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 |
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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
