahinian's having a more direct tweeter exposure, I am not sure as there are a couple main things at play here. If you have never physically seen an Obelisk, one needs to realize it is not a very big/tall speaker. The very tip of the pyramid is at 30", and the super tweeters are around 3-4" lower on the slanted baffle as well as the mid-dome. The tweeters are firing at a more upward angle than the Ohm Walsh CLS tweeters, and the Ohms tweeters are considerably higher up in the cabinets as well with maybe the exception being the OW2, then it is close, but still think the Walsh is higher.
Sometimes I just laugh when I look at my Obelisk and think about the dynamic swings this rather small box is capable of. Quite impressive. I just enjoy these transducers so very much. With that being said, the Ohm Walsh and what John Strohbeen has done with them over the years is also quite enjoyable too, and if push came to shove, I could live happily with the Ohms. But after having my Obelisk 2's, I really wouldn't want to go without them.
I won't mention either what an outstanding bargain my other semi-omni Larsen Model 4's are. Just another fantastic little speaker that in many ways is as good as the Ohm models and also the Obelisk, and at a much cheaper price. The Model 8 which is the biggest brother to the 4's was reviewed very favorably in Positive Feedback. While I have not heard the Model 8, I would say his review is just as applicable to the Model 4 in many ways.
Okay, enough of my thoughts for now. Tim |
i had obelisks many years. now my son has them and i have diapasons - factory updated 2013. i only listen to classical music which is shahinian's strong suit. after 60 years in the game these are the grail found. currently i am experimenting with free standing super tweeters. they add a new dimension which no one seems able to explain but just take them away and the music is less than with them. over the years i have had a number of wonderful systems, but nothing like the current one. while i lament exiting from the eternal quest to better the product i rejoice in the level attained and plan to make no further major adjustments except tweaks. my stereo buddies don't get the above, preferring to be blasted by forward firing speakers with sweet spots. that's not for me. the so-called best system anywhere is probably the MBL, a 360 degree concet just like shahinian. enough said. jack (idllwld) |
Jack, it is always nice to hear about others that have finally found their stopping off point with regards to the speaker merry-go-round. It seems that a lot of fellow Shahinian owners feel very much the same way here, no other will quite do.
I would love to hear Diapasons, that would indeed be a treat I am sure, as Hawks were another step up from the Obelisk in a couple ways, and I would love to make that step someday. My Obelisks are doing the business for my room/space though, quite happy with them.
I am curious, what size listening space do you have your Diapasons in? Would love to hear more about your system too. As far as the super tweeters go as an add-on, I too have heard them to be a good thing. One wouldn't think they would add much to the already multiple tweets in the Diapasons, but just goes to show you, until you try something, you never know!
My system too is more or less down to the tweaking stages, unless somehow I come across a sum of money, then I will be upgrading the electronics to either some Plinius separates or Dynavector amplification. For the moment, very pleased with the older Plinius 8200 integrated and my Naim streamer as source. All good for now! Enjoy your Shahinian's Jack! Lovely speakers I am sure. Tim |
Is there a trend here? I, too, after 50 years of restless dissatisfaction and relentless replacement, have discovered Shahinian speakers. In my case, a 30 year old pair of Obelisks provided me with something I had been missing for all those long decades: the full rich power of an orchestra. There is a fullness and roundness to the sound of Shahinian's designs which captures the upper bass presence of real orchestral instrument like nothing I'd ever heard. And the sound of massed violins? Unmatched in my experience for solidity and sheen. (If you listen to orchestral music, as I do, you really should try to hear Shahinian poly-directional speakers (Obelisks, Hawks, and Diapasons).
As luck would have it, I was able to acquire a pair of Hawks and have stopped searching. (Just for your information, the system I had at the time of the Obelisks' appearance used Alon Circes ($12,0000) with a Nola subwoofer ($1800) and a Nola designed and built special x-over. The Obs I had cost, when new, $1800 and were 30+ years old, yet at the first moment, I knew I had found home.
If anyone cares to read my fuller description of my perception of the sound of Shahinians, you can refer to several of my older postings.
In addition, I live in Marin County and would be happy to entertain anyone who would care to come by to hear what I'm talking about. |
I'd encourage anyone who has been at high end audio for years and still never achieved their goals to try something different: wide dispersion or omni speakers, take your pick.
FOr me, directional designs are enjoyable but are harder to set up to enable being immersed in the sound. Omni's or other designs that deliver a broader dispersion pattern are better able to make me suspend my disbelief that what I am hearing might be real.
One of many reasons I like the OHMs and that they have been successful for so many years is that they are inherently omnidirectional but also designed to enable closer placement to walls than a pure omni design, which makes for a better fit into more people's rooms. |
Rpfef, don't get me going on Hawks-Diapasons for that matter! I can see where the Hawk would provide maybe a bit better midrange just due to the use of bigger mid drivers, and also the rake of the top cabinet giving some options there, but the Obelisk aren't lacking much overall for me. Very happy with mine, overjoyed would be putting it mildly.
I can also see the benefit possibly of the bass driver being moved up on the cabinet face, might give a bit smoother output in that location versus being so low to the floor on the Obs, but then again, their probably is more design goals that went into those placements I would think for reasons.
I agree Map, so many people seem to not want to take the time to at least try any of the omni units for whatever reason, and some that do, I dod not think they give it enough time for their ears to somewhat adjust to the differences in presentation and sluff them off all too quickly. I do realize, they certainly are not for everyone, but they sure can work well in rooms that are otherwise tough.
My Obs can be put within a foot of the wall behind them and still sound very good, as long as they aren't close to corners, it is do-able. But they sure like to be out in the open, well away from boundaries/walls. Good room treatments can go a long way with any speaker, and omnis are no exception.
Have had my Obelisks in the main setup for a couple months, this weekend I might bring the Larsen Model 4's out and put them in for awhile, see how all goes. With either speaker there, I have that gloriously open, wide and deep soundstage, no sweet-spot here!
Good to hear from other Omni lovers, enjoy! Tim |
MR.FRAZEUR1:
Why should I not 'get you going' on Hawks and Diapasons?
I, for one, would not at all object to hearing your thoughts on them.
I myself have never heard Diapasons nor the new Obelisks and, though the basic designs have been unchanged over the years, a steady improvement in drivers and adjustments to the system have, as I know from my own experiences, resulted in significant gains. Nevertheless, as I can also attest through experience, every single poly-directional speaker Richard Shahinian ever designed, including original versions from 1977, sound wonderful and satisfying.
So, go ahead, let yourself go and tell me what you think. |
Rpfef, my comment was made more in jest, I wish the wallet wasn't so weak at the moment or I might just find myself in Hawk or Diapason land myself, providing the upgrade was a fairly large step up that is.
I have never heard either one that I recall, mainly Obs and Arcs. A lot of things would probably have to change a bit, room, amplification etc., for the two bigger brothers to work out.
Audio memory and all that, I would say the newest Obelisk2 is an upgrade, but without having them side by side in direct comparison, hard to say just how much. They do seem a bit easier to drive, and the mids also seem better, not as recessed as older designs.
I have often wondered what putting the Obs on a slight stand to lift them off the floor a bit would do for the mids as well as image height. Sometimes I get the idea that listening to them in a lower/slouched position makes them sound a bit better in the mids. But I also wonder if the placement of the mid-bass driver on the front being closer to the floor is all part of the design and voicing. Still playing a bit in regards with positioning and seating height, but most of the time, I just listen to the music and do not fuss over things. This is probably one of the things I tend to like about omni designs, they take a fair amount of fussing with things out of the equation, yet do-diligence has its rewards too.
I would love to hear your Hawks, would be a fine experience I am sure. Someday maybe I will get the chance to hear both Hawk and Diaps. Will enjoy my Obs until then, maybe it is a good thing no one that I know close by has either of the bigger brothers! Tim |
