Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

MWR0707,

The f-5 series 3s are in approx. a 27X20 foot inverted "L"shape room as sketched below with a thinly carpeted solid concrete floor. I do not measure decibels, but I like music to be played at realistic sound levels, including rock music. I push the Walsh 5 drivers as hard as my ears can stand before I stop. I have not reached a point where I notice any ill effect on the sound due to volume. The power level lights on my Carver m4.0t do light to near max levels, but does not appear to run out of juice. You can hear and feel the music throughout the house (~3700 square feet) at this point. Nothing I've ever had before ever came close to being able to produce this level of sonic exhiliration!

------------------
|
|
X X |
------- |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

Line,

I can claim similar results regarding driving the Walsh 5 S3 and Walsh 100 S3 drivers to high volumes with my system. Never a hint of stress or strain!

This is just a theory, but since the Walsh drivers take a while to break in to best sound, it may not be a good idea to drive them to the limit fresh out of the box, but rather work up to high levels gradually. I tend to do this with most new stuff just to be safe.

MWR0707,

I've heard a lot of good things abut the Outlaw amps. I would probably consider one myself if I had the need.

I don't know a thing about your player, but my understanding is that in general mixed video/audio format disk players are not not up to snuff with comparable cd-only designs, which makes sense. I use a $400 Marantz DVD player in a smaller A/V system with CDs and it sounds good, but I'ved never tried it in my reference audio system. I've used a $600 dollar Denon CD player/recorder in my reference audio system for two years. I am satisfied with it and I suspect I could do better with another CD player maybe, but it has not been an issue for me. The Denon sounds clean, smooth, lively, and great overall! I could easily recommend it for the budget and/or feature conscience. You get two drives and the ability to make essentially perfect sounding recordings to boot.

My 200 series 3s are in a den that is 2/3 open to a nook/kitchen to the rear. The dimension on the open side is 15.5' x 35' x 8'. The closed-in 1/3 is 12 feet deep instead of 35. It amazes me how well the Ohms handle this. The only qualitative difference I notice from the closed side of the room to the open side is the bass level.

I measure 90db 10' back from the speakers with the Outlaw 990 reading "-10db". This is quite loud (not rock concert loud) but it is near my comfort limits. I've never heard any distortion the few times I've pushed it louder.

I have no idea how to tell how much of the amplifier's 250wpc at the S3's 6 ohms I am using.

Just to add my experience to this conversation.

I have the Walsh 5's series 2 and drive them with a Carver amp. that outputs 600 watts per. ch. into 8 ohms and 1200 into 4 ohms. I have on occasion play them loud enough (in a 16' X 24' X 9' room) that i cannot hear my own voice when taking normally. I heard that the series 3 are easier to drive but don't know if that is a fact or not.

Mapman,

What size room are your 5's in? When you were running them full out, were you monitoring the power output of your amp, or measuring in some other way? I ask because I'm really not sure how to determine where full out really is, or if I could even stand it without ear protection or risk disturbing the neighbors. I find it uncomfortable to listen at much more than 85db for any period of time. Do you measure sound pressure?

Tvad,

Sorry to hear you were disappointed.

You have to go with your own take on what is worth it.

"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent."

Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727)

I also had a couple of "small shop" issues. Ohm was very responsive and everything ended up fine.

I look at it as investing a little of my time in exchange for getting what I wanted at a great value.

As you read through this thread, you will notice a variety of concerns that some people have about these speakers. I find it interesting how much factors other than "how do they sound" rank for some.

If a particular design spec, a particular appearance, or a crisp sales experience are high priorities, you may want to look elsewhere. My top priority was getting the "Walsh sound" I experienced 30 years ago. I'm happy that I've been able to get very close to that.

Mapman,

My CD player is an Oppo 981HD. The amp is Outlaw 990/7500 (ATI). So my 200s are limited to 200W/ch.

The Oppo is recognized for video. I'm curious as to what a player focused on standard CDs would do.

Ohm does a lot of different tweaks to all their various models that they've produced over the years. They do almost anything in regards to customizing and upgrading in order to best suit specific customers needs. This is much different and complex than most speaker lines that have a set of clearly defined models and perhaps a few options. It may be hard to know exactly what to expect sometimes perhaps given all the different configurations possible, especially when an older model is upgraded.

With so many options open, mistakes can happen. Best to ask lots of questions up front to be sure to get the full picture before waiting for the product to arrive and be surprised by something.

For example the binding posts under one of my Walsh 2 S3's are positioned in a way that makes it more difficult to attach a heavy speaker cable like my Audioquest CV-6's with the cables running out the rear. Not sure exactly why this is, but it is a minor inconvenience for me in my case. They are still a bargain in my mind.

Ohm is not a big shop. Wouldn't surprise me if they get backlogged from time to time.

With my Walsh 5's, I was told I would have them before they close for the summer (they close for the month of July) if I got my order in two weeks in advance + they were delivered on time, exceptionally well packed + in good shape.

On one other occasion, I placed a parts order on one day + received them UPS the next day. Ohm is located in Brooklyn, NY only about 230 miles from me.

My experience has been they generally do what they say and will try to make things right if they make a mistake.

I wouldn't change anything until fully broken in. My W5's took a good 3 months, including several sessions running them full out with a 300W/ch amp! My Walsh 2s (100 drivers) were acquired used, and were fully broken in. I use them for reference. The most noticeable difference was in the bass. The Walsh 2s, though in a smaller room, were actually more satisfying in the bass department at first. The rest of the sound tended to smooth out over time I would say as well. Their overall timbre remind me of my Maggie 1.3c's now, which is a very good thing, but have a hell of a lot more satisfying bass. The Ohms were not this smooth at first, as I recall.

Why do you think you might need to upgrade the CD? What kind of amp do you use? The Ohms like amps with a high damping factor to control the drivers better. Look up "damping factor" on Wikipedia for more info on damping factor and how it relates to speakers.

John at Ohm recommended NAD electronics. I use a Carver m400t with very good results. I've tried my Tandberg receiver's amp with these and liked the Carver much better. I also think the Walsh drivers are better suited to solid state electronics in general due to their dynamic nature than to tubes, though I've never heard the Ohms driven with a really top notch tube amp.

Mapman,

Can you describe the changes you perceived after break-in? How long did it take? I'm thinking that I should avoid tinkering such as upgrading the CD player until the sound has stabilized.

I've been thinking about a Cambridge Audio 840C.

Thanks!

Mwr0707,

I would agree with your comments regarding room acoustics and the benefits of the 'realistic" sound produced by the Ohm Walsh Series 3 drivers.

It sounds like your drivers may not be fully broken in yet from your description, in which case expect that the best is yet to come in that the larger Ohm Walsh drivers take a good while to break in.

Audiogoners, seriously, if you are an audiophile constantly looking to better the sound coming out of your speakers, and you have a grand or two to toss around just in order to try something with a radically different approach to sound reproduction, for a reasonable cost, I'd recommend trying a pair of full range Ohm Walsh Series 3 speakers. You can buy an old pair of cabinets and purchase an upgrade from Ohm, buy refurbished units from Ohm, or buy new cabinets and drivers from Ohm, depending on budget and taste.

Ohm has the common man looking for a way to achieve lifelike audio performances in a cost effective manner covered. You really have nothing to lose.

My reference speakers prior to purchasing two pair of Ohm Walsh Series 3 speakers this past year were my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkII monitors. Compared to the Ohm Walsh Series 3 speakers (Walsh 2s and f-5s that I own), the Dynaudios are crisper, seem to sound more detailed with more resolution, noticeable in particular with well recorded acoustic string instruments, and have pinpoint sound-staging. They work very well in my small 12'X12' listening room. Yet, despite this and the fact that the Dynaudios have by far the best speaker cables of any of 6 pairs of speakers in my house, the Walsh Series 3 sound more lifelike so I end up preferring these in almost all cases when I do a/b comparisons.

However, the Dynaudios are still great monitors and still wow me more often than not on their own, just not quite as often as the Ohm's.

I also lived happily for 20 years with a pair of full size Maggies until recently when I replaced these with the Ohm f-5s. The f-5s through a similar though different and, in smaller rooms, a more focused and holographic-like soundstage, are not as hard to place correctly, have better overall response, particularly in the bottom end, and the dynamics are better (they move a lot of air!).

By the way, I sold Ohm speakers in a hifi shop years ago which is how I got acquainted with them but I am not affiliated with Ohm in any way.

One of these days, I would like to try a good pair of horn-loaded speakers also, like the vintage Klipschs for comparison. I recall the sound of these speakers and would be interested in trying them out and comparing again.

I lived with a set of F's for a year in the 70s. Like most others, I became "imprinted" with the stunning 3-D imaging, smooth frequency response, and wide sweet area.

There were other speakers with more brightness and detail, but at moderate volumes (70-80db) for long periods of time, to my ears, nothing compared to the F's.

I recently learned that Ohm sell their latest drivers for many of their older models. Being well aware that the new drivers are not the same design as the original F Walsh, I talked with John Strohbeen about my experience with the F's.

John never said that the new models were the same as the F's. He did say that in some ways, they were better, and that I should listen to them for myself. Not an unexpected response from the designer and owner of the company, but what was the risk to try... shipping them back if I didn't like them.

I found a set of FRS-11s on eBay for a good price and ordered the 200 Series 3 upgrade.

I perceive the "color" of the sound to be somewhat different than the original F's. I think this is the subjective part that each listener has to evaluate individually. To my ears, the results are still very pleasant.

On the first few tracks I listened to, it seemed to me like the bass was restrained. Then I listened to a well recorded track with loud and deep bass content and I felt the old Ohm punch again. I had forgotten what playback without over-emphasized mid-bass sounded like.

Since the room they are in has an irregular shape and is half-open to living space behind, the bass response varies according to listening position. As you might expect, the more enclosed parts of the listening space have louder bass. I may add a subwoofer to the open part of the listening space for better bass balance across the entire width of the listening room.

These speakers do not provide intense focus and detail. Decades ago, we used to call that a "bright" or "West Coast" sound. I always found it somewhat unrealistic and tiring after an hour. To me, the color of a live performance has always been driven by the acoustics of the room. I perceive these speakers as very realistic in comparison to live performances. As an example, I compare the sound of voices from the speakers to the sound of voices from people speaking in the room.

What I think I enjoy most is walking across the room and hearing the 3d image shift as it would for a live performance. After almost 30 years, it's a return to speakers that give the experience of "being there".

It's been almost a month, and I'm very happy with the results.

Regarding the Ohm Walsh F and A Loudspeakers. The purpose of this guide is to provide potential buyers and users much needed clarification and information regarding the magical and little understood Ohm Walsh model “A” and “F” Coherent Wave Transmission Line Driver/Audio Speaker from the 70’s and 80’s. I will not go into details of the previous guides here, but I will attempt to clarify many misconceptions and incorrect information which has arisen throughout the years. Let me begin by saying, unfortunately, not only have these speakers had a tremendous amount of misinformation disseminated throughout the years, but there are also many dangers presented by perhaps well meaning individuals whom attempt to recone these old units and sell them on e-bay and various audio markets as “working” or “refurbished”. This is the furthest from the truth, for no one, not even Ohm Acoustics, rebuilds these any longer. So far as I know, and it is my humble opinion, but, I am currently the only person in the world that can build these units from scratch or refurbish the old units, including cabinetry and some 30 upgrades to materials and performance specifications. I am here to tell you in no uncertain terms that these speakers represent some of the most sophisticated and difficult to build audio transducers ever made and mass marketed while still representing some of the finest musical reproduction capabilities of any speaker ever devised ranking easily amongst the finest speakers in the world for decades. The capabilities of these drivers, when properly executed, have been known to rival and compete with many “cost is no object” systems such as full range ribbons, Apogee, Quad ESl’s and Infinity’s super IRS standard systems, costing $60,000 in the 70’s. At the time of their final production in 1984, the Ohm F model commanded as much as $4,000 retail and the “A” model commanding $6,500. The drivers truly representing the word “exotic” and the cabinetry bordering on works of art. As many others have stated the driver of the “F” model consists of a steeply inverted cone standing some 12 ¾” in height with a slant of 75.5 degrees. The cone is constructed of two metal foil sections and one paper section. The top third is made from titanium foil having a thickness of .0025”, the mid section is made from polished and tempered aluminum foil, (Not Stainless Steel), having a thickness of .003” and finally the last section is made from felted paper having a thickness of .025”. The finished cone weighs an incredible 124 grams. I would like to mention that aluminum foil off the shelf from “Reynolds” will not do the trick here. While the above materials represent the bulk of the cone, the magic of their function lies in fact in the treatment and correct assembly of each section. To be brief, the top titanium section has a special treatment applied to its internal surface that acts as a sound absorber, a stiffening agent and cone nodal breakup control. It resembles grey modeling clay, but it isn’t, and lasts a good deal longer. However, be aware this material is critical for proper operation and it does dry out and crack after 15 to 20 years, so it should be replaced. Reconers never do this, let alone know the proper materials to use. Next, the Aluminum section is also treated internally and externally in several special ways. Externally, the cone has ribbing lines running vertically for the entire length of the aluminum section that have been scribed into the aluminum at precise intervals, depth and angle. This ribbing helps to make the cone stiffer, but also is used to “tune the cone”. Internally, the foil is covered with a specially selected grade of “open cell” damping foam of precise thickness. The foam runs the entire length of the aluminum section and covers about 1/3 of the titanium. One of the most important things overlooked or not attempted by refurbishers is the replacement of this special foam. One reason is because it is very difficult to remove the old and then equally difficult to replace the new. In addition, this foam is not readily available off the shelf. If the foam surround is decayed from aging, as all units now are, then the internal foam is decayed as well and MUST be replaced regardless of weather it looks OK or not. Typically this foam crumbles or rots turning into “gooey” fragments and falls of in gobs if touched. It is used for damping, control of cone ringing and control of the speed of the wave front traversing the cone. The final cone section of the “F” model, the paper is perhaps my favorite when it comes to being misunderstood and overlooked. The bottom third felted paper section servers many functions, but is most responsible for producing the lower bass frequencies of the driver. A close examination reveals lots of slits cut into the paper and what looks like silicone seal applied to the internal side of the cone. My favorite story is perhaps one I read of an individual that sent his speakers to be repaired only to find upon their return that the silicone had been applied to the slits that he had so carefully had peeled off, thinking that someone before him had placed it their as some sort of repair. He was incensed and demanded a full refund because he felt the speaker had been incorrectly repaired. Here again, this sealant MUST be there and must be applied correctly. A closer look will reveal 4 rows of slits placed horizontally in exacting positions across the cone surface. These slits control cone break-up, provide a properly terminated high loss transmission line and prevent reflected sound from the cone annulus from returning back up the cone and interfering with the oncoming wave. Further, the paper is treated with a properly positioned internal “ring” of paper that is also a stiffener and produces a density change in the material. Finally, the paper portion is terminated with another paper “ring” that is cut and glued to the main paper body, again producing a state change and acoustic signature. Now that we have a basic understanding of the driver’s conical section, let’s examine the remaining and very critical suspension and compliance portion of the Walsh Driver. The suspension of this transducer consists of some very familiar parts, namely a foam surround and a spider roll as is commonly seen in many piston driven speaker assemblies. As many of you may know the stiffness of the spider and the thickness of the surround as well as the type of materials used, combine to form a system that controls the driver’s acoustic parameters. These parameters are based upon some of the Thiele and Small calculations and are critical for the system to produce the desired frequency response, desired bass roll off, total system impedance, high end response and box functions. The suspension is designed to work with either a ported or sealed enclosure. Changing any of these components represents significant changes to the overall system performance and can make or break the speaker’s ability to reproduce realistic sound. Trust me when I say, that not just any old “off the shelf” foam surround or any spider of the same size and color will work in the proper function of these drivers. It will not! Any reconer or refurbisher that try’s to use stock parts will obtain marginal performance at best. I would also mention that reusing the old spider is not advisable since most have been stretched considerably due to the weight of the cone pulling it down for many years . The surround not only suspends the cone and correctly centers it, but is also provides for critical damping of the acoustic wave as it reaches the end of the cone and thus prevents most of the acoustic energy from being reflected back up the cone. The spider serves to center the voice coil and provides mechanical resistance to the driver’s motion. This mechanical resistance couples with the voice coils DC resistance to produce the speaker’s total impedance or load to the driving amplifier. Will it play you ask? Yes, the speaker may play, and it may even sound acceptable to some, but it will be far from optimal and therefore far from being one of the finest speakers in the world. More than likely, the speakers will sound dull, lackluster, even muffled in the high end. The clarity will suffer on voice reproduction and choral groupings. The bass will be dull, slow and lack articulation. The difference is a hand made sports car compared to a small compact model. Once again, to my knowledge, I am the only person in the world that has these items made to order and to my specifications so as to be compatible with the originals and or the enhanced new units that I build. Finally, we come to the very heart and soul of this phenomenal driver, namely the voice coil. The voice coil is not only responsible for providing the electrical impulses that are transformed via. the interaction between the electrical input signal and the high energy Alnico magnet, but it also represents the power handling ability of the driver and its ability to produce the highest frequencies as well as the lowest simultaneously. Unlike any other driver, this single voice coil must be capable of functioning over the entire audio range of 20 Hz to 20 KHz. and beyond. This transducer is made from a very thin anodized aluminum ribbon wire with a rectangular cross section that is wound on the tall edge and adhered to the inside of an anodized aluminum former. The coil consists of a single layer and must withstand extreme temperatures approaching 300 degrees C during operation, and yet, it must also be extremely lightweight, since the mass of the VC represents the critical mass of the moving system that must be accelerated or decelerated in order to pluck the cone and produce the highest frequency sound waves. The original goal was to have a VC that weighed less than 4 grams. Because of this, the Walsh driver is the only speaker in the world that can successfully pass a square wave retaining more than 95% of its original shape. I would like to point out that there are also variants of this coil that are used in different “F” cones and also the Big brother Ohm Walsh “A”. Having said this, please understand that there are NO substitutions for these coils and the use of any other type of coil, wire, winding, form etc. from presently available stocks will not work. As with the other parts, I make these coils to order and have them expertly wound to my specifications and application. While I have endeavored to present the Walsh “F” in considerable detail, one may infer from this information that the Walsh “A” functions in much the same fashion and in theory this is true. However, the “A” is an entirely different version of the Walsh principal in action, having a cone with a nominal 18 inch size. This driver is only slightly taller than the “F”, but has a dual flare cone and is made entirely of metal foils. The top section of the cone employs a 3 inch voice coil similar to its smaller brother, but of a nominal 8 ohm impedance. The top portion of the cone is made from thin titanium foil and employs a steep angle of 75.5 degrees. While this section is somewhat longer than the “F” cone, where the titanium meets the aluminum section the cone flares abruptly to a cone angle of 62.5 degrees. There it continues to the entire extent of the cone body and ultimate diameter of approximately 14.5 inches. As with the smaller “F”, the cone is terminated by a special cloth pleated surround, designed to do exactly what its foam counterpart does in the “F” model. The actual size of the driver is a misnomer and is more truly measured at 16 inches to the outside of the surround and 18 inches to the driver frame. The cone is completed with treatments to its inside with putties, foams, diamond shaped hash markings for stiffness and for tuning. The “A” represents an unbelievable work of art, form and function. Sonically, it has no equal with the ability to go subsonic and produce thunderous bass while simultaneously producing the full subtle air of voice and delicate articulated highs. Not bad for a cone that weighs more than 346 grams. In conclusion I would like to reiterate that the Wash “F” and “A” Transmission Line drivers are extremely difficult to build, highly complex in their execution and make considerable demands on construction techniques and materials even today. In fact, just to show how much thought went into the design of these speakers consider this…every glue in every joint was chosen for it sonic properties as well as its merits as an adhesive. I would like to share you with a little back round on myself. My name is Dale Harder and I reside in Parma Ohio. I am an Aerospace, Laser, Electro-Optics and Audio engineer, and have been in these fields for more than 30 years. My long love affair with the Ohm Walsh Speakers started in 1972 and to my knowledge I am currently the only person in the world that can still build true “Walsh Style” drivers from scratch or refurbish the old Ohm Walsh units including cabinetry. I have devoted much of my life to improving upon this series of speakers purely for my own enjoyment. I would also like to state that I am in no way connected with Ohm Acoustics nor they with me at the present time. The information that I have given is from my own learning and experience and while I have endeavored to be accurate and true, I assume no responsibility for any of its use or content. Further, I do not manufacture these speakers under the name of Ohm Walsh “A” or “F” as that would be a trademark infringement. I simply emulate the Walsh principals. I do however manufacture new drivers and complete speakers or refurbish older units with some 30 + improvements using the Walsh "A" or "F" as a base guide. The new speakers are called the Walsh TLS-I and TLS-II Lastly, I Do Not sell parts for do-it-yourselfers, sorry, so please don’t ask. I hope this has shed some light on these unique speakers. Thanks and Good listening, Dale Harder. dale@hhr-lasers.com

I recently acquired a pair of Ohm f-5, series 3 loudspeakers from Ohm. These were very reasonably priced by Ohm, especially with trade-in. As such, I decided to try them.

These are the latest Walsh 5 Series 3 drivers that have been available for just over a year from Ohm mounted on refinished Ohm F cabinets with a modified port design. So you get Ohm's current best Walsh 5 driver's mounted in legendary Ohm F cabinets. How cool!

I have been breaking these in now for ~ 6 weeks. Verdict: I can't imagine better overall sound reproduction for any price! I can elaborate more on the sound if anyone is interested. In general, I'd say all the rave things you can read about Ohm Walsh 5s on the web are true. These are true relatively unknown audio wonders. Not the prettiest speakers in the world (though they look fine), but certainly one of the most innovative in terms of providing state of the art sound at an affordable price.

The adjustments on the Walsh 5 drivers allow you to flexibly match the speakers to your room, which lowers the risk that the speakers will be hard to place or optimize sonically.

I also have a pair of Ohm Walsh 2 Series 3's (Ohm Walsh 2s upgraded with the smaller (than Walsh 5) 100 Series 3 drivers. These sound outstanding as well and very similar overall to the f-5 S3's in smaller rooms, but do not have the driver adjustments, which makes them somewhat harder to place optimally depending on room acoustics.

Dale, what is a ballpark price for the A's and F's?

Hi Guys,
For what is worth, I am now offering the Ohm Walsh F+ and A+ by Dale Harder, in limited productions, with exotic hardwoods and some 30+ improvements beyond the original models. Some of the improvements are: New cones, improved magnets, stiffer spiders, lower weight high power voice coils, box stiffeners and resonance control, Cardas gold connectors, silver Litz wire leads. I also refurbish completely, older models and upgrade them, cabinets and all.
If your interested please contact me for info, pictures, etc. dale@hhr-lasers.com 440-888-2163
A new web site is forthcoming.
I will also be offering new and refurbished high power tube amps and full range ribbon systems.

Hi Jamscience,
Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner.
I have remained pretty faithful to the old design in order to maintain a baseline. However, I have hopefully improved on the voicecoil, making it substantially lighter and able to withstand more power. My newest coils will be in production very soon, up to now, I have hand made each and everyone. I am also working to improve the suspension and dampening of the cone.
As for pics, I am happy to share some, just drop me a line at my home email...dale@hhr-lasers.com.

Dale,

Would you mind sharing some photos of your re-creations?
Also, if it doesn't involve giving away any secrets, would you mind discussing the improvements you have made to the original designs (both A & F)?

Gentlemen,
I have read your discussions on the Ohm Walsh A and F drivers with enthusiasm. Didn't think anyone still cared.
I am new to this site.
Anyway, for what it is worth, and to my knowledge, I believe I am the only person in the world that builds F's and A's from scratch to this day. I have studied these drivers and their principals for the last 30 years. I am the only person that hand winds voice coils, makes complete cabinets, magnet assemblies and complete cones from new materials. I use the same materials as the originals and some improvements. My drivers are meticulously assembled in every detail. In addition, I refurbish old units as well. I have spoken with many people over the years whom claimed to be able to re-cone or repair these marvels, but NO ONE has ever done so as the original. My name is Dale Harder. I can be reached at dale@hhr-lasers.com

Three or four years ago I auditioned the Ohm Walsh 200 MkII's with their at-home trial and found them missing the special qualities I remembered. They were a bit on the heavy sounding side and lacked the sense of space I was after. That was a pity as I really wanted them to be as magical as the F's from many years before.

I never owned the F's and heard them so very long ago; but what you said here confirms what i do remember and how the F's sounded compared with MkII's.

I think the F's cone is the coolest looking speaker there is.

> What was the MSRP of the F’s back in the mid to late 70’s?

I bought a pair of Ohm F's new in late 1974; the price was $800 for the pair. I believe the price increased fairly rapidly after that. They certainly had a magic about them.

Three or four years ago I auditioned the Ohm Walsh 200 MkII's with their at-home trial and found them missing the special qualities I remembered. They were a bit on the heavy sounding side and lacked the sense of space I was after. That was a pity as I really wanted them to be as magical as the F's from many years before.

As for me, keeping the price below 4K would make it a lot easier.

Frap, or anyone else, count me in as a future purchaser of a new and improved version of the Ohm F utilizing a true Walsh designed driver. If the speaker had a MSRP of around $5000, it may cause many audiophiles to give them a serious audition. I can imagine many listeners liking what these speakers do, even if they only sound identical to the original ones. My hope is someone who can make this happen reads this thread and has an ah-ha moment.

Check book and pen in hand and now just waiting to order...:>)

The Ohm A in its current state of Millersound mods may in fact surpass everything available, based on it's inherent design executed properly. That said, the Magneplaner wave launch is still bigger on piano music and the reason for its typical audiophile aproval. Dynamics on the Ohm A destroy the Maggie though, and the spooky 360 effect is just not there on the MG series in any model....Pick your preference.
I find the look of the Ohm A/F to be quite acceptable and even attractive compared to the boring "coffin" and mostly uninteresting designs being offered today. The Vadersteen 5 is somewhat similar in appearence and seems to do very well. The 70s offered the most innovation of any era in Audio and is unlikely to be repeated.
Regarding audiophile cattle, you know the outcome before it happens.........unless the price is real world. This is the number one factor. Seasoned music lovers will hear the reality of things, they will see the hobby reignited with enthusiasum because they will never have experienced this form of 3D. We are not talking ribbon driver clarity or transparency here, but genuine 3D..the likes of which no speaker in recent or past memory has achieved. I think with the right group of people,(like the Legall crew),this most important and exciting of designs can become a new reality.
My ears have been conditioned through the years with Quad, Infinity, IMF, LS3/5A, Apogee and many other audiophile approved items and I am quite sure of the value of this product.
"Ground breaking designs" seem to have ended in favor of the money and business realities of our current generation. This sort of dedication was part of a more serious and simple social climate where music, not money was the driving force. Is it any wonder that no current audio offerings remotely touch on these breakthrough items.
It does not have to be this way. Current (ad nauseum)loudspeakers with the same over and over drivers and /sound are everywhere....gauranteed to bore you...as much as "classic rock" FM radio.

I sure would be interested in an updated Walsh speaker!

I have no doubt that the Walsh driver stomps all over Maggies, which are the best selling "audiophile approved" speaker in the world. As such, i'll use them as a point of reference.

By re-designing the Walsh motor structure and suspension, thereby making it more efficient and higher in nominal impedance, you make it easier to drive. As we all know, Maggie's aren't the easiest to drive and are also "finicky" when it comes to placement. In this regard, the "modernized" Walsh walks away from the Maggie.

On top of that, the Walsh's have TREMENDOUS bottom end, something that you couldn't pry out of a pair of Maggie's. In this regard, the Walsh RUNS away from the Maggie.

The Walsh's also have the deepest and widest dispursion of any driver / speaker system that im aware of, making for a FAR more "engulfing" musical experience. One can gain the sonic "wrap around" feeling that one normally only obtains from listening VERY nearfield, a presentation so "thick" that it feels like you're walking through it ( varies with recording ). Compare that to the presentation of the Maggies, which sounds "ambient" and "spacious" only when sitting in a limited area, and the Walsh once again wins.

Given the single driver point source with no crossover parts to soak up power or add their sonic signature, you don't have time or phase errors. The "one driver, direct drive" approach also produces excellent harmonic structure, prat and coherence, as many of the "full range" afficionado's will testify to. Maggies have a crossover, use multiple drivers and lack the warmth and bottom end required to have great "prat" ( in my opinion ).

To sum things up, it is a fabulous driver with GOBS of potential that absolutely kills the "audiophile reference". Would the average audiophile recognize this? My answer is NO. Most audiophiles are sheep and led by their noses via printed reviews and the herd mentality of the internet. Even if the glossy rags and internet "herd" were to jump on the bandwagon, it would be a short-lived ride till the "next best thing" comes along.

Most audiophiles are more concerned with dimunitive size in a speaker ( monitors ) OR MEGA sized boxes with a lot of drivers. Maggies are kind of a cross of these two i.e. large frontal section but very "petite" in terms of depth. On top of that, the Walsh's are so unconventional in appearance, operation and placement that many would be turned off.

As such, i think that it would become a niche product, just like those using SET's, single drivers, nearfield listening, etc... That's because the design approach and presentation wraps up several different aspects of what these people love and are after, all into one package. As we all know, those specific types of listeners are but a small part of the audiophile market, which is why i think it would be doomed to remain a product of interest to only a select few. Much like it is now, but on a slightly wider scale. Sean
>

PS... To be honest, i've never heard a Heil system that was worth listening to. Having said that, i'm quite certain that the installations and support componentry were to blame. This is probably most of the problem with those that had complaints about the Ohm's too, especially "way back when".

The technology behind the Heil driver, much like the Walsh, is pretty incredible as compared to more conventional designs. It's too bad we don't have any designers / engineers around today that are willing and capable of introducing and properly implimenting "ground breaking designs" like these. Instead, we keep getting re-hashed "monkee coffins", albeit better designed and better sounding "monkee coffins".

Funny you mention "hi fi resolution", the greatest example of this being the ESS AMT HEIL 13 pound driver. To this day, it is beyond reproach from a hi fi standpoint. It does some things better than anything I have heard.It is hard to give up its special qualities once you hear them. Some music will never sound better than with this driver....yet some music sounds completely hi fi and wrong.
Isn't it ironic, Sean, that Heil and Walsh designs were of the most important variety, only to be executed without proper R&D to eliminate their errors.
The case for several systems is a good one, space permitting.
Here is a question for you Sean: Suppose the OHM A were reintroduced today with all of Millersound's R&D as a specially licenced product, and then marketed for a reasonable sum of money. Not 30K or the nonsensical current price schemes, but lets say $6500.00. Assuming respected ears on this site (like Trelja's above) were typical of the majority, could this technology/design be saved/ressurected? Vinh Vu are you listening

Frap: I would tend to agree, but maybe from a different perspective. The Walsh makes music with both depth and ambience whereas other speakers may produce FAR greater "hi-fi resolution". As far as being immersed in sound, as one is at a concert or sitting nearfield of a bunch of acoustic musicians, i know which one is more realistic. This could be because you don't strictly have a left /right presentation with the Walsh's like you do with more conventional speakers.

Either way, i like the presentation of the Walsh design. I also like specific attributes of other more conventional designs. That's why i have several different systems, all quite different from one another. They all have their drawbacks to one extent or another. Some are just far more blatantly lacking in certain areas. Sean
>

Regarding Bill's Ohm A, it is indeed a very interesting and unique type of sound. Along with the very special "you are there" characteristics, it is a frustrating design with the most complex theory behind it I have ever seen. At first listen you are aware that something special is indeed happening to the sound...a more 360 boundary-less type of envelope, yet as wonderful as this quality is, on say a female vocal and guitar, it tends to not handle the complex music quite as well, or with as much reality. Bill's IRS is the much more univeral product. While it may lack the Walsh's seduction (I know its very alluring), I can bet the house that its dead accurate. If a new recording is purchased and one wants to really know how it sounds, the IRS is the one. Now I am sure countless mods have been performed since I last heard them a year ago,and judging from the above praise, a breakthrough must have occured. Interestingly, the speaker was spectacular when auditioned outdoors with no room interaction at all. Bill can attest to this. Bill is, of course, a very gifted and visionary engineer with the most unerringly correct (almost scary) intuition regarding audio on the planet. There is no question the Walsh driver in his hands may someday surpass his IRS, but, I am sure he will tell you he sleeps better at night knowing his IRS is there as an absolute reference...........Frank

Trelja: Now you know why i said what i did in a ( WAY ) earlier thread on Agon. That is, even though they most certainly have their flaws, i don't plan on giving up my F's anytime soon. I'm quite certain that mine don't perform to the level of Bill's "completely re-designed" Model A's, but none the less, many of the sonic attributes are still there to a lesser extent. Even with just that hint of performance to them, i knew that they were "special" from the very begining. Sean
>

Amen, Sean!!!

Once you hear the Ohms rebuilt as they were intended to be implemented, the results are quite staggering. It sounds more than obvious, but the voice coil being outside the gap of the magnet just doesn't really fly. Like having the propeller of a boat outside of the water, but relying on the turbulence it creates in the air (but, NOT a fanboat) to somehow at least also exert enough influence on the water to get you moving.

Didn't know the A uses an 18" driver, and the F uses a 12" driver, but the discourse in this thread is teaching me a lot.

I'm incredibly lucky to be able to listen to Bill Legall's own pair of Walsh A's, and though I haven't heard them yet in a good system (I have to push him harder on this), or with the drivers tightened down (maybe I'll just do this myself while he's working on something...), I'm not sure they don't disqualify every other speaker in the "Best speaker you've ever heard" thread. Personally, I put them easily over Bill's pride and joy, the Infinity IRS in his living room.

Sean, I stand corrected. Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for clearing it up.

The Ohm versions of the Walsh drivers suffered from very poor assembly techniques. That is, the voice coil was not properly placed in relationship to the magnet / pole piece and the suspension ( spider, surrounds, etc...) were not properly slected. The end result is less than optimum performance in most every respect and drastically reduced efficiency / drastically increased compression.

This is why Bill Legall of Millersound referred to the Ohm A's & F's as being "broken from the factory". Addressing these problems basically means rebuilding the driver, but the results can be staggering to say the least.

I'm quite certain that the increased efficiency of the DDD stems from FAR greater attention to detail in the design & assembly of the driver. By limiting bandwidth of the driver, efficiency is also increased. If one were to read Walsh's original patent info, Walsh specifically stated that this design could be built to cover a VERY wide frequency spectrum. Only problem is that the wider the spectrum, the lower the efficiency.

Line: I'm lost as to what you're trying to say. Then again, i've not gotten much sleep in the last few days, so...

Unsound: The German Physiks speaker uses a passive crossover, not an electronic crossover. While the passive could be considered "electronic", that terminology is typically reserved for an "active" crossover. Don't know if that's what you meant, but thought this should be clarified for those that aren't familiar with the design. Sean
>

I could very well be wrong about this, but, it appears as though the DDD is a single driver and the Walsh is a compound(?) driver. If I'm correct, when run full range (20 Hz - 20 KHz) The German Physiks speaker system with its DDD driver and more traditional electronic crossover to subwoofers may have less cross-overs than the Ohm speakers system with its Walsh driver with it's mechanical cross-overs. The German Physiks cross-over may be in a less critical region? The Walsh's inherent cross-overs might still be more coherent as they cross-over to a more similar driver(s)? The German Physiks seem to be easier than the Walsh's to power? Any thoughts?

Sean, I wonder if a Walsh drive (which does have suspension) would also emitting sound by means of piston action like a conventional driver does, and if it indeed does, that would boost the SLP. You see, I don't know, but would like to know. But I don't see how it could not.

And a steep cone like the F has (which looks to be about 60 degrees or so), would be less efficient at this then a cone at 35 degrees would be.

An I making myself clear?

Line: I'm not going to go into the design of the German Physiks vs the Ohm A's and F's as i think that they are more similar than dis-similar. Other than that, i'm still trying to figure out what these "extra spl's" are that you're talking about??? Sean
>

the cone material is some type of metal and apparantly they can deform permanetly with what i believe was described as ripples.

What is a pure Walsh driver supposed to be? This is what I think is should be. Please correct me if what I say here is wrong.

A pure Walsh would emit sound 'only' by means of transmission line, and if the driver had suspension, that would introduce a sound that is not transmission line sound, but that of a conventional speaker. So the sound being emitted from a Walsh with suspension would not be pure transmission line sound, but rather a mix of the two.

A Walsh driver generates waves down the cone material, whatever that material my be. And from what i understand, this can be done one of two ways.

One way is to generate waves by bending the cone material itself and the waves are moving at supersonic speeds and different wave frequencies will have somewhat different supersonic speeds. From what i have read, this is how the DDD works. This method requires a very thin and ridged material.

The second way, is to generate a compression wave, in which the waves are not on the surface, because there is no bending involved, the cone material itself is being compressed, (not bent). Compression waves are also super sonic.

In ether of these methods, the proper angle of the cone will depend on the speed of the wave on/in the material being used. The greater the speed, the steeper the proper angle will be. The F's use metal and sound travels much faster in metal then in plastic, therefor the steeper angle is required if a metal matteral is used for cone material. Now, if the wrong angle is used, the waves generated in the air will not line up to form a single coherent sound source, and this will create time-smear or time-delay.

The use of suspension may or may not be necessary (i don't know), but if it must be used, i do not see how it could be pure transmission line.

This is what i understand as how a Walsh driver works. Am I wrong?

From what i understand, the DDD employed the first method and the F's the second method.

Lngbruno:

I think, even built by hand, these speakers wouldn't be as expensive as was stated above.

Actually, I was being facetious. (just thinking of those 60" cones!) The real problem is recreating what has already been done. It's one thing to modify an old Model F; it's another one to build it from scratch. Just a crude guess would be (per pair):

Materials - $2,000.00 - $3,000.00
Labor - $2,500.00 - $3,000.00
Outsourcing (for things that you could not afford to do as an individual) - $2,000.00 - $3,000.00
Testing and breaking in - $500.00
Things not thought of - $1,000.00

Total cost - $8,000.00 - $10,500.00

Plus the cost of getting a new patent for any new improvements. $????.??

Am I anywhere close to the mark Sean?

The difficutlty of manufacturing a Walsh driver is something that I believe could be resolved by good reengineering.

In my former life as an aerospace engineer, we worked closely with a university lab who were the primary designers of very sophisticated military electromechanical equipment. Our company's part of the design job was to refine their original designs, which often disregarded little details like "how do you make it?". The term used is "producability engineering" and it appears that the Walsh driver design never had the benefit of this kind of engineering.

Line: You've lost me in terms of "where do the extra spl's come from?". What "extra" spl's are you talking about? Sean
>

Sean and Jamscience, thank you for your very informative posts.

Sean, I purchased the Ohm F's in early 1975 while I was working on Long Island (Huntington). When I auditioned the speakers, the gentleman who was fielding questions at the Audio store was from Ohm. I can't recall his name but he seemed like the #1 guy. I remember the price of the speakers was not in outer space and were a little more than the Bose 901's. My friend bought the Bose around the same time I got the Ohm F's and couldn't believe how stupid he was for purchasing something that sounded so inferior to what I had. To add insult to his injuring himself by self inflicted dope slaps upside his head, the F's were a couple hundred more (rememebering the details are foggy due the fact I was just out of college and hmmmmmm...maybe using some party substances at the time. LOL) I'm sure I am not alone in this aspect of youth. Regardless, I loved those speakers with or without being under the influence.

Based on what Jamscience stated about the patient (my cousin is an attorney for the US Patient Office and she had already stated as much this past weekend), then there is hope some very creative and gifted person will look at this design again and give it a whirl. I think, even built by hand, these speakers wouldn't be as expensive as was stated above. Remember, a well connected in the bizz person is going to have connections for some if not all the parts. Case in point, look at where the Von Schweikert line of speakers are being made, plus many many others.

Warning! Ohm posting that failed to, well post. (Sorry, some of this was written 2 days ago and I am trying to catch up.)

This is a recreation of what I think I said:

Line:

Jamscience, now we can argue over...'Is John actually marketing what he had patented .

No way, no, no, NO! And my Mom says you can't make me! ; )

BTW, I think someone just put up a pair of 4XO's on eBay.

Lngbruno:

What was the MSRP of the F’s back in the mid to late 70’s?

According to Ohm:

Production Period 1972 - 1984
Nationally Advertised Price originally $900 - $3995 per pair

Question - What is preventing a Manufacturer from building an authentic Ohm F again?

Is it the licensing?
Is it the technology?
Is it the patent?
Is it the cost of producing them correctly?
What is it?

IMHO it is the cost associated with building them.

I am not a lawyer or a telephone sanitation engineer, so please excuse any mistakes I may make and feel free to correct them.

The patent ran out in 1989 (20 years if you keep up with the maintenance fees). (I personally believe it should be 42 years) :) If I understand correctly, once a patent is up, anyone can create that object according to the patent. If you modify it in any way, you have to apply for another patent or risk having someone or corporation competing with you using your modifications.

I have a problem with Ohm's excuse of running out of craftsmen to build these speakers. People can be trained to produce just about anything. It's just a matter of time and money. I also realize that it does cost a lot more to have something built by hand instead of by automation. John Strohbeen's patent refers to the cone and voice coil in the original Walsh patent as being expensive to manufacture. My take on this (and this is only opinion) is that the bottom line was being eaten up and to justify continuing to produce a "Walsh" speaker, a new design was needed to be equal in performance but less costly to make. Whether they succeeded is a matter of opinion.

Why does Ohm still use the Walsh tradename? IMO because they own the trademark indefinitly (as long as they pay the maintenance fees) and because of brand recognition. At least German Physiks had the cojones to name their driver by the inventors name; DDD (Dick Dipole Driver) yet give credit to Lincoln Walsh. Ohm could just as easily name their driver the SCD (Strohbeen Coherent Driver) or even the STD (Strohbeen Transmission-line Driver). OK, maybe that last one might be a marketing mistake!

Sean:

This type of design would have to be hand built using custom parts i.e. minimal off the shelf componentry. As such, it would be a relatively large economical undertaking for someone to attempt as compared to starting up a speaker company that uses off the shelf parts. On top of that, the market for such an item isn't all that big in the grander scheme of things, hence the lack of anyone jumping in with both feet.

Having said that, i can see this type of thing taking off if someone were to build "one off" products out of their garage. That is, IF they could achieve the type of results that we know this design to be capable of AND doing so with a high level of consistency. I have thought about this myself, but not too seriously. Sean

Maybe after creating a new prototype, an ingenious mechanical engineer could build a machine for mass producing these speakers (or at least cut down on some of the handwork. Of course one would have to charge outraegous amounts of money for these. (maybe in the range of $15,000 - $40,000) I don't know if there would be a market for such an expensive speaker? Would anyone buy a $40,000 speaker? ; )

When I hit the Lotto, I'll be giving you a shout!

Sean, I examine it, question it, go into it and find out on my own whether what I read makes sense to me and so far, it does not.

I agree with you on...how could reasonable SPL's be achieved without suspension. But on the other hand "with suspension", what is the cause of increased SPL's? You said yourself that the wave alone could not achieve the necessary SPL's. So I wonder if the sound being emitted from the cone is a mix of wave transmission line and conventional piston action? I do not know what else could be responsible for the higher SPL's.

I looked at the Ohm 5 Mk-2 again and there is no longer any back damping. It is omnidirectional now except for the tweeter. The can measures 9 3/4" high and the bottom 1/3 of the can is omeni, 360 degrees.

Sean, how far from the back wall did you position your F's?