Ohm Walsh F Hope of Resurrection

Time moves Oh, so s.l.o.w.l.y. when waiting for a repair!  ;) 

I appreciate all the information and encouragement! 

Duke,
Great analogy! The original quote was about wineskins. New wine could not be put into old (already stretched) wineskins, because the fermentation would rupture them. 

Speaking of rupture, one of the seams along the front of cabinet is splitting, so that would have to be considered, too. I'm sure there could be discussion of how the restorer might address it. 

So far, the best aspect of this project has been getting the King Towers back into the rig. Man, am I happy to have them! It's great to have direct comparison to a full range driver omni. It will be fun to switch between in order to gain appreciation of each technology.  

I find it refreshing return to my earlier days, when I defended inexpensive audio. How many times have I been accused of "selling", as though my primary goal is not performance, but convincing others to spend money. Let this exhibit stand as an example of the blowback that happens when fans of a certain brand or speaker chide someone who could, but choses to take the economical route! 

This makes me a hero for the budget audiophile!  ;) 

First listen sublime; it was a good call and project that will yield much enjoyment. 

Midwest Speaker Repair in St Paul, MN 

You’re getting into details that are best pivoted toward Dale. :)

Time to head downstairs and continue work with another amazing speaker - something you guys probably have not encountered prior.  :)  You'll have to watch for the review, not immediate.  

I was a bit shocked that the newer Ohm speakers are not true omni. I had never bothered to look,  and it's radically different  than the Walsh.  I am only interested in a true omni. 

Should have known by visual assessment; you can't do true omni when you have a metal  plate and electronics behind. As I'm after an actual omni, I wouldn't consider it. It's either fix this or replace with similar. No longer interested in current Ohm products for this project.  

Looking at some very interesting options. Thanks to everyone who has participated! 

Hooked them up; even though the surrounds look ratty and the one spider sags, they are sounding pretty (given condition). Frustrating info on these pertains to some driver refurbishers not wising to even redo the surround. To send them back for complete overhaul of speaker, to make the old boy like new, we’re talking likely close to $7.5K, maybe more incl. shipping. I wasn’t looking to drop several grand on this.

Add to it that the cabinets are toast, would have to be replaced. So, in a sense, the speakers in terms of complete refurb are worth about a negative $100. Not my ideal of an inexpensive retro project.

Running into all sorts of conflicting info on merits of reconditioning driver, parts, etc. Spoke with Dale Harder, an encyclopedia on the speaker. I have a call in to Bill at Millersound to see about that possibility. BTW, everyone has been super-supportive and helpful! Thanks!

Isn’t that the way it goes? You think you may have a fix, perhaps in your back yard, Chicago area. No, they say, it’s thousands and half way across the country.

It gets to the point you say maybe do it yourself. Then you hear you get one shot, the slightest slip on this driver’s alignment and it’s over. It’s not like there are multiples of these cones are sitting around everywhere. Bummer.

Comments, suggestions, especially from people who have refurbished, redone drivers, more recently? My ideal would be to not have to ship (I would drive 150mi or so from Chicago area), and to start with replacing the surround to see if that is good enough.

I’m told that the spider can be helped by turning the unit upside down when not in use, and someone put a "stiffener" on it (coating) without hindrance.

My initial goal was to do an inexpensive repair and have some fun. But, I"m open to all comments.

BTW, I'm not trying intentionally to be cheap. I don't need a new reference speaker. This is supposed to be inexpensive fun. I'm torn between what I can get away with in terms of using it, and what it could be. But, a few hundred bucks to $1K, and $7K is a BIG gap. 

This is quite long, but vintage and rare omni buffs may find it interesting... 

I had a great discussion with Evan at Ohm; very helpful, and I can see the beauty, interesting nature of what they are doing with their design. I already have a hybrid omni, the Kings Audio King Tower, and I do not wish to move farther from that style of speaker if I can see if there is a possibility of moving up in terms of scale and quality. Doing a current Ohm product would take me mechanically, operationally further from that. So, I am letting go of that idea. I know there are enthusiasts, but no amount of adjustment would make a 15" and soft dome into a true omni. I don't care to debate anyone about that, and I'm not making a value judgement of the Ohm products, because I have not used them in my room and have not reviewed them. I'm simply not seeking that design. 

My options seem to be:
+Replace just the surround IF I can find a person to do so within 150 mi of Chicago. 

+Replace just the surround myself - and thinking through the tasks involved, and considering I have never done so, I think that would be far too risky to the vintage cone, and the odds are great that I would not get it centered properly. 

+Send them off to get them redone. Incurs shipping costs and potential damage through shipment, which, sadly, is a fairly high possibility. But, I could get the spiders replaced and get them closer to original condition. I realize this would not be to spec, but so what? I'm not spending $7-8K, either. 

+ Go full boatload, and have HHR Exotic Speakers build a new vintage set. If I send in the three parts usable I incur shipping costs, which probably would drain most of the benefit of the parts being sent in, but it's a whole new ball game in every respect. Cost between $7-8K I estimate. Big money for a project that I didn't intend to spend money, and a commitment to an omni as a reference, when it has always been a for fun genre. Would it be "worth it" in terms of quality? No doubt, absolutely. But, do I want to support that much for another speaker that I literally do not need? It is a way to get a large chunk of HHR Exotic performance for about half price of a redesigned model. 

I know, what miserable problems to have. It just shows that none one should ever give speakers away! It just brings problems to people! LOL 
The previous owners would probably be amazed at the level of concern, time, and perhaps money spent on this, given that they were going to take them to the dump. 

I see Dale's rebuild of the classic as a beautiful opportunity. I also think that a competent rebuild by Bill is just as compelling, given the price differential between the two. There are very serious disagreements in terms of the sound quality of the speaker given both scenarios. That is the most difficult to cipher. Dale believes the compromises to having the current drivers rebuilt by anyone else ruins the pristine nature of the speaker. Others say pretty doggone good sound can come from a rebuild, or even just re-surround. I get both perspectives, and I have heard hundreds of systems in my home, so I get the spectrum of performance. I see both points. 

Given that they do work, and I am not hearing distortion at reasonable levels, to find someone in midwest to redo the surround I think is also a compelling thought. I am thinking of the possibility of treating the spider by placing the driver upside down, then applying some form of fabric stiffener to attempt to strengthen it. There are a number of serious risks with that, including 1. Altering the sound audibly, 2. when turning the speaker upside down, the severely compromised surround may be entirely destroyed with another 1/4 to 1/2 inch travel. That is a very real possibility, and 3. It may not work well to boot. 

As I consider doing the surround replacement myself, I wonder if leaving the spider assembly in place would allow me to center the surround far better. I would presume I could GENTLY press on the spider to move the voice coil and see how the gap is, whether there is some rubbing. Perhaps I could tack down the surround in a couple spots to try to fix it in place while allowing for some movement. That way I'm not full bore fixing it, then finding out the possibility of a problem. 

Frankly, I also should pull out the current speakers and run a real world comparison, trial of the Walsh F. They were just thrown into the room for viability, but I should position them and see whether I consider the alternative sound to be worth perhaps going full bore for a rebuild. 

NOW FOR ANOTHER, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO! 
What if I were to just try the self-repair, or at the most pro repair of the surround, and maybe with about $1K limit or so on the Ohm, shift my goal to upgrade the Kingsound King Tower, a hybrid omni?

It's a terrific small tower, and I believe has big potential. I have thought for years about juicing it. I believe it would benefit from the following: 
+Replacement of 10" and 6" drivers with superior ones
+Replace internal wiring
+Replace internal caps, or maybe entire crossover
+Treat "cabinet" modules for resonances

I do wonder about that rebuild, because it would be tricky. But, then again, someone assembled them, so I figure it has to be possible. Probably smart to not pull the wiring from the super tweeter and "can" omni tweeters, but leave them in place. 

If you want to see the King Sound King Tower, do a search for that phrase, then select the option to see Images. The speakers with an mbl amp, an image from RMAF, will show up. Those are my speakers, perhaps the only ones in N. America. Getting info not this speaker is like a top secret project; there is pretty much been a wiping off of documents on the net. I have a glossy brochure of it, THANKFULLY, with a small image of the internals, and I did not know that there appear to be tubes, like an SVS subwoofer, built inside for the dual/stacked bass drivers in the lower cabinet, and the mid driver in the middle cabinet. If there is no access from the bottom, then a rebuild idea is dead, because I'm not ripping off grills on the top of modules to do it. BTW, I ripped out the silly blue foam balls, and it's much better without them!  

I have gotten some pretty cool sound out of it; the speaker is a "poor man's" mbl. I think that would be a nifty project, too. My dream result would be to get both of these speakers going in good shape, and not have to junk one project for another. 

What do the esteemed aficionados think? Hit me with all your critiques and brainstorming! It is most appreciated! 

OOPS; I had said,

"I had a great discussion with Evan at Ohm; very helpful, and I can see the beauty, interesting nature of what they are doing with their design. I already have a hybrid omni, the Kings Audio King Tower, and I do not wish to move farther from that style of speaker if I can see if there is a possibility of moving up in terms of scale and quality. Doing a current Ohm product would take me mechanically, operationally further from that. So, I am letting go of that idea. I know there are enthusiasts, but no amount of adjustment would make a 15" and soft dome into a true omni. I don't care to debate anyone about that, and I'm not making a value judgement of the Ohm products, because I have not used them in my room and have not reviewed them. I'm simply not seeking that design." 

After further discussion with Evan, I now fully comprehend the drivers and implementation of the modern Walsh driver, with its omni mid-bass to treble driver with directed tweeter,  and it is back on my radar as (for most intents and purposes) an omni. Mea Culpa 

pch300, some great tips, and it may be that I end up doing the surround myself. 

Was it Elmers glue that you used? ;) 
I presume not; what did you use? Do you recall? Some surround replacement kits have adhesive included. 

Thanks to you, pch300, I think I'm going to do this repair myself. I have been thinking about the project, and I believe I have come up with a winning idea on how to ensure success with avoidance of rubbing of voice coil. 

I would take all your suggestions, essentially, which are superb; thank you! 

But, in addition, when I got to the part where I would secure the outer rim of the surround to the metal basket, the thought struck me, why not use some painter's tape, or similar, to temporarily anchor the surround's outer edge, then play the speaker to assess for rubbing? If it rubs, I move it and reattach with tape. The tape should not damage the new surround, and it can be moved at will. In that way I should be able to then work around the bottom of the surround with glue, removing the tape locations and ensuring the proper position of the surround. I can also mark the edge, as you suggested for extra caution/precision. 

Obviously, I do not want to crank them up in that condition, as the tape might pull on the driver paper. Then again, I have bigger problems if the surround anchored to the paper pulls away! That had better be right! One has to use some sensibility. I could even, perhaps, use some narrow weights of some sort to place on the surround as an anchor. I would be able to find something suitable. 

I think I'm going to remove the drivers baskets today from the cabinet, and turn the drivers over to settle the one spider that's sagging. I also can begin to work on replacing the wiring and posts, which are antiquated and by today's standards poor. 

Sounds  feasible. Ideas, concerns? 

Thanks to you, pch300, I think I'm going to do this repair myself. I have been thinking about the project, and I believe I have come up with a winning idea on how to ensure success with avoidance of rubbing of voice coil. 

I would take all your suggestions, essentially, which are superb; thank you! 

But, in addition, when I got to the part where I would secure the outer rim of the surround to the metal basket, the thought struck me, why not use some painter's tape, or similar, to temporarily anchor the surround's outer edge, then play the speaker to assess for rubbing? If it rubs, I move it and reattach with tape. The tape should not damage the new surround, and it can be moved at will. In that way I should be able to then work around the bottom of the surround with glue, removing the tape locations and ensuring the proper position of the surround. I can also mark the edge, as you suggested for extra caution/precision. 

Obviously, I do not want to crank them up in that condition, as the tape might pull on the driver paper. One has to use some sensibility. I could even, perhaps, use some narrow weights of some sort to place on the surround as an anchor. I would be able to find something suitable. 

I think I'm going to remove the drivers baskets today from the cabinet, and turn the drivers over to settle the one spider that's sagging. I also can begin to work on replacing the wiring and posts, which are antiquated and by today's standards poor. 

Sounds  feasible. Ideas, concerns? 

pch300, that is a terrific idea (if one wishes to bypass), to go direct to the inputs on the driver struts! Superb! That will be my game plan, should the speaker's renovation come out ok. Excellent, and beneficial advice! Personally, this has been among the most practically� beneficial threads I have benefitted from on Agon.  :) 

Pch300, yup, parallel thoughts here.  :)
I'll just have to experiment,  and of course keep the original stuffing in case I need to revert to it. However,  as with many things in audio, I have found that a decent design may be improved. Emphasis on "may", as no one knows unless tried. That's how I came up with the Schroeder Method of IC Placement.   I'm guessing it will be really ugly without any damping,  but I want to explore the spectrum  because I suspect an even better result is attainable.  

In preparation for the reconditioning of the spiders and surrounds of the Ohm Walsh F, I removed the assembly to discover VERY stuffed cabinets! Wow, talk about jammed to the gills with what appears to be a mesh sack full of foam chunks! My first thought is, "Well, that would deaden a speaker pretty quickly!" 

I'm planning on removing this sack of debris and conducting tests with other materials. I presume that if the cabinet is left sparse, the sound signature will change radically, and likely for the worse. I wonder, however, if the mid to high frequency response will improve if a mountain of foam is not literally semi-blocking the drivers. 

As I'm thinking this through, I suspect the reason the bass bin was jammed so full was to force the sound to emanate from the driver versus emptying into the cabinet, and I also suspect the delayed propagation of the wave into the cabinet might be pretty ugly sounding. But, who knows until tried? 

I would think that a different foam might confer a nice improvement to the speaker's sound. I think I'm going to start with an empty cabinet beneath to assess the range of effects. 

Has anyone else experimented with that aspect of the speaker? 

Initial assessment of drivers upon removal of the top assembly (anchored by wing nuts) is that they are repairable. Cones are in great shape, and I'll be going for a replacement of spider and surround, leaving the original voice coil intact. This may not be the premium fix, but I understand a complete rebuild would be more touchy and more expensive. I'm out to have affordable fun - after all, they were free, and I was not seeking a reference omni. 

Suggestions for batting/damping material? Perhaps a trip to the local hobby shop or sewing center is in order. I wonder if furniture foam would be ideal? Frankly, that seems to be the chunks in the bag in the cabinet. 

musicbox78, some great pointers; thanks! I am not an aggressive listener, and I am not about trying to recreate live listening level. I do respect vintage gear, so I think the odds of destruction through use are reduced. 

I think I'm in contact with the right people, ones with experience, including discussion with Dale and Bill. To clarify, the estimated $7-8K was for Dale to use the old cabinets and build an entirely new speaker with new parts, not recondition of the old cone. I feel that is a very fair price all told, but my interest was not to seek a reference, or add a big gun speaker, but to see if the freebies could be used regularly. I will be putting some money into them, but looks to be reasonable expenditure. I feel pretty good about the connections I'm making. 

If I had no other speaker to enjoy, I would be very tempted by the complete rebuild by HHR Exotic. I would likely guide most owners to seek the rebuild of the entire speaker. My situation is unique for many reasons. 

This is not an equivalent to the new, HHR Exotic version TLS-1. I was told directly by Dale that there are dozens, literally, of changes to the new design. So, don't think you would get the new one for half price; you won't. There are aspects of the refurb that are not on the level of the HHR Exotic version. 

Still, were I in the market for a speaker change, I might do it. I was also considering a review of the new version, but he said he cannot afford to build for review; he only builds for orders. I understand that when it's a small shop and custom product. So, there's no review coming; sorry. I think it would make for a compelling article, something quite different, but not all review ideas work out between the needs of the manufacturer and the reviewer. This is one of the difficulties of smaller businesses with exquisite products. 

I think the upgrade to the F is a great option, so sure, talk to Dale! 

 There is always more to explore!  :) 

BLACK CRAP in the coil/magnet gap? HUH?! 

The speakers are at a repair facility; not discussing particulars at this time. 

The tech finds some black goo that is like a tar, that has gummed up the driver to the point it was frozen in the coil. He said he has never seen anything like it with these speakers. I sure had not seen anything like it. It seems so improbably wrong that it makes me wonder if it could have been sabotage (especially since inside the speaker there sat a smaller (wrong sized) spider that had soaked up some sort of oil substance), or perhaps someone so inept that they can't deduce that the part had to move freely or it would seriously compromise the sound. Seriously, who puts black, sticky, gooey crap in the gap? Did some kind of lubricant at one time age so badly that it froze the coil unit it was worked loose again? It seems counter-intuitive to proper treatment of a driver. 

Could it be that there was rubbing of the voice coil after a repair - there is evidence it likely was repaired - and someone sought to cover it up by using a lubricant? Perhaps; I wouldn't put it past some people. That may make sense, given how hard it is to redo these cones. Perhaps someone screwed up, and tried to cover it up, caring less about the longevity of the speaker than not being discovered. Perhaps I have solved my own mystery... 

It's also not as if this would normally fall into the driver, as they are typically inverted, with the coil and magnet structure higher than the spider and cone. 

Has anyone ever encountered such a thing? I am willing to be educated on all this if there is a reason for such things to be done. 

The fabulous news... it has been removed, and it appears the drivers are well on their way to restoration! I was VERY wise to solicit the help of experienced persons on this.  :) 

More research... Look at this from this site:
https://ferrofluid.ferrotec.com/products/ferrofluid-audio/audioselect/

Spider removal: Voice Coil Centering With Ferrofluid

The presence of ferrofluid exerts a uniform radial centering force upon the voice coil in the air gap. The magnitude of this force is dependent upon the strength of the permanent magnetic field and saturation magnetization of the ferrofluid. The greater these values, the stronger the centering force. Reduced scrap rates on the production line, reduced field returns and reduced distortion (due to the suppression of radial and rocking modes of the voice coil) are some of the well-known benefits of this centering force.

In recent years, the availability of high saturation magnetization ferrofluids have allowed designers to completely remove the spider, relying on the ferrofluid to center the voice coil in the air gap. This technique not only yields lower cost and a simplified production process; it also removes the well-documented nonlinearities present in all spiders, resulting in lower distortion. In general terms, the saturation magnetization values of ferrofluids used in spiderless designs should not be lower than 33 mT.

I now if the tech used ferrofluid to center the voice coil because of the difficulty of doing so with the Model F driver. Then, because the wrong fluid was used, it got gooey and froze. So, perhaps the incompetence theory is most accurate. 

So, one possibility is that it is ferrofluid? This is a very experienced tech, and I think that he would have known that possibility and would have recognized it.

It seems some grease may have been used on these old drivers, perhaps for heat dissipation? It sure does not seem intuitive, especially since the one does not seem to have it.

Looking at the images and discussion of ferrofluid, it appears that may be the substance. Does it get gooey and hard enough with time to lock a driver? 

No one has any knowledge or insight about this? If so, that might underscore how unusual the situation. 

I may ask the Ohm factory about it. I'm grateful that the drivers appear to be in good shape to recondition. 

mapman, some nice guidance, and yes, I plan on adequate clean power. I have no desire to abuse gear; all my years I have never blown out a driver, even when I built my own "cabinets" for my coaxial car speakers that sat in the hatchback area aeons ago. I'm more into quality with quantity as opposed to quantity and more quantity.  

I never take speakers to the point of clipping; I greatly value my hearing and do not wish to introduce the potential for hearing damage. So, these will be handled well, not abusively. 

I will look forward to trying the Pass Labs XA200.8 Monos with them. I suspect they will be quite attractive sounding with those amps. 

I do not have answers as to whether the goo was ferrofluid, but that is likely the best explanation. So, perhaps we'll see if when I use them it takes 300wpc to get them to wake up, and 301 wpc to blow them up! 

Thank you all for the continued advice and encouragement!

I have acted on one avenue of potential repair/restoration, which I found myself. My request from a local dealer went nowhere, and the request of a well regarded speaker repair shop about 1.5 hours away sank when they refused to work on it. That convinced me not to try by myself; good move, given I have zero experience in this activity.

My repair plan for the speakers involves two 12 hour round trip days in the car, as I was not interested in shipping them due to the potential for damage. I am willing to work a bit to get these drivers back into operating condition. The drivers have been in the possession of the repair facility, so they should be done sooner rather than later. Then, one more day in a car, and... COOL OMNI SPEAKERS TO ENJOY! ;)

In terms of the cabinet damage, where it is splitting along one of the front corners, at least a clean split from the outside; I will probably just shoot some glue into the fissure from the inside of the cabinet to prevent further compromise, probably use Gorilla Glue, and then put some wood putty into the gap. If I sand it down right, it shouldn’t be ghastly.

CALLING CABINET MAKERS/REPAIRERS... What do you think about that fix? The MDF seems to be the patchier kind, so trying to push hard on it and screw it back together might cause more damage. What’s the best stuff to shoot into the gap to hold it?


Lastly, I think I’ll try a simple, likely effective maneuver of placing about .5" pliable foam sheeting inside the cabinets (not glued, just put in position) to help with cabinet resonances. I suspect that will tighten it up a bit on the low end. Rapping on the cabinet is like ringing a wooden bell, even while the stock stuffing is inside! I’m not going to have that kind of distortion if I can help it. If my solution doesn’t work, I have not lost much and I pull it out. Or, maybe I can put steel straps inside, and fill the cabinets with 400 pounds of sand! ;) LOL I have filled one or two speaker cabinets in the past, and frankly, I didn’t like the result all that much. The bass on this will be like Harbeth, Audio Note, Tannoy, etc. with the hollow cabinet feel, which I’m not overly crazy about, but it’s an alternative toy. I don’t need to perfect it.

Imagine, these were a "last resort" call from the family who knew I was big into audio, as they were about to take them to the dump!

dgarretson, yes, I recall meeting you at Axpona, a very pleasant experience! Yes, Dale puts up a very nice speaker, no doubt. 

I appreciate the lead on the treatments for the cabinet! The epoxy/sawdust fix sounds like a winner! 

Repair now underway. It seems one driver is original and the other not. The original does not have ferrofluid, as it had not been invented at the time. A different lubricant, such as a grease, was used. At some point one driver failed and was replaced, the new unit utilizing ferrofluid.

The drivers are having spiders and surrounds rebuilt, the one with hardened/tacky ferrofluid has been cleaned, and both will be reconditioned with new ferrofluid. My understanding was that the original units were prone to failure, but the addition of ferrofluid ameliorated that problem. 

I may have reconditioned Ohm Walsh Model F’s for Christmas! That would be fun! :)

I wonder if it was coincidence; my pair of Ohm Walsh Model F were the only ones at the repair facility when I dropped them off. Today, when I picked them up, mine was one of four pair! They had never seen such a thing with that speaker. Perhaps our enjoyable brainstorming is motivating some owners? Or, just a freakish occurrence, which is certainly not beyond probability bounds. 

22 hours of driving, 1,370 miles, and total for project, including travel costs, of $400. DONE! 

Speakers are warming up (slightly; they were in car cabin, of course), and will be assembled tonight. Perhaps a first run this evening, too. We'll see. The hard work is over, now it's RELAX TIME!  :)

Now for the vintage Ohm community, a question; I have heard the joke re: 200/300 wpc wakes them up, and 301wpc blows them up. Ok. I have a super-clean class D that puts out 600wpc into 8 ohms and 1KWatt into 4 Ohms. Is this inherently a problem for these speakers, or only� relatively a problem, i.e. temptation to play them too aggressively? I see mapman is using plenty of clean power. 

pch300, the sound is well, vintage. It lacks a lot of top end sparkle that I have come to expect from superior speakers. But, that is reasonable, given the age and design. They simply never were able to create the shine that is with newer technology. The big call to fame was the mushroom cloud soundstage, and they have that. Am I going to add some super tweeters to open up the top end. No, I’m not putting any more money into them, as there are fundamental limitations that are obvious.

They will be curiosities, something to put in the system when I am bored or want to hear the omni sound pattern. It’s a good thing I have a radically clean rig, or else I couldn’t take them at all, as they would be horridly mushy.

I was fairly realistic in my assessment of what to expect from the repair. I didn’t expect the world, and they have not given it to me. For a few hundred dollars they work fine. I haven’t pushed them yet, but I will at some point. If they die, they die. I’m not going to keep them as a souvenir that is not worth opening up and running. They have physical defects, i.e. the cabinet compromise and some ferrofluid stains on one upper paper driver, so they’re not worth much.

This does confirm once again that most vintage equipment is beneath my expectations nowadays. I have yet to work with any vintage equipment that I could stand in the primary rig for more than a day or two. The sound is simply far too compromised. The price is right, for sure! But I don’t have to settle for bargain speakers. So, why did I in this case? Again, because they were presented to me as a speaker charity case that I knew I could revamp on the cheap. I don’t need another reference speaker, and this will definitely never be close to that. I just wanted a fun project. We’ll see if over time they "blow up" in a good way, or in a bad way. But, I’m not going to keep them forever if they never have the capacity to thrill. Having a unique soundstage simply is not enough to entice me to love them forever. I slowly upped the level and it didn’t seem to phase them. But, I got bored and put the Kingsound King III ESL speakers back into the mix. Much more excitement and prodigious. Who knows, maybe they can take a lot more; I was very light with them.

So, what do I expect for a couple hundred bucks? About what I got. Good enough for now. Next run I’ll push them harder to see if they have more to give, because I handled them with kid gloves this time, and they didn’t really shine in terms of the orb soundstage they can do. They’re either going to bring satisfaction, or be destroyed. I will not harbor low cost speakers that long term do not bring fun. Well, "destroyed" is a bit too harsh; they simply would sit around and perhaps be sold cheap to recover the costs or given away. But, please, people, do not contact with offers to take them off my hands. They're for fun and I don't know how long I'll be entertained. It's not your free speaker project. :) 

I will put the Kingsound King Tower omni speakers back into the rig soon. I want to gain a clearer picture of the fundamental differences between that omni and the old F. I was going to sell the King Tower omni, but maybe not quite yet.

I was going to redo the batting in the bottom of the cabinet, but I wonder if the drivers would react differently, potentially have too much excursion if the fairly solid batting was not kept in place. It would be stupid to remove the pretty solid mass that acts as an air brake, then push the drivers such that they had too much excursion. I think I’ll let that one go.

Nostalgia can be a strong force in the decision making process of the audiophile, but in my experience over decades, in every instance where I put money/effort into a vintage product, it did not yield acceptable performance. After a dozen experiences or more, at what point does the system builder conclude it is a less productive activity, at least in respect to pursuit of extreme sound? I am pretty sure that were I to put the $7-8K into a more extensive rebuild of these, and procured new cabinets, I would still end up at the same conclusion; nice, but not overwhelming. 

After a while, when you have heard hundreds upon hundreds of speaker systems, many in your own home, you are able to globally assess the technology's capabilities. There are fundamental, hard limits on each tech, and with a realistic assessment of the limits, decisions can be made in regard to whether a certain investment into upgrade will be worth it. Most often, I rather enjoy diversification into a different genre, than an attempt to idealize one genre of speaker. Experiences available through a variety of speakers is unparalleled, imo, with focus on one genre. So, my motivation to try to turn the Ohm Model F into "the One," is not strong. I have chased the mirage of the One many years in the past, and it always ended up disappointing, primarily due to allocation of resources into a narrower range of performance. I'm not willing to push on that button again. I have learned to know myself enough as a system builder to avoid what are for me less productive changes. 

However, there is another omni speaker sitting here... I may today put the Kingsound King Tower omni speakers into the rig to see informally how they compare with the Ohm Model 7. 

The story regarding the King Tower is interesting, and as a reviewer with curiosity I was in the right place at the right time. Over the years I spent plenty of my own money attending shows across the country. I was not paid to go as a reporter, so this was extra expenditure for unpaid work! How stupid, right? Except that I knew there was no other way to gain extensive experience with gear except by getting exposure to it. I knew I could pick some winners for my ownership if I could hear them. It was that willingness to spend money that most would consider a waste that led to some very cool outcomes, including the King Tower. If one does not have the vision to invest into potentialities, then the future is more limited. 

It was at one of the RMAF shows that I first saw them. I believe they were shown two years at the show, and they were shunted off to the side in a little system with mbl mono amps. They looked stupid, with bright blue foam balls in-between the bass and midrange modules. No wonder they didn't get attention, as they looked ridiculous. But, as I surveyed the larger design, I thought, "Ignore the stupid blue foam balls..." The design had potential, I thought, so I asked Roger DuNair, the importer at the time, to fire them up for me. He did, and I thought, "Wow! This really has potential!" I also thought that it could prove to be a SERIOUS contender to lower end Maggies. 

I bugged Roger for about two years to review them, but eventually he called and said he was not going to distribute that model in N. America. Did I want the demo pair? YOU BET! SEND THEM! The miracle of the story is that while I have had three other smallish tower speakers destroyed by the likes of UPS, FedEX and DHL over the years, these arrived intact! AUDIOPHILE MIRACLE! So, even though they are not my primary speakers, they have a nice set of memories associated with them. I believe they may be the only pair in North America. 

The first thing I did was apply myself to removal of the stupid foam balls! Thankfully, they were easy enough to remove and as the cabinets' downward wave guides were anodized, I was able to successfully remove the adhesive with zero cosmetic blemishes! YESSSSSS! Now, they look respectable, and sound better. I consider the existence of the blue foam balls to be a reason that they were never sold at the show. It can pay to have a bit of proactive imagination in regard to a product!  :)

The King Tower I already know will have scads more resolution, with its larger omni ribbon tweeter and super tweeter atop. It also suffers from cabinet coloration, as does the Ohm Walsh Model F. No getting around that, but I had thought of perhaps opening up the cabinets on the King Tower and treating them to dampen some of the resonance. I may still do that. 

I am looking forward to hearing the completely kick ass new amp under review with the King Tower. The best part is that the King Tower, unlike the Model F, can be bi-wired. That means I can use two more channels of 600wpc of super-pure power on the King Tower. Frankly, it would expect it to outshine the Model F significantly in some respects, and I would be quite disappointed if it didn't. 

I'll say this; if it were a choice between getting this new amp under review or upgrading the speakers, it wouldn't be a difficult decision - THE AMP, no question about it. I wouldn't dream of opting for upgrading the old speakers and missing out on this amp. The amp is revolutionizing all the speakers I use. That is far more important to me than upgrading one speaker. 

pch300, you sound like you really want to do the upgrade. If you have the means, why not? This thread may be the catalyst for you to realize a dream. If so, great! I get it when it comes to adoration of a certain genre of speaker; I lived that for a long time. So, if it's a dream of yours, then go for it!  :)  

SUBLIME! SUBLIME! I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVER HAD A MORE HIGH END sub $400 SPEAKER EVER!    ;)

It's a good thing this is not about Quad speakers. I'd never get out alive! LOL 

I'm going to put the Model F back in and jack em up. They're no good to me treating them like paper mache.  If they break, they break. I've already gotten a valuable, yes worth the money and time, comparison between speakers. Consider this exploration for the sake of humanity,  like Space-X, only on slightly smaller scale.   ;)

For those appalled at this decision, I remind that this was a set with major damage and on the way to the dump. I would never ever treat review or more valuable gear in such fashion. Feel free to check with any manufacturer whom I have reviewed, or my sales of my gear. 

I'm pushing the issue, building systems at advanced pace to get to the end of the matter. In a day or two I will know whether the F is worthy of more time. It could perk up. I'll build yet another rig for more perspective.  

Once again, as consistent in this stream of consciousness discussion, not a review, I make no claims or promote no expectations of either HHR or current Ohm products.  

Thank you gentlemen, for your thoughts! All input is appreciated! 

Today I tried to blow them up! Not really, but I did as mentioned and laid a lot more amp output on them. I stared with an alternative class A/B integrated (Kinki Studio EX-M1+ with sundry discrete opamps inserted), and pushed the speakers to pretty high levels, perhaps 85dB. NO problem! They seemed not to stress, which is ideal.

But, the resolution, as russ69, recalls well in his comments, is nothing to write home about. I returned to the aforementioned "magic" amp, and yessir, this is certainly a magic amp! Wow, what a class D! Combo with the Exogal Comet DAC is pushing the speakers even better and with more resolution. Now the resolution is listenable, but nowhere near exemplary. 

Yes, the single driver firing into a box is not exemplary resolution. The mid and upper treble is more pleasing when they are driven harder and the convergence of the omni fields is in more effect. At low levels, not nearly as inspiring, as might be expected. The "sublime" comment initially was at quite a lower level, but now I will not hesitate to play them harder. 

For comparison, both the King Tower and Ohm Model F restore were placed in identical position, and here are some results; there is a sizable resolution gap between the capabilities of the King Tower, and the Model F, across the frequency spectrum, with the King Tower dominant in that respect. The soundstage is not as coherently "mushroom cloud" with the King Tower and is taller, as also would be expected. The fullness of the soundstage and encroachment (or perhaps "intimacy" and "immediacy") upon the listener is superior with the Ohm Model F. It seems to shift the soundstage forward toward me about four feet, such that the umbra is about three feet ahead of me, versus the umbra of the King Tower being about 7 feet ahead of me.

That is the calling card for the Model F and this rebuild. One has to excuse a fair bit of flabbiness and indistinctness, but the mushroom cloud is distinct with full range omni, and that helps to offset some of the disappointment in indistinctness and resolution. There is a curious tie in with other full range speakers, and the Tannoy Glenair comes to mind (reviewed). I can mentally image the Glenair's driver pointed downward similar to the Ohm, and capture the affect of it driving into a pile of foam. I really do wonder whether I should remove some of the foam. I suspect the speaker would wake up quite a bit. After all, it didn't strain when I put it to higher levels, so what's the harm? I am very curious how the driver's nature would change, as well as the cabinet coloration. The cabinet is really dead now, and I suspect the speaker would benefit greatly from a bit of "Harbeth treatment", i.e. hollowing out the box somewhat. Maybe I'll try that next. 

None of this should be surprising, but overall I am very happy that they are tolerating higher levels of massive power, the best outcome that I believe possible for a vintage set. What will be particularly helpful to me ongoing is having another soundstage to work with. I now will have full range omni, quasi-omni, quasi-line array, and big ESL, as well as open baffle horn hybrid. There is another speaker making a splash, with its own unique soundstage, but that is a different story for another time, a review actually. 

Overall it's been worth it, and I pleased that the are not falling apart with some pushing. That makes them worth keeping and using occasionally. 

What do you guys think about the idea of removing perhaps 1/3 of the dense foam pieces in the cabinet? I think it may be a winning idea. I don't know that the removal would adversely affect the driver much, as it's a pretty sizable cavity and with some open space between the driver and foam. What say ye? This is basically an ongoing experiment, play time, so I may as well do it. I was willing to take a risk that they speakers would fail, so why not do foam remediation? I am wondering whether this would aid the resolution, and at this point I think it likely would. Only one way to know!  :) 

Different forms of detail with different genres. Omni wins in terms of scale, atomization of images, which can seem to be more info. It loses when it comes to image density and localization, which is a loss of info. 

mapman, yes, I concur; this has been rapid testing, and comparison of same location for a quick read on the performance of the Ohm and the King Tower soundstage. The positioning had nothing to fix the inherent problems I discovered and addressed. I would presume that somewhat different location of these omni speakers might be optimal over time. 

The speaker now "breathes" as I imagined it could. The upper end of the spectrum is transformed. I had been thinking, "Well this stinks; these would need super-tweeters to save them," but the fact is, they wouldn't, not with the speaker in that condition. It wouldn't tighten up the bass, or truly balance the frequency spectrum. I wouldn't add anything to the resolution problem cased by the overstuffed cabinet.

The additional treble now is sufficient that they sound pretty well balanced. I would say they lean to the soft side of treble, but nowhere near the faint treble they had before moving half the foam down to the cross member of the cabinet. The driver was literally being suffocated by operating with a constrained air space. It literally had nowhere to push the air! One can imagine how that would dampen the materials of the cone! How can one get a natural ring to treble when back force is pushing on such light material? It's stunning to think that the design gave so little consideration to it, considering how basic and immutable the laws governing it. But it's easy to be an armchair critic of the past when assessing with half a century of tech development in culture. I am guessing it was seen as a brilliant move, along with the driver design. 

Soundstage has such a pervasive influence upon the listener. When approaching a new speaker, I try to actively assess, then lessen attention to the character of the soundstage, as fixating on it can cause someone to overlook issues with performance. I am happy that I used my experience to pick apart the performance, because it has led to this speaker being upgraded quite nicely. 

Thought experiment; Imagine taking a megaphone in order to shout out clearly over longer distance. But, as a requisite condition, you must hold a dense pillow 1" from the mouth of the megaphone! You see, the rules are such that the gap between the pillow and the megaphone must be maintained. 

THAT, my friends is the equivalent illustration to the design choices used in the old Model F! I did the foam removal, and I'm not going to talk about the potential for asbestos. As I say with other sensitive maneuvers, IT IS A DO AT YOUR OWN RISK ACTIVITY. So, let no one say I told them to remove the foam inside the Model F, not without pointing out their responsibility to acknowledge potential issues. I am presuming the old foam would likely have properties that might militate against safety today. 

Now, on to the great news! IMO, this speaker has been resurrected! I'm WAY more excited about it now that when I said it was sublime. The removal of half the foam has allowed the driver to work as it should! The indistinctness, lack of high end sparkle, muted, weak bass was all really getting to me! For a design that was supposed to be all that it was not doing it. 

It had to be at least in part due to the foam. You don't take an open moving driver and stuff thick material 2" away from it, and not expect the driver to choke! This speaker is a study in the convergence in the '70's of a brilliant, innovative driver, and at the same time awful construction methods that absolutely killed a LOT of the speaker's potential. It's hilarious that such a loser move with foam reduced this wonderful driver to a pathetic performance. 

Well, NOT ANY LONGER! Now, the driver is acting as I would expect, a MUCH closer approximation - as would be expected - to the HHR Exotic model that I have heard. That was a big part of the frustration with continued listening; it just was not great. It was big soundstage, and that was about all worth praising. Now, the speaker has indeed come alive! Now, the driver sounds as it should, with respectable sparkle as well as spaciousness. The top to bottom frequency balance is commendable, though not SOTA. The soundstage is FULL now, not anemic and struggling to expand. The dynamics are SO much improved. The driver does not sound squelched, but has pop, and the bass is a big bonus, as the cabinet half full has a great, solid and powerful bass response! 

There are so many insights from this to be gained, including not to hold an older/vintage speaker as sacrosanct, such that it would not be improved from futzing with it. Another lesson is that a designer might be brilliant, but the conventional aspects of speaker making of the day can reduce what would be an even more brilliant design. Yes, of course, the standards have changed; that's part of the reason I was not accepting the performance. Free air motion of the driver is SO important, and without the back force of the foam blocking the driver's operation, this IS A RESURRECTED SPEAKER!  

Now, it's not a charity case, but an authentically reasonable selection for listening to as a quality transducer. These speakers probably within a fairly short period of time would have been on the way out - somewhere. Now, they will stay, because this one change has brought a cascade of positive changes, and the driver is operating closer to my expectations. 

With this final fix, the restoration is a big success! Now, beyond a shadow of doubt, this IS the best $400 speaker I have ever owned! It now may take its place longer term alongside my other speakers, and because it has been resurrected to play with above respectable levels of sound quality, it will be used in rotation. 

Have I overstated my conclusions? No, I have not. This was a roller coaster of changes, thankfully most of them leading to a more favorable result. Had I been too timid to rip into the foam, treating it as though it was sacred material, this never would have resulted in my finding deeper pleasure in them. But, as it is, speakers that are not mostly cutting it need to be reassessed, and I do not care whether it is iconic or not. NOW it performs along the lines of what I expect a great omni to perform. 

Conclusion? YEEESSSSSSS! I now have a vintage speaker restored to a quite respectable sound quality level, and I am most gratified that I futzed around with it to make it happen! 

Now, to give some balance, are these suddenly replacing my other reference speakers? Of course not, but neither will they languish as an also ran, nice idea project that failed. That's where they were heading before I motivated to try the foam removal. They will be a pleasant alternative, and a respectable one, to build systems for enjoyment, and even for reviewing. The change has been good enough, I feel, that they can be used occasionally for reviewing. Prior, I wouldn't have dreamed to do so. 

WOW, what a difference removing the pillow makes!!! Again, those with older model F's are not being told what to do, and consider your bravery if you want to alter this iconic speaker. But, performance is SO important to me that this was THE solution to the speaker's foibles. 

Now, I think I am done. The restoration is acceptable to me, the performance as good as I was hoping. It has solidly moved along the spectrum from "sublime" quite a bit closer to sensational. No, not drop jaw on floor, but much closer. I now consider it a brilliant move on my part to seek the affordable fix, and to trust my instincts in regard to pushing the speaker further along. I am SO happy I did not accept the weaknesses, but made better things happen. BTW, note that this all happened without burn in. I am an advocate of change to systems, a system builder, and that is a fundamental reason why I ended up with a positive outcome. Waiting would have done nothing to address the fundamental issues, and being active has gotten me a very nice vintage speaker redone performance-wise within a couple weeks of return from repair. BIG, BIG WIN! This has been the singular best turn with a vintage product I have had, but then again, I was more aggressive about altering it than I have with other vintage gear. Nice lesson learned, with all upside.   :)

pch300, no, nothing was done to the "putty", as the drivers were in what I would all good shape in that regard. And, if something was done, it would be different from the original, anyway. Perhaps someone is using the original putty and can claim it's perfectly restored. If so, good for them. I believe moving into that aspect of a rebuild would have been a wild card, an unnecessary opening of a Pandora's box. I'm glad I had the wisdom to avoid that. 

I don't see how, apart from measurement or direct comparison of two sets, you can say, "...the sound will be audibly different from the original F," if the putty is not replaced. What data do you have to reach that conclusion? I would not accept perception without comparison for such a conclusion. If a person had two units with fundamentally different condition, build, then it would be logical to assume there to be potential for audibly different performance. But, I am not ready to accept uncritically the suggestion that aging has so altered the sound of the driver that it is audibly/distinctly different from the original, at least in this case where the putty is in quite good shape.

I would think the matters addressed, the spider and surround, to be monumentally more important to the character of the drivers, given that the "putty", frankly, it appears more to be like foam than putty. If it is putty, I suggest that the designer had more issues to resolve than I thought! When you have to put a putty on metal to tame it, you have some very serious resonance issues to contend with. Frankly, it's probably a miracle this driver worked halfway well at all, given the oddball materials and construction. 

Regardless, the speaker was languishing, and showing warts. I have resurrected it and transformed in a striking fashion its performance. So, in the end I care much less about whether the rebuild is true to original, and more about the absolute performance. Imo, I won big time on that front. The putty removal would have done little to address the pervasive mechanical issues of the foam and tighter airspace for movement of the driver. I'm not saying a re-putty could not engender better sound, but I'm content to conclude that these drivers with original putty in great condition are not significantly negatively impacted. 

Now, we'll see over time; if the putty begins to break off and fall into the speaker, turing the titanium portion into a dinner bell, well, then I didn't do so well! LOL  So, maybe I'll not blow them up but crack them up! We'll see, but in the meantime, I'm enjoying the refreshing changes.  :)

mapman, yes, it's all good, and we understand each other and respect the preferences.  :) 

You're right that single driver coherence is very important to you, as both designs are "full range", single driver in that respect. I appreciate the beauty of such things, too.

I'm having very enjoyable listening sessions now with the reformulated F. That was the goal, and it's happening, so I'm fulfilled in the project.  

mapman, well, you have a certain degree of image density, whether you want it or not. It's a parameter, a function of stereos and varies according to the design of the speakers. I would say that image density is inversely proportional to the image size, with panel, large line source and omni as champs in the latter. Conversely, I assert that resolution is a function of the system's electronics, not speakers alone. I can often make any given genre of speaker on hand outperform any other in terms of resolution. It's not hard to do. 

Image density is a particularly beautiful aspect of sound reproduction, and it happens with differing degrees dependent upon the tech used. The most image dense speakers, imo, are classic dynamics, and they also imo have the highest capacity to focus the center image. The most tightly imaging speakers, along with being the most coherent in terms of wave launch are full range. This is why they are so favored in terms of presenting what is considered exceptionally fine resolution of voice and acoustic instrument. Especially when hearing vocals and instruments produced from a point source, the image density, or solidity is an exceptionally pleasing thing! Some people think that if you explode the images, you are hearing more resolution, while others insist that by focusing the images you hear more resolution. It's all manipulation of the wave to give a sense of pleasure, and I see both perspectives have merit depending upon the goals of the listener. 

"Location" for omni speakers is far more nebulous than dynamic speakers. There is no clear fixing of the artists in relative location on the soundstage, but they float disembodied in the air. It's not that there is no center image, but that it is so widened as to be cartoonish as any point source instrument or voice. There is a pleasing distortion added through use of two 360 degree drivers, but this does not simulate well the tightness, the focus of especially the center image. To my ears the image is exploded and suspended in an unnatural way, relative to most live performances. That, I believe is one reason why most do not use omni speakers; they bring a lot of distortion to the "picture" in front. It's an intentional distortion, and has some very pleasing effects to it, including the immersive ness, but it's not imo accurate to what would meet the eyes. 

You mentioned the 3-D aspect of music as well, an it varies from the close field full range tightly captured soundstage to the, "it's in your head" effect of the headphone. That is another parameter on a spectrum, and in that respect no other speaker than omni has as much of that umbra of sound, short of headphones. But, it is a matter of trade offs in terms of the particular characteristics of the sound. I enjoy the variety of characteristics that each technology brings, and try to accept the enhancements with each as a beautiful form of reproducing music. Others have strong preferences as to what sounds right, and are content only with one expression of it. Thankfully, we have enough types of speakers to accommodate most visions of what is considered reality in stereo. 

I laugh about it now; many years ago I was a hard core panel fan to the point that I was trying to convince others that it was the correct wave form. Now, I think that was so stilted. The entire affair of stereos is about manipulation of the wave form and launch, and novelties capture our imaginations. I find it a wonderful, fascinating experience that even after all these years when I sit down to a different genre of speaker, there is an adaptation period, a time of what used to be about a week, but now is more like hours, where the fundamentally different character of the speaker seems "off" due to it's uniqueness. But, with time, the mind adapts, and soon the sound is striking the ears as normal and with emphasis on the strengths of the speaker's capabilities. 

With all this critical analysis of omni you might think I have some thing against them. Not not at all; if I did, I wouldn't have paid any attention to the Model F opportunity, or own the King Tower.   :)

I think you are spot on with your conclusion that it is best to not screw around with the inner coatings of the F in restoration, at least if the goal is to get close to the original. 
Heaven knows I don't have the chops of the original designer, but still, there had to be some significant challenges if putty was used. I think there was intent to get exotic with materials and solutions had to be invented. I don't know of too many companies today that intentionally merge fundamentally different materials in drivers, because it can harm the continuity of wave launch and cause problems with consistent tonality. It's really cool that HHR has kept the original vision alive, but if I'm correct, Ohm abandoned multi- material drivers and probably for superior coherence and specificity in application. 

One last thought to my above comments on wave launch. Omni speakers do have a more coherent wave launch than dynamic, line source, etc. However, what is not typically discussed is the potential deleterious effects of the room interaction. The 360 radiating pattern causes far more potential for destructive room interference with the primary launch. That cannot be ignored as well when discussing soundstage.  :) 

avsjerry, What kind of misinformation are you speaking of here? Some of your points are simply wrong, including that the "gook" inside will destroy the cone if you try to remove it, and that the surround would have to be hand made. Wrong, and wrong! Replacement parts (not OEM, and HHR has reserved its right to not sell new parts for such repairs; I don't argue with that; he's protecting his sales) for both the spider and surround are in stock. You're talking as though it's a lost cause without moving to the full restoration. That is flat out wrong. 

This particular set of F speakers did not give up, far from it. The "gook" did not destroy the cone, the recon was successful by Midwest Speaker Repair. They were able to remove the old ferrofluid and get the speaker back into great operating condition! Kudos! Good on them, and they had 3 other sets to work on when I went to pick up mine. 

COST? $400! GLORIOUS SUCCESS!

So, why am I still being told that I could have done better by pursuing a full restoration? No one here can tell me that I would prefer to have spent another $7K on this. I happen to be working with an extreme hybrid speaker right now, and I did drop money on it. You want the unvarnished truth? I have heard the HHR prior, and it was not sufficiently impressive for me to chase the full restoration. OUCH! You guys keep pushing, as though you know better, but you seemingly think that I need to be schooled, as though I'm going to be enlightened on it. I simply do not consider this particular design to be worth that much in light of the fact that I have several other speakers for reference. So, let's settle down on the advice that I'm somehow messing up if I don't throw a bunch more money into it.  

YOU think this design is all that? YOU think it's the ultimate? YOU would not dream of the cheap fix? Great, for you! I do not happen to have an iron clad adherence to omni, nor to this design. It's a variant, an option for me, another flavor. Let's put it this way; I would not have pursued full range omni had these speakers not been brought to me. Clear enough? 

I don't have a dilemma, and I don't have a problem. I never had a problem with this, only options. If it didn't work, I could throw them out. You guys all say you would do this or that; well, be my guest! Go ahead and put your money where your comments are. If this is SO fabulous, SO important, why don't YOU act on it, get the cabinet, get the full bore redo? It's rather easy to tell someone else what to do in terms of a restoration when it's not your money, and you have a completely different set of circumstances. The fact is that a restoration would be a very poor investment in this speaker. Return on it would be very low, and I can get a lot more from the hybrid I'm buying. 

No one who is doing a refurbish is obligated to put big money into it. Some fans of particular speakers and companies cannot tolerate the idea that someone just doesn't care enough to spend what is considered by myself to be a serious chunk of money in order to get an unknown quantity, that is, a non-comparable result to the original. Comments keep coming to the effect that I made a poorer choice. What nonsense! No  one here can tell me that I made a poor choice, given that seemingly no one here has an original F and another, newer model - aside from Dale, and he is, as excepted, as a party with vested interests (no issue with that). Especially since I saved the speaker by redoing the foam in the cabinet, I scored a BIG win on this. I have no desire whatsoever to spend a bunch more on it, for it's now performing remarkably well for a tired vintage speaker. 

Let's be clear on this as well; as a reviewer, I have no obligation to support vintage products with a potential for sales of newer ones. I do not need to support HHR and spend $7K simply because I'm a reviewer and am supposed to pursue every option as though the world will end if I elect to do the inexpensive one. As can be seen, I push back on that tacit idea. Does Dale need the business? Sorry, but not my problem, as this is unrelated to my reviewing.  

This reminds me of the fanaticism that Maggie fans display. As if there is some moral obligation to spend more, to "do right" by an old set, to attempt to recapture the glory of the old unit. Sorry, guys, but this is pathetic, the paternalizing (like "good luck and cheer up") in regards to what has been a particular success. You guys just need to accept that these speakers are just not that important to me, and that I have what I consider holistically more impressive speaker tech at my disposal.  :) 

Playing Peter Gabriel "Sledgehammer " at level of about 88 dB from listening position,  about 10' away. They can take it louder than I typically listen. Sweet success. 

The foam/cabinet fix turned the entire project.   :)

avsjerry, all is forgiven. I wouldn't presume to debate you in terms of technical knowledge. Anyone who is building their own speakers I consider to be worthy of respect. 

I do believe that the factors involved in the restoration are such that the weekend warrior would have slaughtered them. The repair shop commented on how tricky it is to align the cone properly, even with the supplied shims for alignment. I did not give serious, ongoing consideration to doing the repair myself, and that was a wise decision.