Modern Shahinian Obelisk

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.

"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'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.