Sorry for your loss in the fire, that was all quite a sad time for many. I hope that things are well with you moving along from it! Better times for you!
As to the F-5015’s, if you have questions or thoughts on setup etc., give John a call, I am sure he can give you as many tips as possible! Not that it hurts any to poll the audio population either! Have fun!
|
Well, once I get these in house and start playing with them, I'll report back with some feedback. The speakers are the final piece of the puzzle for my system rebuild. My hopes are that an additional sub won't be necessary for movie soundtracks. |
I had a chance to get one in 2012 that was being beta tested. I regret I didn't take John up on his offer but I had just spent my money on a bigger amp. Oh well maybe I will have the funds one day to get one. He said it goes down to 16 Hz for some scary bass. |
Spacer,
I know this is an old post, but, if you have time I would still love to hear your thoughts on the F-5015's. I had a pair of Walsh 4's I purchased in 84'. Upgraded them to the 4.5000's around 2012. Had John and co build a custom center channel for me, then lost everything in the 2018 #campfire.
Now, I'm in contact with John to build me a couple of F-5015's, plus some additional speakers. So, any more insight you can provide would be helpful. Are you sending full range frequencies to the 15"sub, as well as the cls driver? How has the sub amp performed through the years? Do you find it not necessary to breed an additional sub for movie listening?
Thanks, buttecreeker |
Hi reclang
It is a scealed design. For the rest of your questions, I suggest you contact John via the Ohm site. I'm sure he will be able to answer them. |
"I believe (don't know for sure) the W5000/W4000 series are 2 way designs with the Walsh driver supplemented with a tweeter that kicks in at around 12,000 Hz. I suspect that the crossover is of a first order design although perhaps you can offer some clarification on that."
Tweeter kicks in at ~ 7khz as I understand it. Not sure about crossover type.
"The W5015, I believe is a 3 way design with tweeter, Walsh driver, and 15 inch built in amplified sub woofer that crosses over at 80 Hz. Is the cabinet sealed, ported, or some other design? "
Yes, 3 way as described. Not sure about crossover point or controls ie similarly adjustable or not to an outboard sub or more fixed. Spacer might know or I would have to study the pics of teh controls he provided further to venture a guess.
I suspect the cabinet is sealed and not ported like other Walsh CLS designs, in that sub would relinquish benefits of a portm but not certain. Spacer would know. If not ported, that would be a first in the Walsh CLS line I believe and more like original OHM F.
"Also, the inference seems to be that the 5015 is audibly smoother in the upper frequencies than the 5000/4000 series. This suggests that there have been improvements/changes over the 5000 driver which go beyond just the addition of that awesome subwoofer. Is it known what these changes may be? Or could it be that that the Walsh drive does not have to carry as heavy a workload (because of the subwoofer) in the 5015 that it peforms better."
My understanding is it is a standard configuration 5000 driver used based on the descriptions I have read, but John Strohbeen might be the only one to know for sure. Also, I believe he has indicated it is currently a prototype, so details could change.
One of the benefits IMHO of the standard 2-way Walsh CLS driver (all generations) is that the Walsh driver does most of the work and CLS design seems to minimize demand on the tweeter. This helps account for the Walsh CLSs ability to go very loud seemingly with little or no compression (with enough power behind them), breakup or distortion, that I have observed both with originals from the 80's and the newer descendants.
Adding powered subs to any speaker otherwise pretty much always translates to further lowering the demand on the rest. German Physiks uses this approach with their DDD Walsh driver. I know other OHM Walsh owners (MartyKL for one)have expressed considerable success using external subs with other OHM Walsh speakers, especially to help enable the OHMs to perform well off of tube amplification.
I use an external powered M&K sub with my Walsh 2 series 3 OHMs running of 180w/ch SS Tube Audio Design 125 Hibachi monoblocks in my large open family room/kitchen area. The sub crossover frequency and level setting is minimal with the OHMS, compared to how set with my other monitor speakers I have used the sub with from time to time.
The sub definitely adds something, but I could probably live without it. THat room is fairly big but not huge and is my second system where I do not do as much critical listening. |
Spacer and Mapman thank you so much for your enlightened responses and photos.
Since my following of Ohm speaker development has been spotty over recent years I have a couple of fundamental questions.
I believe (don't know for sure) the W5000/W4000 series are 2 way designs with the Walsh driver supplemented with a tweeter that kicks in at around 12,000 Hz. I suspect that the crossover is of a first order design although perhaps you can offer some clarification on that.
The W5015, I believe is a 3 way design with tweeter, Walsh driver, and 15 inch built in amplified sub woofer that crosses over at 80 Hz. Is the cabinet sealed, ported, or some other design?
Also, the inference seems to be that the 5015 is audibly smoother in the upper frequencies than the 5000/4000 series. This suggests that there have been improvements/changes over the 5000 driver which go beyond just the addition of that awesome subwoofer. Is it known what these changes may be? Or could it be that that the Walsh drive does not have to carry as heavy a workload (because of the subwoofer) in the 5015 that it peforms better.
Thanks.
Robert C. Lang |
Please note that i posted picture of the mighty 15" woofer.
Well, i find these last posts extremely interesting. To answer the question: I have several pairs of speakers (you can see one in the background of one the the 15" pictures) and I use them all occasionally. The ohm f is the one however I prefer because its sound is unique and still give me the most pleasure on many recordings.
I'm still testing the F-5015 and have yet to make a definitive judgement about it, but I beleive that the F is not only there for marketing purposes. From what I heard so far, the frequency balance is near perfect ( I say near because nothing is perfect), like it was in the Fs. Moreover, the general
Impression of the sound and music is for me in the same family as the original Fs. The pleasure I find listening to the new Fs finds its source in the similar qualities : live like mids, supreme highs, yet not invading and incredibly smooth, bass frequencies which, like it was the case with the Fs, are always at their place, in perfect rhythm with the rest, in perfect rutic and tonal harmony.
Also, like it is the case with anyone listening to the old Fs for the first time, it takes time to adapt your ear to the new Fs sound because as it was the case with the old Fs, it is different fr anything you' be heated before, at least it is for me.
I'm still testing and will be looking at the mid bass when my amp makes it back home, against my other speakers (equipped with one of the best woofers in the world, the Scanspeak 10" paper woofer.
I will have to be very careful in my assessment because as I said the music presentation if the new Fs is so different, with, amongst other things, the 15" expanding the space between instrument and sounds so vastely, that I will have to live with it a while to make myself a definite idea.
Cheers!
PS: note that English is not my first language, so please try to read the ideas not the words. |
****Maybe OHM should retire the F name, like a baseball hall of famer's # is retired?***
Well, I don't agree with that. But I believe it would have been more "fitting" if the "F" designation would have been saved for a speaker that employed an "F" like Walsh driver, a speaker closer to the original in presentation and implementation. Why re-brand the 5000 with the "F" designation over a cabinet? Otherwise, any and every speaker that Ohm Speakers have produced since the "F" that employ the quasi Walsh technology (non omni variations with a tweeter) could also have the "F" designation. Why now and why with the 5000? It's about marketing.
Look, this ain't that big of a deal, not at all. But I and several others I have spoken to find the "F" designation for the 5000 to be misleading, if only benignly so. Like I say this is marketing, no sin in that.
I might add that I and others quickly figured out that the 5015 was employing the 5000 driver and not an unfettered "F" like driver when Ohm Speakers kept this new "F" under wraps. Because Strohbeen knows that an Ohm speaker, especially, that employed an improved, more efficient, F like Walsh driver would generate excitement with significant ripples throughout the entire audio community. If it worked, the new "F", like the original, would be an emblematic flagship for Ohm speakers and not merely a flagship.
****I have no desire to live with the limitations of the originals in this day and age despite the unique attributes of the originals.***
Absolutely! Indeed, I replaced my "Fs" almost two decades ago (although I still own them). And I'm sure that the 5015 is truly a great decision. The 5000 on down the line are also "unique" in that they employ variations of the Lincoln Walsh invention. And from what I have heard they are all exemplary performers.
Robert C. Lang
P.S. did you employ your orginal "Fs" up until you got the 5015 upgrade? Or did you have them in storage? |
"For me the "F" designation is simply "not right"."
My opinion is OHM is very consistent. Names of refurbished models (offered for less than equivalent with new cabinets) are based on a combo of original cabinet and new driver names. Hence mine are F5 series 3 and Walsh 2 series 3 for example.
Maybe OHM should retire the F name, like a baseball hall of famer's # is retired?
Also note that the cabinets come from owners who willingly trade in their originals towards new models for significant discount.
Just trying to paint the entire picture,in the interest of fairness.
From My perspective, I am thrilled to own speakers using modern drivers in refurbished F cabinets. Its the best of both worlds for me. I have no desire to live with the limitations of the originals in this day and age despite the unique attributes of the originals.
|
Spacer
I have no doubt that the Walsh 5000 generation of Ohm speakers is a stellar performer. It's just that as an Ohm F owner (I retired them many years ago, although I did set them up out of curiosity a few years ago) the "F" is far more about the pure Walsh driver...not the cabinet. And while my current speakers (like the 5000) are far superior to the F's in almost all meaningful ways there are some attributes the F brought to the table that are not easily matched (in my experience) or perhaps not even measurable, let alone exceeded, such as coherency/"seamlessness" .....and that vaunted soundstage that is as close to live that I can recall (outside of a well executed/high quality 5.0 music system). These are singular attributes of a true unfettered omni directional single driver. Indeed, if it weren't for it's well documented limitations of dynamic range/deep bass I could probably happily live with them today.
For me the "F" model has a certain "reverence" attached to it. So, when I got the Columbus sale email from Ohm Speakers that the "F" name had been resurrected I was naturally excited and was hoping that Ohm had figured out a way to incorporate a modern version of the pure Walsh driver most likely with a sub woofer (such as German Physiks, or Huff) but no seperate tweeter. And for only $10,000!!!
So, yes even though the Walsh 5000 is a great speaker I was disappointed to learn that the "F" designation was due solely only to the inclusion of the Ohm F cabinet and not an improved implementation of the Walsh driver technology over the 5000 series. In my opinion Ohms new flagship should be called the Walsh 5015 I assume the subwoofer is a 15" driver). For me the "F" designation is simply "not right".
Robert C. Lang |
Hi blueranger,
One of my mono block just let me down this week, but when I get it back I will try them with another pair of speakers equipped with a Scanspeak 10" woofer and let you know how it feels pressure wise. I can already tell you though that they will not withstand the comparison. |
Hi rclang
The ohm f-5015 has the most powerful low end I've heard, but it not only powerful it is also extremely faithful to the sounds recorded. Weather it is the double bass in Beethoven 5th by Karajan in 1962 or the more recent extreme bass of kangding ray album, or a duke Ellington big band recording, the bass is always perfectly fitted with the rest, and the rest is so dynamic compared to the old f that IMO ohm has really made a giant leap in sound reproduction, miles ahead of any other brand of speakers.
Moreover, I know I can locate it better in my room and regime the adjustments the 5000 offers, as you can see on the picture.
I have a pair of ohm, but I do not listen to it anymore since I got these marvelous new musical boxes. |
I will post a photo of the woofer soon. |
Those 5015's sure are impressive. I wonder how they compare to other big speakers as far as sound pressure levels go? Thanks for sharing pics |
"How is its "presentation" compared to the classic F? Is it more like the Walsh 5 class with a more powerful low end? Or does it up the ante throughout the frequency range for resolution (especially) as well as for dynamic range?"
Rx, my understanding is that current X000 series in general does that relative to the originals of which Walsh 5 (series 1) was the largest. Having owned original Walsh 2s for years prior to obtaining my two newer pair based on last generation series 3 drivers, I can vouch that this was accomplished with series 3. Newer series 4/X000 series is advertised to take things somewhat further, "evolutionary but not revolutionary".
F5015 then appears to be mostly about adding the powered subs onboard to base level 5000 driver in refurbed OHM F cabinets. That obviously has mostly to do with bass levels, especially in larger rooms. |
Spacer, I see it and posted comment.
IT will be interesting to see where John goes with the concept, ie if he will introduce a similar all new 5000 model with powered subs built in rather than relying on recycled F cabinets. He does do a lot of custom work by customer request, so it is possible that these might fall into the special request category.
The taller can for the 5000 driver is interesting. I wonder if there is anything different about the CLS configuration inside or if that is just to more emulate the form of the original F driver? I'm guessing the 5000 driver is the same, but perhaps sit higher and more room is needed in there below to integrate the subs in particular.
I'm assuming the 5015s are not bottom ported with the subs like the subless 5000s are? |
Hi Mapman
I've built a system under the forum "done for now" I titled
"Ohm F-5015 photos"
Hope you can find it. All photos are there. |
I think pictures would be great for the legions of Ohm fans, especially Ohm F adherents. But the main question remains is how does the Ohm F 5015 sound? I'm especially curious as an Ohm F owner. How is its "presentation" compared to the classic F? Is it more like the Walsh 5 class with a more powerful low end? Or does it up the ante throughout the frequency range for resolution (especially) as well as for dynamic range?
Beyond all that is the Ohm F 5015 merely a prototype? It has been since Columbus Day since it was "announced". Yet, as far as I know, there have been neither hide nor hair of its existence since that time. Certainly there has been nothing tangible. *Nothing* on the website. That is awfully strange.
Robert C. Lang |
Spacer, problem with email is Audiogon no longer provides a way for members to correspond directly without a user posting their email address in public, which I prefer not to do.
There is no special functionality on agon for a temporary virtual system. You could create a virtual system here on agon, and post the pictures there. You can then delete it at any time as desired.
OR if you are comfortable posting your email address to this thread, I will then respond, but its totally up to you if you want to do that.
Whatever works best, or not. I'd like to see the pics but do not feel obligated to post if too much trouble. I'll survive! :-) |
Mapman
I have no clue on how to built a temporary site. So what I suggest is I email you the photos and you create the site. Let me know what you think |
Spacer, btw, if you set up a virtual site so we can see the pics, you can always delete it later at any time if desired. Or keep it and build it out over time if desired.
LOoking forward to seeing those f5015s in all their glory...... |
The only way on Audiogon I know of is to create a virtual system and post them there. |
I have the pictures but don't know how to upload them to this thread.
Can someone help me? |
Hi Mapman
Hi asked John and there is no problem to post pictures so I will try to post some this week end. |
Mapman,
Since it is not yes in production, I will ask John if it is ok with him; if it is I will post all the pictures you mentioned with pleasure. |
Spacer,
If possible, I would love to see some photos of the 5015s, including cans, hoods, layout of controls, etc. Maybe a quick system post with some pics? Might be hard to photo the bottoms where the subs would be visible as I understand it, though. |
Correction: in the new Fs, my amps take care of frequencies above 80 Hz and the Ohm 500 w/c built in amp takes care of frequencies between 16 and 80 Hz. |
I forgot to mention one change;
The foam joint between top and the cabinet was changed |
You guys have got me thinking if I should not after all keep my Fs.
Concerning the renovation of the fs, i use to make speakers and even sold a few so I know that even the smallest changes can modify the original sound of a speaker. The changes which were made are the following;
1) The foam inside the cone and the surround (suspension) of the cone has been replaced by the exact same foam by a technician who has been doing this for years.
2) the top is now bolted to the bottom with four bolts instead of only two
3) the amp is now connected directly into the cone instead of in the bottom connectors placed at the back it the cabinet, so the inside wiring is no longer used
4) the connectors on the cone have been changed for modern connectors (I've tried many while I was making speakers and I chose the most neutral ones IMO )
5) the quantity of the damping material has been slightly reduced after several hours of testing (two inches were taken at the top)
So you see I've kept the changes to a minimum. I know there is some guy who restored them by changing the cabinet completely (type of wood and thickness of the walls - the result is not an ohm f anymore since it is impossible that with such changes the speaker sound anything ode to the original Fs. |
"I'll hazard a guess those fine Walsh drivers won't be appreciated too much longer."
The cabinets will likely get recycled with newer drivers for some future buyer looking to save some money compared to new cabinets. I am a fan of those older pyramid shaped cabinets myself.
Maybe if someone were interested and contacted John, he would sell the drivers sans warranty for a reasonable price if the condition and value can be established within reason.
i can't imagine a pair of OHM F drivers in good working condition not having some value, but I do not know what is required to establish level of functionality and value accordingly in that in that all are old and have had third party work done on them prior most likely if still in good general working order. It likely takes some special expertise just to appraise the operating condition and value properly I would think. |
Too bad they're going back to Ohm. I'll hazard a guess those fine Walsh drivers won't be appreciated too much longer. |
Spacer,
That's quite a setup, even for a sizable room!
I think OHM is mostly interested in the cabinets for restore and future sale. You might be able to keep the F drivers if desired. Worth checking perhaps. |
Hi unsound,
They are restored properly, but they are part of the deal for the new ohm Fs. |
Hi Mapman
Oracle Mk IV turntable - ortofon cadenza red - Rega rb900
3Dlab dac millennium Mk 3
Accuphase c280v preamp
Mark Levinson 436 mono blocks amps
Audioquest Colorado xlr
Please let me know what is your system.
Happy thx giving - even though we do not celebrate it in canada |
Sell the original Ohm F's to someone one who can appreciate them and perhaps have them restored properly (not an easy undertaking). |
Spacer, what is the rest of your system?
Thx + happy turkeyday! |
Hi,
Im going to keep the new ohm Fs. Of course they sound different from the old ones, but the new ohm f sound is fascinating in the sense that they offer a new approach in the sound dispersion, an aspect which was central in the appreciation of the initial ohm f.
The new f sounds extremely good with all kinds of music, which is a exploit by itself. The deep bass is not only as tight as can be but it show new textures in records I thought I knew by hart, thanks to the 15 inch woofer.
The f5000 is just incredible offering a extremely detailed and musical performance, which is perfectly matched with the 15 inch woofer capabilities.
I'd never tought if do that, but I'm going to bring my old Fs to John this week end and I must admit it is not going to be easy letting them go.
But hey, we got to follow progress and the new Fs represent progress IMHO from the old ones. |
They are in fact incredible. Totally different from all the other speakers you have heard before. |
Hi,
Your amp goes to the 5000 cone, which takes care of frequencies above 80 hertzs, and the built in 500 w amp takes charge of frequencies from 16 to 80 hertzs with its 15" woofer. |
Hi,
Your amp goes to the 5000 cone, which takes care of frequencies above 80 hertzs, and the built in 500 w amp takes charge of frequencies from 16 to 80 hertzs. |
Mapman,
You are probably right. I know where to place the new ones in my new room, but have not yet tried the old ones. The will probably have to be spotted differently than the new Fs. |
Spacer,
Given original Fs are full omni and full range and new OHMs generally produce lower levels in wall facing directions, and use a more directional tweeter above 7khz or so, I am guessing that each may sound best with somewhat different placement in the room relative to walls and listening location(s). |
I'll start testing Sunday. One of the question I have is this: the new 15" woofer can go very low, we already know that, but it is not only a question of going low it is a question of also doing it right; since the 15" has a 500 w/c amp, I'm wondering if this amp will produce a bass of a quality equal or superior than that on the old Fs 12" with my mark Levinson 436.
Also, the sound dispersion of the old Fs is unique and addictive, I wonder if the new Fs will offer a similar stage or if it will be a more central stage.
I'll have some suggestions a to the answers to these questions by the end of next week. |
Me too. I've researched the ohm Fs online and I keep reading there a legend. |
Newbie question here. Do I understand that EACH 5015 has a 500W Amp inside the speaker? If true, what kind of Amp? If I have a 100WPC amp and I hook up the speaker leads to the 5015 what happens? I do not understand connecting up an amp to an amp. Excuse my lack of knowledge. |
I'm anxious to hear the results of the F versus F test! :^) |
I know many good speakers owners will say that, but the question is : can a speaker handle real deep bass (like for example in the album "The last resort" from Trentmoller or in the last Kangding Ray album "Pruit Igoe")so well that all the high and mid frequencies are still as smooth and present as if there were no bass, with no degradation whatsoever.
I have tested the new Fs and they can acheive this as well as they can reproduce a piano, cello or violon solo in a really emotional way.
The last test I will perform is compare them to my old refurbished Fs (the best speakers I've heared so far), in my new home (600 sq f room). The competition is tough, but I think the new Fs can actually come out on top. |
Most older conventional box OHMs from the Marty Gersten/ pre-John Strohbeen era had more forward mid range as I recall. I still have my OHM Ls though I've refurbed them a bit and same still holds true there. |
I too had just traded my ohm Is in for the 5000s. They were excellent speakers. Great for rock and dynamic with enough power.the 5000s are smother through the whole audio spectrum especially the vocals which are very real.. The Is did have a forward midrange . |
