Modern Shahinian Obelisk

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.

"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.

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.

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.